Unconscious Research of Global Consciousness
Some say that the collective emotions of humans can influence electronic hardware.
Filed under Paranormal
| Skeptoid #49 June 10, 2007 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
In this episode we're going to take a look at a project that has captured imaginations for nearly a decade, the Global Consciousness Project, which posits that events that emotionally affect large numbers of people cause measurable changes in the output of random number generators.
The principal public face of the Global Consciousness Project is Dr. Dean Radin, an electrical engineer and Ph.D. in psychology. Supporters like to say that the project is part of Princeton University, but this is not so. The project director, Roger Nelson, is in the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering department there, but that's about the whole depth of the connection. Some of Nelson's resources, like the web site, are hosted by Princeton. The project is funded by private donations through the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, California.
It is worthy to note that I cannot, in good conscience, criticize Dean Radin. He is said to be an awesome fiddle and banjo player, and the world needs more fiddle and banjo music. So, Dr. Radin, when you hear this podcast, know that I am at heart a supporter; and when you put down your random number generator, and pick up your banjo, I'll be in the front row. If you want to do some good in the world, stick with what works. Now let's talk about this Global Consciousness project of yours.
65 people at various locations around the world have a small hardware random number generator, which they call an egg, connected to a computer. All day, every day, each one spits out random numbers, which are regularly transmitted through the Internet to Nelson's server in Princeton, New Jersey. When the researchers choose an event, they pull the data from that time and put it through a series of filters and analyses and find patterns they say are improbably less random. I'm not going to go into all the details of how they do this, it's really boring and confusing if you're not a statistician, but they do openly publish all their methodology on Nelson's web site at noosphere.princeton.edu. Their theory is that somehow, the collective consciousness of all the emotional or psychological energy of people focused on the chosen event, somehow affects the random number generators. They do not presume to have any hypothesis for how or why this might be possible, or what the mechanism might be, or really any satisfactory answers to any questions that mainstream scientists have asked them. They simply put forth their findings for what they're worth, and they urge you and and I and everyone else to look at their results and hopefully conclude, as they have, that there's something to all of this, and that it's worthy of further research.
The problem is that people outside their lab either fail to reach the same conclusions or find their methodology so flawed that it's pointless to even review the findings. They do publish what they call criticism on their web site, but it's mainly comments and suggestions from their associates. There is not a lot of published criticism of Global Consciousness out there to cite, and one reason is that their theory lacks consistent claims that are specific enough to be tested. Here are two fundamental questions that they must answer and have not:
- What type of event qualifies as "significant"? They pick events themselves, without any defined criteria. When they choose an event, they fail to test if there are any other simultaneous events in other parts of the world that might override any effect. What happened in Ghana during the OJ Simpson trial? There are no controls over what types of event triggers an examination of the data, and no controls to eliminate prospective events due to conflicting events.
- What type of effect in the data constitutes a result? Again, no criteria. They maintain no standards for what constitutes a correlation: whether it's a trough or a spike or some other type of anomaly; whether it should happen before, during, or after the event; how long before or after the event it should be found, or what the duration should be. In fact, their "results" are all over the map.
So, as they look for undefined results from undefined events, they still manage to make additional errors in their methodology. Here are some of the most flagrant:
- The analysis is not blinded in any way. When something happens, they look at their data until they find patterns. Proper analysis would come from isolated statisticians with no reference indicating a timeline on the data, knowledge of what to look for, or knowledge of what world event is being matched.
- They do not look for alternate causes of their data anomalies. Sunspots? Cell phone calls?
- They make claims of specific numbers for how they beat chance. Clearly, it's impossible to have any meaningful metrics, given the lack of standards for scoring or choosing events.
- They make no attempts to falsify their theory. They should be looking for alternate causes of the anomalies they claim to find in the output from their eggs, such as sunspots or electromagnetic interference from other devices. They should be looking for alternate or additional effects caused by human emotions, like errors in calculators or digital watches. Why not cell phones or toasters? If this effect is real, their eggs would not be the only things affected. Whenever a Global Consciousness event happens, there should be well known and well established failures of, or anomalies in, electric and/or computerized devices worldwide. It's improbable that these supposed effects would seek out and affect only one specific application of common hardware components used in many other devices. They do not look at other species besides humans whose emotions might be responsible for the effects. Why not dolphins or whales, or for that matter ants? Most of the living matter on earth is ants, and ants certainly have collective behavior. If collective consciousness did have a measurable affect on hardware, ants are the first place I would look.
