The Global Consciousness Project

[Laird]

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

Done given the lack of objection from Chris or anybody else. You might want to edit for context your now post #153 in this thread.

Done given the lack of objection from Chris or anybody else.

The only mystery remains why malf should have posted an off-topic comment, and then asked for it to be moved - together with the replies it generated - because it was off-topic.  

Perhaps I should just stop taking seriously what passes for "sceptical" comment on this site.

We have 20 years of data gathering that wouldn’t pass for science in any other branch of acadaemia.

Nobody, including the researchers involved, seem to have any clue what they’re actually measuring. What’s a serious critic meant to say about that? 

Any conclusions pulled from this ‘study’ are extremely vague and lacking in detail. I feel comfortable in dismissing them in exactly the same fashion.

The only mystery remains why malf should have posted an off-topic comment, and then asked for it to be moved - together with the replies it generated - because it was off-topic.  

Perhaps I should just stop taking seriously what passes for "sceptical" comment on this site.

In my defence, I thought the GCP was measuring the effect of thought, emotion and love on sensitive componentry in pieces of electronics. That the researchers predicted that would happen misled me to think they had an idea about the electromagnetic forces involved to cause the fluctuations from random.

My discussion with Chris has clarified that isn’t what is happening in the GCP (despite how it is presented to the public) and I thank him for that.

Nobody, including the researchers involved, seem to have any clue what they’re actually measuring. What’s a serious critic meant to say about that?

Frankly, I don't give a damn what people say, so long as their statements aren't factually inaccurate and misleading. Yours were both inaccurate and misleading, so the question of your being a "serious critic" doesn't arise.

Frankly, I don't give a damn what people say, so long as their statements aren't factually inaccurate and misleading. Yours were both inaccurate and misleading, so the question of your being a "serious critic" doesn't arise.

Where am I being inaccurate or misleading? Do you know what is being measured? (And, rest assured, I was referring to a ‘serious critic’ in the third person, not the first . Consider me the village idiot!)

Where am I being inaccurate or misleading?

The stuff about "pulling patterns from the noise". And that was in direct answer to my post in which I'd pointed out that they said their hypotheses were fixed in advance!

Anyhow, it was my mistake to think your post on the other thread was anything but a silly bit of sarcasm. I'll ignore your comments in future.

The stuff about "pulling patterns from the noise". And that was in direct answer to my post in which I'd pointed out that they said their hypotheses were fixed in advance!

Anyhow, it was my mistake to think your post on the other thread was anything but a silly bit of sarcasm. I'll ignore your comments in future.

The fact that they're pulling patterns out of the noise seems irrefutable. The only question is how they're doing it (experimenter psi, or something else).