

The Global Consciousness Project - algorithm_dk
http://noosphere.princeton.edu

======
carapace
The fundamental question here concerns the boundaries of subjective
experience. (Rather than, say, rational materialism vs. mysticism.)

Is it magical that you can see a running rabbit and throw a stone and hit it?
Certainly the subjective experience of doing something like that is just as
problematical for science as the research above. I have in my pocket a tiny
machine that uses crystals to shake light to send my voice etc. to far
receivers practically instantly. Is it really so strange to consider something
like that being done biologically?

I'm glad somebody's doing science to it. ;-)

~~~
delluminatus
Like you say, science can't really help with questions of subjective
experience. I think this is more about observing an _objective_ phenomenon,
which is that "thought" can affect random number generators. The problem, as
stated on the site, is this:

    
    
      When it comes to "what we are measuring" the story becomes
      more complicated because there is no real understanding of
      the mechanism whereby an REG [Random event generator]’s 
      behavior can be altered by thoughts and emotions or 
      intentions.
      [...]
      We do not know how a mental state such as an intention or 
      emotion is able to inform the physical system to affect 
      its behavior. In addition, all of the robust measures we 
      have providing evidence for the anomalous effects are 
      statistical in nature, and the signal to noise ratio is 
      extremely low. This means that we typically cannot be 
      sure that the "signature" of an effect in any individual 
      analysis is driven by the hypothesized influence of 
      consciousness. The details written in the data from 
      single instances are more likely to be chance 
      fluctuations than consciousness effects. Only in larger 
      concatenations, gathering the weak signals from many 
      separate events, can we be satisfied that trends and 
      structure represent the hypothesized effect. 
    

In short, they believe they have observed an inexplicable phenomenon --
intention influencing random number generation. The attempt to quantify,
describe, and eventually fully understand that supposed phenomenon is the key
purpose of their research.

------
thisjepisje
What is this doing on the website of Princeton?

~~~
schoen
It seems to be a continuation of PEAR's research program in some form.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab)

------
tankenmate
I would have thought this approach would have been highly susceptible to the
Birthday Paradox[0]; it seems to me to be nothing more than modern day
numerology.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem)

~~~
sonoffett
they're using 200 bits. look at the generalized birthday problem section on
your cited link--the number of samples for there to be greater than a 50%
probability of a collision is > (3-2ln2)/6 + sqrt(2 _(2^200)_ ln2) = 1.49
_10^30. For a probability of 0.01 of a collision you expect at least
sqrt((2^200)_ ln(1/(1-0.01))=1.27*10^29 samples.

------
cryoshon
This is trash science.

Nobody else has been able to replicate their "results".

~~~
washedup
Seems like they are running experiments and collecting data to test their
hypothesis. Doesn't that count as science? Or do you call it trash science
simply because the hypothesis seems unreasonable?

~~~
Strilanc
Here's a good post about this [0], including this gem:

> _Schiltz is a psi believer [... but Wiseman] is a psi skeptic [...]_

> _The idea was to plan an experiment together, with both of them agreeing on
> every single tiny detail. They would then go to a laboratory and set it up,
> again both keeping close eyes on one another. Finally, they would conduct
> the experiment in a series of different batches. [...]_

> _The results? Schlitz’s trials found strong evidence of psychic powers,
> Wiseman’s trials found no evidence whatsoever._

Running experiments and collecting data is necessary, but not sufficient. Bias
and other failures are extremely hard to avoid.

Saying "it's not science" is (derogatory) shorthand for the assertion that
their results are due to failures in their process, as opposed to being
reflective of reality.

0: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-
ou...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-
control/)

