The Global Consciousness Project

[Laird]

You know what's funny? Laird equating correlations with causation a few postings back. How many times have we both heard this dismissive statement: brain correlates aren't equal to causation ( of consciousness) or something similar. I guess when one wants something to be true it's fair to use it.

Funnier still, perhaps, is that you don't seem to recognise that causation can run in more than one direction, and in more than one direction simultaneously, based on which I certainly don't dismiss the very strong likelihood that mind-brain correlates are causal in nature.

[Laird]

A general caveat: almost everything I've posted to this thread assumes that everybody involved is being honest. It's possible that they're not, but I think it's worth asking: if everybody's basically being honest, then how can we explain these results? I'd like to keep any arguments as to dishonesty as a separate issue.

[Laird]

OK, Max.

I must say that if we're agreeing to disagree, I agree entirely with Laird.

In terms of competing hypotheses, one must be that, once presented with colossal amounts of noisy data, mathematics can always produce some statistical significance. 

If Bancel’s comments can be trusted we know the one thing the GCP is not measuring is GC.

It might be helpful if others suggested their favoured hypotheses in the next few posts?

In terms of competing hypotheses, one must be that, once presented with colossal amounts of noisy data, mathematics can always produce some statistical significance.

Not if the hypotheses were fixed in advance, as is stated to have been the case.

It is really frustrating to see this suggestion over and over again, when it's incapable of explaining the observations.

Of course, if people want to suggest the hypotheses weren't fixed in advance they can. But in that case they need to be clear that's what they are suggesting.

Not if the hypotheses were fixed in advance, as is stated to have been the case.

It is really frustrating to see this suggestion over and over again, when it's incapable of explaining the observations.

Of course, if people want to suggest the hypotheses weren't fixed in advance they can. But in that case they need to be clear that's what they are suggesting.

Event selection necessitates some flexibility. The researchers admit that:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/pred_formal.html

Another variable left hanging is the direction (+/-) of the deviation from ‘normal’. I seem to remember you being frustrated by that previously. There have been concerns raised over the durations and timings of ‘events’ also. 

But no matter. I specifically asked for better hypotheses than the lame one I’ve proposed 

A few other responses to Linda's most recent post:


So, why did you even remark on the number of events in the extreme 10% then if you thought that assessing that number would not anyway be valid?

Two different things...commenting on the distribution of events within their threshold for "extreme" events is different from looking at how a shift in the curve changes the number of events within that threshold.

Please let us know exactly what you're referring to.

Seriously?

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-c...=bem+linda
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2013/11/me...emony.html

That's a non sequitur: the definition of deliberate fraud does not entail anybody levelling any charge.

However, if other parapsychologists/psychologists are aware of their actions, yet carry on as though the results are valid, it certainly suggests that this particular form of dishonesty is not regarded as fraud. 

Oh? Can you justify that claim?

https://szociologia.tk.mta.hu/uploads/fi...l_2012.pdf

That is incorrect, for reasons detailed in my original lengthy response to you (again, post #213).

I don't know which post you are referring to (the link takes me to an unrelated post, plus post #213 is one of mine, plus I don't remember you addressing this particular point). However, Bancel demonstrated this clearly under the "counterfactual tests" section in his paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication...xploration). He showed that, rather than considering every Peace Day and Earth Day, the selected set included in the formal event listing returned a "significant" result, while the remainder did not (fortuitous for the researchers - what if they had selected the 'wrong' selected sample?). Similarly, when a choice of outcome measure was available, the researchers fortuitously chose the one which returned a "significant" result when choosing the other would have returned an insignificant result. Regardless of whether or not you believe this was done unconsciously, it demonstrates that the effect is "fortuitous event and outcome measure selection", rather than an effect related to Global Consciousness.

Linda

Event selection necessitates some flexibility. The researchers admit that:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/pred_formal.html

For about the twentieth time - the claim is that the hypothesis for each event was fixed before the data were examined.

And it gets more frustrating every time that has to be explained.