The Global Consciousness Project

Could the reason be you see there's more wrong with its methodologies leading to claimed discoveries?

I feel silly for responding to this, but this is just a shameful response through and through. It’s as close to trolling as it could possibly get, if it isn’t trolling altogether. 

And if your intent is not to troll, well... this is just a particularly good example of why it’s a huge waste of time trying to discuss things with you.

I feel silly for responding to this, but this is just a shameful response through and through. It’s as close to trolling as it could possibly get, if it isn’t trolling altogether. 

And if your intent is not to troll, well... this is just a particularly good example of why it’s a huge waste of time trying to discuss things with you.

Tell us Dante why is their root assumption correct?

Sorry, but I really do think it's a waste of time that could be better spent.

Maybe, maybe not. It's content for the forum. I always enjoy logging in with a cup of tea and reading everything no matter what it is, unless both sides of the argument are talking absolute bollocks...then of course it is a waste of time.

Tell us Dante why is their root assumption correct?

Another totally irrelevant post. I didn’t say their root assumption was or was not correct, and this has absolutely nothing to do with your inane response to Chris. Keep on ignoring the actual discussion, as you always do.

Another totally irrelevant post. I didn’t say their root assumption was or was not correct, and this has absolutely nothing to do with your inane response to Chris. Keep on ignoring the actual discussion, as you always do.

You might want to refresh your memory on some of the other critiques posted. I added one more.  Btw, if you don't know that admission I quoted is said by Roger D. Nelson, whom isn't some random fellow on the web, he was the former director of the GCP.
Here's the quote again. 

"the data, so far, is not solid enough for global consciousness to be said to exist at all. It is not possible, for example, to look at the data and predict with any accuracy what (if anything) the eggs may be responding to."

So Dante, either explain how the assumption is a valid starting point or stop being so damn righteous and admit you don't know squat.

Sorry, but I really do think it's a waste of time that could be better spent.

Wait... What? This is meant to be a useful way to spend time? 

C’mon Chris, don’t make me beg. If I’m just consigned to baiting Kamarling now and again, I’m out too.

As for Malf - yes, pretty cynical and sarcastic at times but he often zeroes in on a point worth considering

The phrase ‘damning with faint praise’ comes to mind

Edit: I’ve just shown Mrs malf Kamarling’s comment and she thinks I should get it printed on a t-shirt. 


Damn you. Damn you all!

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!

From the GCP themselves:

The procedures for event selection cannot be strictly formulaic because we are attempting something without precedent, addressing complex issues in a very big world. In brief: Event selection was necessarily flexible at the inception of the Project because we did not have precedents to tell us what kind of events would be useful.