Here is an informative little video by a guy named Steve Mould who does a lot of “science” videos on youtube. Its all (ostensibly) about how simple little processes can make “meaningful” structures from stochastic processes-and he uses magnetic shaped little parts to show this. Its a popular channeled followed by millions, and is often referenced by other famous people in the science community-and his fans love it.
And hey, it does show how meaningful structures CAN form from random processes. Right? So you can learn from this. Wink, wink. Nod, nod. And all the skeptics will know exactly what he is really saying. Cause we are all part of the clique that knows this language-the language of the skeptic propagandist. I mean, he almost hides it, the real message, it is just under the surface, and the less skeptically aware, the casualist, might even miss it. The casualist might not learn as much about Steve Mould and what he is trying to say here-but the skeptic knows. “See, atheism is true! Spread the word!” Steve has given the wink. The same wink used by DeGrasse Tyson, and Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, and on and on. You know the one.
And for 95% of his viewers, whether they know it or not, they got his message. I mean, look, its plain as day, right? He just showed you, that is certainly a meaningful structure that arose from random processes, isn’t it? Its defintely meaningful, its a, a, a , well, it’s shape that, we have a, a name for…that’s kind of…anyway, defintely random, I mean other than the magnets and the precut shapes, and the little ball with nothing else inside, and the shaking only until its just right then stopping kind of way…That’s random kind of right???
But there are 5% percent of his viewers that spotted his little wink and nod, and said, hold on a second. If you want us to believe that your little explanation about how simply life can form from nonsense without a plan, how blind exactly do you want us to be? 95%, they are hooked, you got them (Ryan StallardThere are so many creationist videos this obliterates. Especially 4:18.). But some likeGhryst VanGhod helpfully point out: “this is incorrect. the kinesin travels along fibres within the cell and takes the various molecules exactly where they need to be, they are not randomly “jumbling around in solution”. https://youtu.be/gbycQf1TbM0 ” and then you get to see a video that tells you just a few more of the things that are ACTUALLY happening which are even more amazing if you weren’t already skeptical (the real kind).
And if you go through some more of the comments you will notice a few more (real) skeptics, not the wink and nod kind, and you will start to notice why the wink nod propogandist skeptics everywhere you look in modern culture are a very puposefully designed cancer on knowledge and thought.
It’s not my intention to convince anyone that supernatural causes impinge on this physical universe or any subset. I believe the effects that Radin and others have demonstrated are perfectly natural even if they do contradict the conventional beliefs in the limits of physics and of consciousness.
If you want more detail why don’t you take a closer look at the ongoing experiment that is the Global Consciousness Project
You were applying active fantasy, not active imagination in the sense that I am using it. A demonstration of using active imagination is in thinking about the relationship between the earth sun and moon and their mutual relationship. Using our senses alone we would believe that the sun moves across the sky while we are stationary, but we know that isn’t the case.
Yes, you deliberately created a meaningless string of letters.
And the way in which the DNA sequences are organized is just as important. There are many physical processes, both directed and indiscriminate that influence the sequence of DNA.
I do know that the physical substance is a much more transitory part of the organism than the form.
Just thinking about this, all movement is supposed to be relative we are told. So from one perspective the Earth is still and the sun is moving, but from another the sun is still and the Earth is moving.
Are both true? Why do we say its the Earth moving around the sun?
It’s a fact. Not an opinion. The closer PSI is looked at the smaller the observed effect. This has been borne out time after time.
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Famp0000486
Likewise there are also laypeople who continue to believe those scientists…
Is that the literal best you’ve got after 150 years?
Both are moving, we say the earth moves around the sun for convenience. Meaning that makes calculations easier to handle, since the earth’s gravitational effect is so much smaller than the sun’s that we can ignore it for some calculations and the error is minimal.
The sun’s gravity is much higher than the earth’s, but both are moving around their combined gravitational “center” (there’s a better term, but I’m too tired to try and remember right now), it’s just that such “center” is within the sun, because that’s where most of the gravitational effect lies. Both are moving around many other gravitational effects though.
See ya.
Fucking hell man.
For that to happen is PSI required?
That did happen to an old work colleague of mine. If I remember correctly he was walking down the corridor in a hotel in Italy when he heard a familiar voice calling his name. But one incident like that doesn’t mean much.
True enough.
It all depends on whether we are looking for personal understanding or to convince others.
