Consciousness Experiements
Global Consciousness Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<table class="metadata plainlinks ambox ambox-content" style=""> <tbody><tr> <td class="mbox-image">
</td> <td class="mbox-text" style="">This article
needs additional citations for verification.
<small>Please help
improve this article by adding
reliable references. Unsourced material may be
challenged and
removed.
(September 2009)</small></td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="metadata plainlinks ambox ambox-content" style=""> <tbody><tr> <td class="mbox-image">
</td> <td class="mbox-text" style="">This article
needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications.
Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate
citations from
reliable sources. <small>
(September 2009)</small></td> </tr> </tbody></table> The
Global Consciousness Project (
GCP, also called the
EGG Project) is a
parapsychology experiment begun in 1998, described as an attempt to detect potential interactions of "global
consciousness" with physical systems. The project monitors a geographically distributed network of
hardware random number generators to uncover potential anomalies in their output which might correlate with world events that elicit widespread emotional response or focused attention by large numbers of people.<sup id="cite_ref-bancel_0-0" class="reference">
[1]</sup> According to the GCP, the experiment aims to test a conjecture they feel would extend the range of anomalous phenomena currently encompassed by
psi research. The GCP is privately funded through the
Institute of Noetic Sciences<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">
[2]</sup> and describes itself as an international collaboration of about 100 research scientists and engineers.
Skeptics such as Robert T. Carroll, Claus Larsen, and others have questioned the methodology of the Global Consciousness Project, particularly how the data are selected and interpreted,<sup id="cite_ref-schiavo_2-0" class="reference">
[3]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">
[4]</sup> saying the data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and
selection bias which ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness.<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">
[5]</sup>
<table id="toc" class="toc"> <tbody><tr> <td>
Contents
[
hide]
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
[edit] Background
Roger D. Nelson developed the project as an extrapolation of two decades of experiments from the controversial
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (PEAR),<sup id="cite_ref-NY_Times_2007-02-06_5-0" class="reference">
[6]</sup> which Nelson says appeared to show that electronic noise-based, random number generators (
RNG or REG, random event generators) seem to be influenced by human consciousness to bring about a less-than-random sequence of data.
In an extension of the laboratory research called
FieldREG, investigators examined the outputs of REGs in the field, before, during and after highly focused or coherent group events. The group events studied included psychotherapy sessions, theater presentations, religious rituals, sports competitions such as the
Football World Cup, and television broadcasts like the
Academy Awards.<sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference">
[7]</sup>
FieldREG was extended to global dimensions in studies looking at data from 12 independent REGs in the US and Europe during a web-promoted "Gaiamind Meditation" in January 1997, and then again in September 1997 after the
death of Diana, Princess of Wales. The results suggested it would be worthwhile to build a permanent network of continuously-running REGs.<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">
[8]</sup> This became the EGG project or Global Consciousness Project.
