The Global Consciousness Project

There is a review on the SPR website, by Gerhard Mayer, of a book in German written by Roger Nelson with a former journalist named Georg Kindel, entitled "Der Welt-Geist: Wie wir alle miteinander verbunden sind" (translated by the reviewer as "The World Spirit. How we are all connected"):
https://www.spr.ac.uk/book-review/der-we...org-kindel

The book was published in March. I had read that Roger Nelson was going to write a book in which the GCP would feature, and I presume this is it, though I don't know why it has appeared in German and not in English.

The review is quite favourable, but the reviewer says that controversies about the interpretation of the research findings are not mentioned. Rather, they are used to support the existence of "a global consciousness", although the concept is not clearly defined.

The reviewer refers to discussion of the GCP last year in the journal Explore. This consisted of the paper by Peter Bancel that Doug linked to earlier in this thread (Explore 13:94-101):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...xploration

There is then a response by Roger Nelson (pp. 102-105) and a rejoinder by Bancel (pp. 106-107). I can't find the full texts of these online, but the abstracts are:

Weighting the Parameters, a Response to Bancel׳s "Searching for Global Consciousness: A Seventeen Year Exploration"
Roger D. Nelson
This brief report is a response to the article by Peter Bancel entitled “Searching for Global Consciousness: A Seventeen Year Exploration” in which he compares a goal orientation (GO) model with a field-like model he refers to as global consciousness (GC). He first attempts to exclude the latter, and then presents selected tests that compare the models. While the article appears to provide support for Bancel׳s conclusion that GC cannot explain the data and must be supplanted by GO, there are good reasons to believe this conclusion is premature at best. I address the vulnerable assumptions underlying Bancel׳s rejection of GC, and then provide multiple examples of parametric structure in the data, which cannot be attributed to GO, but are amenable to explanation by field-like models.

Response to Nelson׳s Weighing the Parameters
Peter Bancel
I thank Roger Nelson for his thoughtful comments on my paper, and the editors of Explore, who have generously provided space for a reply. In response to Dr. Nelson׳s remarks, I would like to provide a broader perspective on why I conclude that the Global Consciousness Project (GCP) measures a goal-oriented (GO) effect.

Oddly, Nelson appears to be weighting the parameters and Bancel weighing them.

[Edit: The review also refers to the Journal of Nonlocality. Nelson's paper is actually available on that journal's website, as part of volume 5, number 1 (2017):
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/inde...view/71/71

Then there's a paper by Peter Bancel, entitled "Determining that the GCP is a goal-oriented effect: a short history":
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/inde...view/70/70

I'm not sure what the relationship is between Bancel's response in this journal and Bancel's response in the journal Explore.]

In answer to a question about electromagnetic consciousness in another thread:

I would contact Roger Nelson and/or Dean Radin about this. The fact that consciousness can have a predictable effect on electronic Random Number Generators would suggest they have a pretty advanced theory of electromagnetic consciousness that they were testing with their Global Consciousness Project. 

That, or they just lucked out with little to no prior plausibility.

I would contact Roger Nelson and/or Dean Radin about this. The fact that consciousness can have a predictable effect on electronic Random Number Generators would suggest they have a pretty advanced theory of electromagnetic consciousness that they were testing with their Global Consciousness Project. 

That, or they just lucked out with little to no prior plausibility.

I find this one of the hardest cricitisms of parapsychology to understand.

The fact is (or at any rate the claim is) that the hypotheses in the Global Consciousness Project were fixed in advance, and that collectively they were supported to a degree for which chance is realistically not a plausible explanation.

As far as I understand, the essential hypothesis - that the outputs of different RNGs would tend to correlate with one another during global events that engaged the attention of large numbers of people - came mainly out of previous experiments that followed on from the studies at Princeton in which people consciously tried to influence RNGs. As we all know, Roger Nelson doesn't have a quantitative model for the effect, but only a kind of qualitative motivating idea. (The person who has analysed the data in the greatest depth is Peter Bancel, and his conclusion is that it's not really a "global consciousness" at work, but unconscious experimenter psi guiding the choice of global events.)

But how does the lack of a theoretical model reflect on the value of the work? Certainly it would be preferable to have precise theoretical  predictions that could be tested experimentally, rather than looking for deviations from the predictions of the null hypothesis. But unless you think that developing a theoretical model of psi should be very easy, I don't see how you can blame parapsychologists for not having done it. And I don't think the lack of a model detracts very much from the evidential value of the GCP. It is unusual in that (1) the statistical significance is huge, (2) all the data are freely available online and (3) no one has been able to suggest a plausible conventional explanation (unless it is outright fraud).

I find this one of the hardest cricitisms of parapsychology to understand.

Fair enough. However, there appear to be some experiential prior plausibility to Ganzfeld and presentiment studies, say, or the AWARE studies. This project looks like an exercise in producing overwhelming amounts of noise, and pulling patterns from that noise. Divining those patterns has become its own dark art. Thus, comments like:

The person who has analysed the data in the greatest depth is Peter Bancel, and his conclusion is that it's not really a "global consciousness" at work, but unconscious experimenter psi guiding the choice of global events.

... must be somewhat of a red flag; a way to explain, for instance, why Captain Sully landing his plane on the Hudson gave statistically non-random outputs, but Concorde slamming into that hotel car park produced nothing.

