The Global Consciousness Project

[Laird]

I'm not sure whether there's any realistic possibility of getting the discussion back on track

Perhaps the discussion is now forked. Perhaps we're being led down the garden path. But we can at least try to maintain clarity.

There is obviously flexibility in the event selection, including which events to choose, their start and end points, and the method of statistical analysis to use. But, assuming that "using" this flexibility amounts to "increasing the effect size", and given that the researchers say that they stipulated event parameters (start and end points, and statistical analysis to perform) before looking at the data, then I can't see how any (conventional - psi-based is another story) "use" could be made out of this flexibility unless either:

1. The researchers are lying, and really they peeked at the data before defining event parameters.
   
2. As the experiment progressed and events were selected, the researchers learnt which events were most likely to produce an effect, and tended over time to more effectively choose successful event parameters.
   

The problem with #1 is obvious, and needn't be elaborated on.

When it comes to #2, though, this would imply that there exists in the first place some underlying causal mechanism whose effects can be "learnt", which, rather than defeating the Global Consciousness hypothesis, would tend to confirm it, given that, as I've outlined in previous posts, the mechanism would have to be anomalous (basically, because unsynchronised XOR masks preclude a non-anomalous mechanism).

Of course, Peter Bancel's findings of themselves challenge the Global Consciousness hypothesis, but that's a separate consideration.

Perhaps the discussion is now forked. Perhaps we're being led down the garden path. But we can at least try to maintain clarity.

There is obviously flexibility in the event selection, including which events to choose, their start and end points, and the method of statistical analysis to use. But, assuming that "using" this flexibility amounts to "increasing the effect size", and given that the researchers say that they stipulated event parameters (start and end points, and statistical analysis to perform) before looking at the data, then I can't see how any "use" could be made out of this flexibility unless either:

1. The researchers are lying, and really they peeked at the data before defining event parameters.
   
2. As the experiment progressed and events were selected, the researchers learnt which events were most likely to produce an effect, and tended over time to (continue to / more) effectively choose successful event parameters.
   

The problem with #1 is obvious, and needn't be elaborated on.

When it comes to #2, though, this would imply that there exists in the first place some underlying causal mechanism whose effects can be "learnt", which, rather than defeating the Global Consciousness hypothesis, would tend to confirm it, given that, as I've outlined in previous posts, the mechanism would have to be anomalous (basically, because unsynchronised XOR masks preclude a non-anomalous mechanism).

Of course, Peter Bancel's findings of themselves challenge the Global Consciousness hypothesis, but that's a separate consideration.

I think probably it would be useful to draw a distinction between:
(1) The question of what conventional (non-psi) explanations there may be for the data
(2) The question of what kind of psi processes are implied, if the explanation isn't conventional.

[Laird]

I think probably it would be useful to draw a distinction between:
(1) The question of what conventional (non-psi) explanations there may be for the data

Can you think of any other than experimenter fraud/deception?

(2) The question of what kind of psi processes are implied, if the explanation isn't conventional.

Yes, which somewhat echoes malf's request a page or more back for participants in this thread to state their preferred hypothesis. It's a good question/request, though not a straightforward one - I think it invites discussion and further questions rather than firm conclusions, and I hope, after reviewing my notes, to be able to contribute some thoughts of my own.

What is the appetite for tightening things up? Given that Bancel suggested improvements in his 2014 paper, have any been implemented?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...SS_PROJECT

That's a good question. I haven't come across any suggestions of tightening in my readings, but I could have missed this. He does not actually mention any suggestions for tightening in his later 2016 paper (I added a link to the paper in my original post to make it clear which I was referring to). He admits (in his 2014 paper) that he can't distinguish between anomalous and non-anomalous selection by looking at the data (his Goal-Oriented model and Gelman's and Loken's researcher flexibility without fishing will look the same), so he is depending only upon the public description of the selection procedure to distinguish between them. He does rule out a simple selection method, but this is different from the selection under researcher flexibility anyways. And the "tightening" you refer to in his 2014 paper is designed to distinguish between Experimenter PK vs. Global Consciousness and/or elucidation of the details of this anomalous effect. It was not designed to rule out the effects of researcher flexibility, although the algorithmic selection process would help in this regard.

I suspect that we are going to be left with the state we frequently find ourselves in - supporters are satisfied with the production of a "statistically significant" outcome and want to move on from that, while non-supporters want to see the experiments performed in the absence of opportunities for bias/flexibility, before moving on. There seems to be little interest in doing so from both sides (supporters don't think it's necessary, and non-supporters think it will turn out to be a waste of time).

Linda

[Laird]

opportunities for bias/flexibility

As for how these are supposed to account for the results is left totally unspecified by you (and anybody else, including malf), which indeed does leave us in "the state we frequently find ourselves in": opponents making vague claims which they refuse to substantiate.

Can you think of any other than experimenter fraud/deception?

No.

Yes, which somewhat echoes malf's request a page or more back for participants in this thread to state their preferred hypothesis. It's a good question/request, though not a straightforward one - I think it invites discussion and further questions rather than firm conclusions, and I hope, after reviewing my notes, to be able to contribute some thoughts of my own.

My answer to that question from malf last October was:
"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."
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...8#pid21748

To clarify, when I say I can't think of any conventional explanation other than fraud/deception, I mean that while in principle there could be some kind of subtle error or artefact hidden in the statistical analysis, I can't think of a mechanism by which it could produce the observed results. Particularly bearing in mind the nature of the statistical measure being used (which reflects second-by-second correlations between different random number generators), the XOR processing and the fact that the different random number generators are not accurately synchronised, and the absence of a significant deviation from chance expectation in the control data.

Here's a good study... the results are solid... and quite shocking... why don't people put some of the effort they spend dissecting the GCP into something like this...



Can I get any traction on here with this stuff... can I nelly...

Does this post need a link? And possibly its own thread?