Comparing the GCP to PEAR, Nelson, referring to the "field" studies with REGs done by PEAR, said the GCP used "exactly the same procedure... applied on a broader scale."<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference">
[9]</sup>
[edit] Research
The GCP's methodology is based on the hypothesis that events which elicit widespread emotion or draw the simultaneous attention of large numbers of people may affect the output of hardware random number generators in a statistically significant way.<sup id="cite_ref-bancel_0-1" class="reference">
[1]</sup> The GCP maintains a network of hardware random number generators which are interfaced to computers at 65 locations around the world. Custom software reads the output of the random number generators and records a trial (sum of 200 bits) once every second. The data are sent to a server in Princeton, creating a database of synchronized parallel sequences of random numbers. The GCP is run as a replication experiment, essentially combining the results of many distinct tests of the hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested by calculating the extent of data fluctuations at the time of events. The procedure is specified by a three-step experimental protocol.<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference">
[10]</sup> In the first step, the event duration and the calculation algorithm are pre-specified and entered into a formal registry.<sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference">
[11]</sup> In the second step, the event data are extracted from the database and a
Z score, which indicates the degree of deviation from the null hypothesis, is calculated from the pre-specified algorithm. In the third step, the event Z-score is combined with the Z-scores from previous events to yield an overall result for the experiment. The GCP claims that, as of late 2009, the cumulative result of more than 300 registered events significantly supports their hypothesis.<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference">
[12]</sup>
The remote devices have been dubbed
Princeton Eggs, a reference to the coinage
electrogaiagram, a
portmanteau of
electroencephalogram and
Gaia.<sup id="cite_ref-12" class="reference">
[13]</sup> Supporters and skeptics have referred to the aim of the GCP as being analogous to detecting "a great disturbance in
The Force."<sup id="cite_ref-schiavo_2-1" class="reference">
[3]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference">
[14]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-14" class="reference">
[15]</sup>
[edit] Criticism
Based on an exploratory analysis of 'highly statistically significant' experimental results, the GCP has suggested changes in the level of randomness may have occurred during the
September 11, 2001 attacks at the times of the plane impacts and the building collapses, and over the two days following the disaster.<sup id="cite_ref-15" class="reference">
[16]</sup> Moreover, the GCP has identified similar 'anomalies' in the EGG data hours and even days before the attacks; while the GCP does not claim a causal relationship,<sup id="cite_ref-16" class="reference">
[17]</sup> such changes—if genuine—would seem to imply either subconscious mass
precognition, or
backwards causality.<sup id="cite_ref-17" class="reference">
[18]</sup>
Independent scientists Edwin May and James Spottiswoode conducted an analysis of the data around the 11 September 2001 events and concluded there was no statistically significant change in the randomness of the GCP data during the attacks and the apparent significant deviation reported by Nelson and Radin existed only in their chosen time window.<sup id="cite_ref-MaySpottiswoode_18-0" class="reference">
[19]</sup> Spikes and fluctuations are to be expected in any random distribution of data, and there is no set time frame for how close a spike has to be to a given event for the GCP to say they have found a correlation.<sup id="cite_ref-MaySpottiswoode_18-1" class="reference">
[19]</sup> Wolcotte Smith said "A couple of additional statistical adjustments would have to be made to determine if there really was a spike in the numbers," referencing the data related to September 11, 2001.<sup id="cite_ref-19" class="reference">
[20]</sup> Similarly, Jeffrey D. Scargle believes unless both
Bayesian and classical
p-value analysis agree and both show the same anomalous effects, the kind of result GCP proposes will not be generally accepted.<sup id="cite_ref-Scargle_20-0" class="reference">
[21]</sup>
In 2003, a New York Times article concluded "All things considered at this point, the stock market seems a more reliable gauge of the national—if not the global—emotional resonance."<sup id="cite_ref-21" class="reference">
[22]</sup>
According to
The Age, Nelson concedes "the data, so far, is not solid enough for global consciousness to be said to exist at all. It is not possible, for example, to look at the data and predict with any accuracy what (if anything) the eggs may be responding to."<sup id="cite_ref-22" class="reference">
[23]</sup>
Robert Matthews called it "the most sophisticated attempt yet" to prove psychokinesis existed, but cited the unreliability of significant events to cause statistically significant spikes, concluding "the only conclusion to emerge from the Global Consciousness Project so far is that data without a theory is as meaningless as words without a narrative". <sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference">
[24]</sup>
This may interest you, sorry for getting it kind of backwards.
Here's an idea. Perhaps a group of us can do some consciousness experiments and document them on some level on the forum. I personally love to work with my consciousness in the form of meditation and certain physical exercises.
We have a ton of brains on this forum, and some of them are truly interested in brain mechanics and consciousness. And I was thinking.. instead of just reading about it, let's do it, using common sense of course!
We can create or, more likely, recreate experiments and document what happens.
Anyone interested?
It does sound like an interesting idea though although I don't know how we could do it here.