But how does the lack of a theoretical model reflect on the value of the work? Certainly it would be preferable to have precise theoretical  predictions that could be tested experimentally, rather than looking for deviations from the predictions of the null hypothesis. But unless you think that developing a theoretical model of psi should be very easy, I don't see how you can blame parapsychologists for not having done it. And I don't think the lack of a model detracts very much from the evidential value of the GCP. It is unusual in that (1) the statistical significance is huge, (2) all the data are freely available online and (3) no one has been able to suggest a plausible conventional explanation (unless it is outright fraud).

Well, it's just impossible to know what they're testing, as Bancel's quote demonstrates. Data without a theory is as meaningless as words without a narrative, and whilst the data may be freely available it is vast and unwieldy. I wouldn't jump to fraud either; remember Diane Powell's research? More unconscious bias/desperation for positive results than outright fraud.

malf

As to whether it's meaningless or not, perhaps that question belongs in the philosophy forum.

But as to whether it's "an exercise in producing overwhelming amounts of noise, and pulling patterns from that noise" or "More unconscious bias/desperation for positive results than outright fraud", it's plainly neither of those.

As I said, what they claim is that they fixed before looking at the data a series of about 500 formal hypotheses, and the results were collectively extremely significant. Either they didn't do what they said they did, or it's a genuine anomalous effect, or else there's some extremely subtle methodological flaw that no one has ever managed to spot.

It's one of the pieces of evidence that sceptics find it convenient to ignore.

malf

As to whether it's meaningless or not, perhaps that question belongs in the philosophy forum.

But as to whether it's "an exercise in producing overwhelming amounts of noise, and pulling patterns from that noise" or "More unconscious bias/desperation for positive results than outright fraud", it's plainly neither of those.

As I said, what they claim is that they fixed before looking at the data a series of about 500 formal hypotheses, and the results were collectively extremely significant. Either they didn't do what they said they did, or it's a genuine anomalous effect, or else there's some extremely subtle methodological flaw that no one has ever managed to spot.

It's one of the pieces of evidence that sceptics find it convenient to ignore.

I think we both agree that when it comes to the global consciousness project, the one thing it isn't measuring is global consciousness. Having looked at the data, Bancel came to a conclusion that is about as polite and forgiving as it can be. Nobody can claim fraud as we don't have the equivalent of the video evidence that we have in the Powell case (i.e. the video evidence of them fixing the hypotheses in advance, or of some subtle elasticity in the interpretation of the data (or the hypotheses criteria) that nobody has thought of).

What are the formal conclusions of those undertaking the project?

(This exchange should be moved to the GCP thread I guess @Laird)

I think we both agree that when it comes to the global consciousness project, the one thing it isn't measuring is global consciousness.

No. I suspend judgment on what they've measured/not measured. Peter Bancel has made some strong arguments in favour of experimenter psi rather than global consciousness, but he had previously made what appeared to be equally strong arguments pointing in the other direction. Perhaps it's not cut and dried.

Having looked at the data, Bancel came to a conclusion that is about as polite and forgiving as it can be.

I really don't know why you should say "forgiving". I've never read anything to suggest that Bancel thinks there is anything to "forgive". He seems perfectly clear that he believes this is a psi effect.

Nobody can claim fraud as we don't have the equivalent of the video evidence that we have in the Powell case (i.e. the video evidence of them fixing the hypotheses in advance, or of some subtle elasticity in the interpretation of the data (or the hypotheses criteria) that nobody has thought of).

I think if people are going to suggest there is elasticity in the interpretation of the data, it's reasonable to ask them where it is. If a hypothesis is stated, it's not much help to say "I can't see any elasticity in it, but maybe there's some subtle elasticity I can't see".

As for formal conclusions, as far as I can see, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the formal hypotheses is that observations like these are extremely unlikely to occur on the null hypothesis.

No. I suspend judgment on what they've measured/not measured. Peter Bancel has made some strong arguments in favour of experimenter psi rather than global consciousness, but he had previously made what appeared to be equally strong arguments pointing in the other direction. Perhaps it's not cut and dried.

And you're criticising "skeptics" for not engaging with the data? I think at the very least it needs to be "cut and dried" before anyone is going to be that interested.

I really don't know why you should say "forgiving". I've never read anything to suggest that Bancel thinks there is anything to "forgive". He seems perfectly clear that he believes this is a psi effect.

Charitable then, given examples like I gave with the two aviation incidents. The fact that the data as a whole doesn't support a link between incidents and non-random outputs, yet their predetermined sample does, is worringly convenient. Does that not concern you at all?

I think if people are going to suggest there is elasticity in the interpretation of the data, it's reasonable to ask them where it is. If a hypothesis is stated, it's not much help to say "I can't see any elasticity in it, but maybe there's some subtle elasticity I can't see".

Given there isn't a graspable hypothesis on test here I sense a big "meh" from the skeptical community when it comes to the GCP. That and the scant prior plausibility means that it fails the critical thinking sniff test for them. I'm not saying I agree with that btw, I'd like to see more examination of the question, and a non psi friendly replication.

As for formal conclusions, as far as I can see, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the formal hypotheses is that observations like these are extremely unlikely to occur on the null hypothesis.

Yes, with the variable of psi sympathetic researchers.

malf

Thanks for your response, but your comments really don't make much sense to me, and as you say, the GCP is off-topic here.