One of their biggest claims to fame is the finding of a massive data anomaly, stronger than any other found, at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and Radin calculated that it was 6000:1 that this spike in the data was due to chance. Such a finding would make sense if the theory were true (although 9/11 probably didn't bother very many ants). You'll hear this result time and time again if you listen to one of Radin's lectures or read their materials. But you will have to go out on your own to find a dissenting opinion, which can be heard from anyone else who has actually looked at their data. One such person is Jeffrey Scargle of the NASA Ames Research Center, who undertook an analysis on his own time. Scargle's finding on the 9/11 data was "I personally disagree with the conclusion that anomalous effects have been unequivocally established" and "I judge the degree of cogency of all of the results in both (Radin's and Nelson's) papers as low." Scargle attributes their positive findings to the questionable application of an XOR filter to the raw data, the use of a discredited "p-value" test, the lack of blinding, limited choice of likely effects, and a suspicious process that he describes as "data fiddling".
Dr. Edwin May and James Spottiswoode also performed an independent analysis of Radin's 9/11 results. Their conclusion states in part:
We show that the choice was fortuitous in that had the analysis window been a few minutes shorter or 30 minutes longer, the formal test would not have achieved significance... We differ markedly with regard to the posted conclusions. Using Radin’s analysis, we do not find significant evidence that the GCP network’s EGG’s responded to the New York City attacks in real time. Radin’s computation of 6000:1 odds against chance during the events are accounted for by a not-unexpected local deviation that occurred approximately 3 hours before the attacks. We conclude that the network random number generators produced data consistent with mean chance.
Now let's talk about the elephant in the room. To any reasonable person, the whole concept of global consciousness is ridiculous at face value. This is true of many pseudosciences. But all that should raise is a red flag; people used to think flight was ridiculous too. But when you find red flags everywhere, they start to add up. Let's look back at Skeptoid episode 37, How to Spot Pseudoscience, and see if there are any other warning signs. Here's one: They make their announcements through mass media, rather than through scientific journals. When respected journals won't touch research, it's a pretty good indicator that there's something wrong. But radio shows like Coast to Coast AM, that promote pseudoscience, are all over it. Another warning is that their claim is based on some unknown form of energy or force. Also, the claim fails the Occam's Razor test. Again, this doesn't prove anything, it's just another red flag. Which is more likely to be true: That there's nothing to the idea of global consciousness, which is what the consensus of mainstream science maintains; or that these few people using tremendously flawed methodology have uncovered something so profound it would change the way we view everything, and is based on some mystical force unknown to science? Another problem is that the claim comes only from one source that's dedicated to supporting that cause. Legitimate research is always successfully repeated by independent labs. When it's not, you have good reason to be skeptical. Global consciousness does pass a few of these tests, but legitimate research and facts always pass all of them.
Now, Dr. Radin, I know I said I wouldn't criticize you, but I do have to take issue with one of your quotes. You said:
There is no kind way to say this, but the most stubborn skeptics do not understand scientific methods or the use of statistical inference, nor do they appreciate the history, philosophy or sociology of science. Their emotional rejection of the evidence seems to be motivated by fundamentalist beliefs of the scientific or religious kind.
This is a classic straw man argument. You're dismissing the rejection of your questionable evidence by calling it emotional and suggesting that it's motivated by a quasi-religious fundamentalist belief in science. OK, whatever. But when you declare that the people who fail to use your methods to find your same results "do not understand scientific methods," you're really pushing credibility. You're not the only person in the world who understands the scientific process. In fact, you don't appear to understand it very well at all. Please, do us all a favor. Foggy Mountain Breakdown. Go.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2007 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
Haahr, M. "Introduction to Randomness and Random Numbers." Random.org. Random.org, 7 Apr. 2007. Web. 17 Oct. 2009. <http://www.random.org/randomness/>
May, E., Spottiswoode, J. "Global Consciousness Project: An Independent Analysis of The 11 September 2001 Events." The Laboratories for Fundamental Research Innovative Interdisciplinary Research. LFR, 15 Sep. 2006. Web. 1 May. 2007. <http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/Sep1101.pdf>
Park, Robert L. Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008. 139-141.
Radin, D., Nelson, R. "Meaningful Correlations in Random Data." Global Consciousness Project. Global Consciousness Project, 1 Jun. 2009. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. <http://noosphere.princeton.edu/>
Scargle, Jeffrey. "Was There Evidence of Global Consciousness on September 11, 2001?" Journal of Scientific Exploration. 1 Oct. 2002, Volume 16, Number 4: 571-577.
Webb, G.I. "Discovering significant patterns." Machine Learning. 1 Jul. 2007, Volume 68 , Issue 1: 1-33.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"Unconscious Research of Global Consciousness." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
10 Jun 2007. Web.
6 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4049>
Discuss!
