The Global Consciousness Project

[Laird]

I think the explanation Max raises is demonstrably inadequate, even if we allow that power supply fluctuations can cause the output of individual RNGs to become less random, because this simply transfers the question from one phenomenon to another. In other words, the inexplicable phenomena is simply transferred from the question "Why is the randomness of this RNG negatively correlated with significant global consciousness events as predicted in prior hypotheses?" to "Why are fluctuations in the power supply correlated with significant global consciousness events so as to produce the (predicted) diminishment in the randomness of the RNG?"

So, that would be my question to you, Max: why, on your view, does the power supply's variability correlate with these events which are stipulated in advance in the hypotheses? Isn't that an equally paranormal or at least unexplained phenomenon?

And of course, Chris has pointed out that the fact that there are multiple RNGs in different countries using different power supplies whose outputs (the RNGs) are correlated with one another is even harder to account for on Max's theory.

Chris, please vet this post, because I haven't read any papers on or analyses of the experiments and I am talking based on what little I have picked up from reading this thread. Perhaps in bringing up individual RNGs I leave the domain of the GCP and enter the domain of less... well, global... experiments with RNGs.

As I mentioned to start with, one admirable feature of the GCP is that all the data are available through their website for anyone to re-analyse. The drawback is the sheer volume of the data, so I suspect very few people have gone beyond the most superficial examination of them. I think Peter Bancel has done by far the most, and he has said he initially approached it from a sceptical point of view.

There was an old Skeptiko podcast interview with Chris French, in which he expressed an interest in doing some work on the GCP (or in finding someone to do some work on it). 
http://skeptiko.com/83-chris-french-psi-claims/
I'm not sure whether anything came of it. He was interested in developing objective criteria for events of interest, which might be one useful - and not too computationally expensive - approach. But if that didn't replicate the original results, it would be difficult to interpret. It would go against the "global consciousness" hypothesis, but not against the "experimenter psi" hypothesis. (Conversely, in principle experimenter psi could even come into play in the development of the "objective" criteria.)

I think the explanation Max raises is demonstrably inadequate, even if we allow that power supply fluctuations can cause the output of individual RNGs to become less random, because this simply transfers the question from one phenomenon to another. In other words, the inexplicable phenomena is simply transferred from the question "Why is the randomness of this RNG negatively correlated with significant global consciousness events as predicted in prior hypotheses?" to "Why are fluctuations in the power supply correlated with significant global consciousness events so as to produce the (predicted) diminishment in the randomness of the RNG?"

So, that would be my question to you, Max: why, on your view, does the power supply's variability correlate with these events which are stipulated in advance in the hypotheses? Isn't that an equally paranormal or at least unexplained phenomenon?

And of course, Chris has pointed out that the fact that there are multiple RNGs in different countries using different power supplies whose outputs (the RNGs) are correlated with one another is even harder to account for on Max's theory.

Chris, please vet this post, because I haven't read any papers on or analyses of the experiments and I am talking based on what little I have picked up from reading this thread. Perhaps in bringing up individual RNGs I leave the domain of the GCP and enter the domain of less... well, global... experiments with RNGs.

I think that's a good summary of the difficulties with suggestions about power fluctuations.

In the past some people have suggested that power usage might be untypical at the times of these global events. I suppose that might be the case if everyone was glued to their TVs (in the old days - Facebook and Twitter didn't exist when the GCP started!). But looking at the actual list of events I don't really find it plausible:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/pred_formal.html

I think the harder thing to explain is that there is apparently a second-by-second correlation between these pairs of RNGs, and I can't see how that could arise even if the behaviour of the physical system generating the numbers did differ on these days.

Having said that, it is an extremely weak correlation, viewed on the level of the second-by-second output of a pair of RNGs. The end result is a very strong effect, but it took more than 500 events over a period of 17 years to accumulate. Perhaps there's some statistical fluke that is generating it. But in that case, why doesn't the same thing happen for the data that don't coincide with global events? It's a puzzle.

[Laird]

I've found plenty of stuff supporting the fact that these noise based RNG's are by their very nature affected by environmental noise.

That's a non-response, Max. I presented an argument to you which assumed that you were correct about power supply fluctuations causing the output of individual RNGs to become less random. To then respond trying to justify what I've already allowed you is pointless, and avoids addressing the argument I made: that even if we assume that you are correct, there is still an unexplained correlation.

I think that's a good summary of the difficulties with suggestions about power fluctuations.

In the past some people have suggested that power usage might be untypical at the times of these global events. I suppose that might be the case if everyone was glued to their TVs (in the old days - Facebook and Twitter didn't exist when the GCP started!). But looking at the actual list of events I don't really find it plausible:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/pred_formal.html

I think the harder thing to explain is that there is apparently a second-by-second correlation between these pairs of RNGs, and I can't see how that could arise even if the behaviour of the physical system generating the numbers did differ on these days.

Having said that, it is an extremely weak correlation, viewed on the level of the second-by-second output of a pair of RNGs. The end result is a very strong effect, but it took more than 500 events over a period of 17 years to accumulate. Perhaps there's some statistical fluke that is generating it. But in that case, why doesn't the same thing happen for the data that don't coincide with global events? It's a puzzle.

Clearly Max isn't able to provide deeper insight, but rather just point to his favorite papers on the matter. So there we are...

Sheesh. Haven't I seen this movie before?

Does every thread have to devolve into tracking down a narrow objection raised by Max when he himself proves unwilling or unable to alter or broaden his view?

Sheesh.  Haven't I seen this movie before?

Does every thread have to devolve into tracking down a narrow objection raised by Max when he himself proves unwilling or unable to alter or broaden his view?

That is exactly what I am thinking. 

So for my part: I plan to point out the issue(s) I have, and ask for clarification in an attempt to discuss, and when deeper information or clarification stops coming, I move on,, and stop responding.

Max can have the last word if he wants. Well, actually,, it's usually just the same word he had already spoken on the last few previous posts.