So “active imagination” sensu Charlie involves several centuries of detailed observation, mathematical modeling, testing predictions of the movement of celestial bodies and, oh yeah, a pinch of visual imagination. In that case I would argue, contra your position, that inferring the existence of archetypes does not involve “active imagination” at all, because it skips the entire empirical part.
Absolutely not! I made a perfectly meaningful string of letters and then rearranged it in a creative way. And guess what? All meaning was lost because you cannot parse the meaning from the letters when they do not occur in agreed-upon sequences.
Made my point beautifully, I thought. Metaphors!
Moreover, those physical processes suffice to explain modern biodiversity.
Form cannot exist without physical substance, so it seems a bit pointless to reify it.
The word you’re looking for is barycenter. But note that the barycenter applies to the entire solar system, so it’s constantly moving around inside the sun. Earth’s contribution to this location is smaller than Jupiter’s, for example. The barycenter sticks to the ecliptic because all the planets do.
Entropy,
So you are saying it is technically correct to say the sun orbits around the Earth, its just not as convenient?
Galileo is generally credited with being the first to publish the idea that the laws of motion are the same in all reference frames.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance
Alan Fox,
Careful, there.
Those are non-rotating reference frames. The word “inertial” matters.
The hard-core geocentrists reckon that the sun rotates around the earth once a day…
The fictitious forces “accelerating” the Baby Boom Galaxy are rather large.
We covered this with phoodoo two years ago.
How unlikely is it? Is it more or less likely then some of the results that “prove” PSI effects are real?
You run into problems with the apparent motion of the planets with a geometric model, for one inconvenience.
I’m not complaining about either. My point is that without much more study and delving into the details I cannot make any categorical claims either way.
It may be post-hoc from the point of view of that single paper but it is a perfectly legitimate course to take from the point of view of the overall Global Consciousness Project. What rule states that they have to stick to the time frame specified in the paper? They are showing a trend that they have observed from data that is ongoing. So can you tell me what they have done wrong?
I’m open to being persuaded that they are seeing something that isn’t there but if you want to do so you will need to give me more than claims that there work is “rubbish”.
They claim to see significant trends in all the hundreds of events they have or are continually monitoring. Would all of these have been reproducible in sham experiments?
When they look at cyclical events over the years such as New Year celebrations and they find these events show consistent small but measurable results unexpected by random chance, why is this inadequate?
They carried out the further exploratory analysis after a request by Walleczek to re-examine the data. One experiment like this is not going to establish the presence of any psychic abilities.
Raw data always needs to be manipulated in some way in order to present it in a suitable fashion and I have not seen any evidence of them hiding any of their procedures in the way they present their findings.
It’s not that important to me if Radin and others in the field have failed to show any positive results in some of their experiments. But I do think it is important that people who are ignorant of the facts feel they have the right to make judgements on those matters.
The ongoing Global Consciousness Project is gathering data from random event generators located in multiple places around the world and they have made the data available to anyone who wishes to use it.
I think he believes sincerely that there are demonstrable effects to be seen and he isn’t trying to hoodwink anyone. But I also think that this type of research gets more than its fair share of criticism and the establishment holds a fair bit of prejudice against it.
Geocentric
Nope. That’s not what I’m saying.
DNA_Jock,
I looked up Inertial reference frame. The first sentence is “This article may be too technical for most readers to understand”. 🙁
You stated that “The problem lies with the selection of the data.”
My apologies, I took that as a categorical claim.
I was referring to your statement as “rubbish”, in particular your claim that W&S saw false positives because they had not taken all of the data into account. That is absolute rubbish, which I note (with no small satisfaction) that you have just conceded you cannot make any ‘categorical’ claims about.
Err, you appear to be confusing the double slit experiments with the GCP…
Confounding factors, including celestial mechanics.
One experiment, properly performed, is the ONLY thing that is going to establish any psychophysical effect. But you are right, one experiment like this ain’t gonna do it.
but you admit to not delving into the details…
Naughty. My claim is that Radin et al have failed to show positive results in ANY experiment (that were analyzed in the pre-specified manner). You are welcome to offer a counterexample, but you will have to be willing to delve into the details and defend their use of statistics. You keep declining to engage.
So, given that you have professed your ignorance yet continue to opine, the only way I can parse this sentence is that you are defending the right of the ignorant to opine. The alternative reading of this sentence, that people who are ignorant should NOT make judgements, would be something of an own goal; if you were trying to imply that I am ignorant of these matters, prove it!
No shit, Kojak. What do you think I did before Xmas?
Well, again: given your admitted ignorance, how would you know what a “fair share” of criticism might look like?
