The Global Consciousness Project

Ive done all this on Skeptiko, around April this year, I'm
Not doing it again... I posted a couple of papers, one where they were testing an RNG, and I posted plenty of stuff further back. People make a hobby out of finding the weaknesses in RNG's and those two  RNG's from GCP are like ancient... one at least was designed/produced for PSI research. You do your own research, I did mine, and realised GCP was junk science.

The Skeptiko discussion is here:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/cl...wolf.3749/

It concerned (partly) this paper by Mason, Patterson and Radin:
http://www.deanradin.com/papers/RNG%20Mason.pdf

I think the kind of concerns Max is raising are more relevant to that study, because it looked at the output of single random number generators, and at the balance of 0s and 1s in that output, and the authors mostly seem to have minimised XOR processing (though they don't make it very clear how much remained because it was built into the hardware). But that is very different from the situation with the GCP, which is usually dealing with correlations between pairs of XORed random number generators.

If power surges were regularly making the results non random than that would show up when analysing the entire set, I believe as we discussed above, wouldn't it?

I know I keep coming back to this but I think it is a key issue as I understand these things,

Given that the entire set seems to be at expectation I think the global consciousness producing non-random results hypothesis is a pretty hard sell. Is there any reasonable way to argue that that hypothesis is still viable? You'd have to hypothesise that not only does global consciousness affect these RNGs in non-random ways, but that it does so in a manner that evens out the distribution, making it indistinguishable from randomness.

This still leaves open the DAT approach, but that's not related to global conscience.

Sorry folks, I just don't want to go through this once again, I don't have the time at present.

Funny, you didn't quit so easily over the sound issue. Anyway- that's totally fine. 

For me? Until I hear a valid technical argument, or see data that supports your assertion, I'm assuming there is nothing here.

If power surges were regularly making the results non random than that would show up when analysing the entire set, I believe as we discussed above, wouldn't it?

I know I keep coming back to this but I think it is a key issue as I understand these things,

Given that the entire set seems to be at expectation I think the global consciousness producing non-random results hypothesis is a pretty hard sell.  Is there any reasonable way to argue that that hypothesis is still viable?  You'd have to hypothesise that not only does global consciousness affect these RNGs in non-random ways, but that it does so in a manner that evens out the distribution, making it indistinguishable from randomness.  

This still leaves open the DAT approach, but that's not related to global conscience.

I don't really understand your point(s).

Are you saying power surges DO happen and DO affect results? Or not?

clip- Given that the entire set seems to be at expectation I think the global consciousness producing non-random results hypothesis is a pretty hard sell.

I don't know what you mean by this (above). Can you clarify?

If power surges were regularly making the results non random than that would show up when analysing the entire set, I believe as we discussed above, wouldn't it?

I know I keep coming back to this but I think it is a key issue as I understand these things,

Given that the entire set seems to be at expectation I think the global consciousness producing non-random results hypothesis is a pretty hard sell.  Is there any reasonable way to argue that that hypothesis is still viable?  You'd have to hypothesise that not only does global consciousness affect these RNGs in non-random ways, but that it does so in a manner that evens out the distribution, making it indistinguishable from randomness.  

This still leaves open the DAT approach, but that's not related to global conscience.

Yes, I think this is a stronger argument against a global consciousness interpretation than the stuff about the XORing and the lack of synchronisation. If there's a quite strong effect at moments of greatest "coherence", shouldn't there be a more moderate effect the rest of the time, leading the overall average also to diverge from chance expectation? And in particular, as Bancel commented, wouldn't we expect the effect still to be positive on average just outside the test periods - rather than equal and opposite to the effect within them. (Unless there's some kind of conservation law operating.)

But for me the main interest is that, taken at face value, the GCP provides very strong evidence for some kind of psi effect, even if it's not global consciousness.

The Skeptiko discussion is here:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/cl...wolf.3749/

It concerned (partly) this paper by Mason, Patterson and Radin:
http://www.deanradin.com/papers/RNG%20Mason.pdf

I think the kind of concerns Max is raising are more relevant to that study, because it looked at the output of single random number generators, and at the balance of 0s and 1s in that output, and the authors mostly seem to have minimised XOR processing (though they don't make it very clear how much remained because it was built into the hardware). But that is very different from the situation with the GCP, which is usually dealing with correlations between pairs of XORed random number generators.

OK. So I read the relevant posts (thanks for posting Chris) and Max's supposed dissertation about power quality is pretty much non-existent. There is less at Skeptiko on the topic than there is here. And all of it is empty conjecture with no supporting documentation, or even a cogent technical explanation. 

So for anyone who is still paying attention to this thread at this point, you can put this power issue to rest for now. As far as I can see, there was nothing said of any consequence at Skeptiko, or here, that demonstrates a valid technical case for power being the source of data corruption, or effects to the randomness of the RNG.

Case closed (for me) for now.

Lol... and all in 14 minutes. 

Yup. Pretty easy to read that little information.

Just to be clear, I read your arguments about power quality and randomness,,, not the Radin test report.

Lol... and all in 14 minutes. 

So now I take it you will argue aspects of the topic that have nothing to do with the the actual issue at hand. Things like reading rates.

Well now that's a whole new angle on things.

Really Max? grow up.