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
I should have said a plurality, not a majority. The best estimates are that ants comprise 15-25% of all terrestrial animal biomass. Numerous references for that are found here: https://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=536123
Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
June 11, 2007 12:33pm
I wondered what that lump was in my pants! Must be ants!
Griff.
neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
June 11, 2007 3:39pm
No, Griff, not ants. Aliens. Happened to me once....
Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
June 16, 2007 9:25pm
You have some good points, but much in your post is wrong or misleading.
It is misleading to suggest Radin's views represent those of the Global Consciousness Project (GCP). Radin collaborated on a paper for Foundation of Physics Letters in 2002. In the last 5 years, he has not worked on the project. He speaks independently and being a notable in the field his comments are often found on the web. While he gives accurate information on the GCP, his *interpretations* are his own.
It is also wrong to say the GCP communicates mainly through the media. The GCP posts preliminary results on its website, duly noted as such. Published results appear in peer-reviewed journals. The articles are referenced on the website. Like many research endeavors, the project is contacted by journalists requesting interviews. Dr. Nelson occasionally grants these, but many are refused. The tendency is to avoid the press, precisely because it is often not a good venue for communicating science.
It is unfortunate to focus on the 9/11 event. It is not representative of the cumulative GCP results.
It is utterly wrong to say data are mined for positive results. This mistaken criticism is often found on websites, as is the case here. Read the GCP site to see it's a wrong notion. All formal analyses are pre-specified before the data archive is unpacked.
GCP makes few claims, as you accurately point out. However, the case for some there there has grown over the years, much to this skeptic's surprise
Peter Bancel, Paris France
June 27, 2007 6:03am
You've obviously put enormous energy into your skepicism. Reporting your findings in public also bears scrutiny. Now I'm just an average undereducated white female, middle income, middle america. Even I can see that your bias is unreasonable. To think that your bombasity and pompous viewpoint proves a point is silly.
Random equals random. You are trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole. Random equals random.
When there are spikes in the Random Number Generators, something prompted it. What is your explanation? Nowhere do I see your "scientific" conclusion in this post. You simply use a polarized point to spring from without adding value to the subject. Boring!
Or are you singularly interested in promoting doubt, fear, and insecurity to precipitate web-hits and dollars in the coffer?
Eve, Ohio, USA
January 22, 2008 9:17am
Eve,
What makes you think that something has to cause a spike? If you flip a coin 5 times you would not expect to get heads 5 times in a row. However if you repeat this experiment over and over, you would occasionally expect 5 heads to occur.
Spikes can definitely be within the realm probability, without any external cause.
Another thing to bear in mind is that a computer cannot generate truly random numbers!
[Computers can generate pseudorandom numbers by using clever functions, making use of their clocks, and careful seeding (initial parameter values).]
This fact alone could be a cause of unusual spikes.
Joshua, Tel Aviv, Israel
January 27, 2008 1:22pm
The previous post by Joshua is to the point. Variations or "spikes" are bound to occur in all random series. Commenting on the significance/non-significance of these spikes requires a knowledge of statistics, which some people do not have.
It is important to note here that the GCP started out without sound criteria for what constitutes an important world event, and therefore correlations between spikes and selected world events are (while non-correlations with many other world events are ignored) are not necessarily meaningful.
David, Vancouver, Ca
March 06, 2008 10:40am
Perhaps, there are a few insignificant errors in your paper and you may have some "bias" though, seriously to any of your readers that buy into such face-smacking stupidity, your mission is to focus on the fact that the magical irregular number generator and it's supervisors lack proper scientif methodology, preperation, oversight, and analyses. I can't believe anyone bothered to waiste the time opposing Dr. Nelson's "science" project.
Too Lame, MOON Sector 3.14..........
March 24, 2008 5:17am
You make some good points about the experimental design, but I want to comment on the "elephant in the room". I'm just an average guy who doesn't usually think of things like global consciousness very much. I have been described as a skeptical person. But about 4 hrs. before the 9-11 attacks began I was awakened from a dream I was having where I was watching planes ascend rapidly above me (into what I knew to be skyscrapper buildings behind me, though I could not look and never "knew" the outcome, just felt fear and concern). It was very vivid and as I said woke me up. So I've been given the ultimate skeptic's kryptonite...direct proof that there is "something" to this. You can make all the points you want on the statistical issues, experimental design etc., but for me there are no elephants on this one...and hopefully in time some valid proof that the "established" scientific community will have to accept. I hope so.
Keith, Vancouver Canada
May 14, 2008 11:59am
Keith's dream doesn't amount to much. With billions of people dreaming several times a night, the probabability of someone having a dream about aircraft and skyscrapers at any time is quite high.
Leon Heller, St. Leonards-on-Sea, E. Sussex, UK.
June 14, 2008 6:43am
I've heard boosters of this project on Coast to Coast AM. They have an answer for the criticism "...local deviation that occurred approximately 3 hours before the attacks." They speculate that the eggs can react to events before they happen.
This is another one of those pseudo-scientific projects that frustrate, because if they were rigorous they might actually find something interesting (I don't know what... but having a network of sensors seems like it might be a fascinating starting-off point).
But even if they were honest and explicit about the data, and if the spikes really did appear after socially significant events, it could just as easily be caused by an increase in cell phone calls -- maybe the eggs are just picking up radio interference.
Paul, Walnut Creek, CA
September 22, 2008 12:18pm
My cousin is a physicist who works at the Maharisha Institute in Iowa. That's my bias. Here is some of their similar research.
http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/745
http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/756
http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/756
(there is much much more)
Jacob
Jacob Libby, Kalamazoo, MI
September 28, 2008 7:06pm
this would seem like a good test for a random number generator.any significant result would indicate that the numbers generated were not truly random.
roy, ontario
November 11, 2008 3:59am
Brian, I'm concerned with the comment
"discredited "p-value" test"
I am a psychology PhD and we use p values for EVERYTHING (perhaps a little too much). I'm sweating slightly from the thought that the satistical methods we use are discretdited. Is it that the wrong statistical test was used for what they were investigating? Were they reporting the p-value in an invalid way?
AHHHHHHHHHHH!
Bronson, Helsinki, Finland
February 21, 2009 7:45am
I've got to say, your article is dripping with biases. I have no choice but to conclude that this article was written for entertainment purposes what with all the witty remarks.
And actually, your final paragraph proves Radin quite correct in his argument. If this is a serious article, what do you stand to lose if there is some validity to the project? Perhaps some deep seeded assumptions about the nature of our reality? A simple investigation in to Quantum mechanics should debunk those pretty quickly.
Confused, By This
April 11, 2009 5:53pm
Nothing about Quantum Mechanics is simple. You should perform an in-depth look at quantum mechanics, and find that the only way for this theory to be rooted in QM is for only the constituent particles of the number generators and the human brains to be created at exactly the same instant - in fact, entangement would hold true in Brian's scenario, where emotions effect all electronics. In fact, looking at the big bang, EVERYTHING would be effected if emotions could do anything in the realm of quantum mechanics. Once you bring theoretical physics into something, it becomes a very slippery slope. I hope you've actually read as much about QM as I have, and I certainly don't have a firm grasp on anything but the basics. In summary, I award you the 'BS AWARD' for trying to pull something out of an arse much bigger than yours.
Joseph Bozeman, Norman
July 28, 2009 8:10pm
I respect the skepticism expressed here, as it appears well justified. However, there have been many simpler, and repeatable experiments that, clearly suggest consiousness has an effect on the physical world (like the double-slit experiment. Or the effect of mass prayer reducing crime in big cities). Even the GCP results can be explained as products of poor technique, their are other sources of evidence which have linked our minds, with the physical world.
ztech, schaumburg, il
August 23, 2009 6:50pm
If consciousness has an effect on random number generators then I wonder if any correlations can be drawn between it and RFID technologies, which we will see embeded in most of our purchases, ID cards etc... in the near future.
Sylvio Crone, Fairfield, IA
August 27, 2009 4:06pm
I think it is a very interesting project, if seen as a kind of a thought experiment. The actual question is "what if...?". What if we had a network of 65000 or 65 million of these generators, would the result be more reliable? And if these results were ever proven significant, what would this teach us about any system "unconsciously" producing "random" information?
Dimitris Priftakis, Greece
September 15, 2009 12:20am
There's no such thing as random. Only improbability.
Errico, Edmonton
December 18, 2009 7:45pm
P.S. Not using my real name should not detract from the validity of my response. This sort of "skepticism," while amusing to type and read, is as ridiculous as using Occam's Razor as evidence in a non-comparative argument on a large, generalized scale. Actually, more so. It's akin to saying "Don't listen to him, he goes by the nickname Dick instead of Richard! There isn't even a K in Richard!"
Yous,
Sulinde
Sulinde, Seattle
January 07, 2010 5:14pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KYbaxmYlkg Hey I looked up RFID chips and there's nothing on it. Could you look into them? and also the soon Orwellian survelliance that will soon come to the US,
Canada, Britain, and probably the rest of the world.
Zach, Seattle
August 01, 2010 7:27pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Great show as usual!
I love the ants argument(that they make up the most living matter on the planet), but couldn't substantiate it and was wondering if you could list your source for that?
Todd Barton, Crawfordsville, IN
June 11, 2007 11:11am