More English language parody perhaps then?
Are others supposed to use a decoder to know what you are saying?
Apologies for not responding sooner.
So I followed your link and have a couple of questions:
Who is Roger Nelson?
Following the link in the text that you linked to “The Bottom Line” there is a table of results that purport to connect “world events” with something. What it the something and how is it being measured?
Is this a case of coincidence, concurrence or connection?
Is there a working hypothesis?
@ CharlieM
Am I reading this right? You are asking me to consider random number generator outputs can be influenced by world events?
http://www.global-mind.org/index.html
Looks like there’s a fair bit of animosity between Radin and Walleczek.
Your link doesn’t show Radin in a very good light and I haven’t seen any further response to this by him. So unless I find any more on this I have to conclude that Walleczek has made some good points.
But I do wonder why it took them six years to allow publication of the experiment.
I don’t see any dramatic, robust and highly significant psychophysical effect. When I look at your graph. I see an obvious rising trend in the area of the blue diamonds but there is no context with which to compare it and no indication of how the scale of the y axis compares to Z scores. I’d like to see it compared to a similar time scale on other days and in relation to a much more extended time frame.
The Global Consciousness Project team analyse the data in two distinct ways, one using paired REGs and the other treating them as a network of single REGs. They claim that both give similar results.
DNA_Jock has already made use of the data made available from here.
This began by you stating that:
You could legitimately only make that claim if you were already familiar with the details of this area of research. But now after making that judgement you ask for facts!
I think this would make a good topic for a new thread. There has been a lot of claims about blindfolded sight, water memory and similar subjects which I’m sure would induce some lively discussion.
So the claim is some people somewhere collectively reflect on some newsworthy bad event which causes random number generators to output nonrandom figures? Am I understanding correctly?
You forgot to show me where I said it was technically correct. Care to give that a try?
Rather than promoting it, I am more interested in what people here have to say about it.
I have already spent more time than I intended looking at the data they retrieved for 9/11. I compared various REG readings for that day and other days, looking at deviations from the mean in the raw data. (from a total of 200 we would expect an equal number of 1s and 0s.) I found that the figures I was getting were too noisy for me to make any reasonable conclusions. When there are tens of thousands of results in a 24 hour day which are 20% and over from the mean it gets very cumbersome. Especially when looking at various days and various time frames during each day.
Alan Fox,
Close. They take news-worthy events around the globe, and look for any departure from randomness that coincides with these events. They ask whether the correlation between pairs of RNGs departs from expectation. Events may be positive and uplifting or negative and scary. Scary events are, according to the GCP ‘standard prediction’, meant to lead to positive cumulative Z-scores, whilst uplifting events should lead to negative cumulative Z-scores. But they will happily hand-wave away the opposite effect. The color commentary is terrific.
The top-scoring all time events are Nairobi/Tanzania Embassy bombings, International Peace Day 2011, the Indonesian Earthquake, riots in Greece, and Valentine Meditations 2009.
Of these events, it is the riots, and only the riots, that have the supposedly ‘uplifting’ negative Z-score.
To make Charlie happy, I have plotted the data for the following day, and I brought my probability envelope down to a more ‘reasonable’ p = 0.000001 :
He still doesn’t get it.
I am open to the possibility that there is something to it, but I think there are other more interesting and more easily studied areas of psi research. Many people make claims that it’s all rubbish or that it’s a proven reality. I would prefer that people don’t make claims that they don’t have sufficient knowledge to back up.
DNA_Jock,
I mean…
Sorry, just lost for words.
The Global Consciousness Project is an open ended, ongoing experiment and as I understand it they are not trying to prove that consciousness affects REGs, they are more interested in learning the relationship, if any, between specific events and REG data. Roger Nelson has said that data from single events such as 9/11 cannot be used as evidence either way.
I took it that you were asking me how many ways the machines could be paired up, not how many ways the data from the machines can be paired. The latter of course is an unfeasibly large number. Can you explain how you came by your estimate?
This is pretty meaningless in isolation.
You didn’t include the year so I hadn’t noticed. Can you do the same for an extended period of a day or two instead of the time frame you used in the graph?
Alan Fox,
Well, you should definitely check out Masaru Emoto’s work, then.
If people think about a vial particular vial of water, then it will form more aesthetically pleasing ice crystals.
Dean Radin reckons that The Amazing Randi owes him $1M…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto
I see he was unable to harness water’s life-saving property.
Yes, it’s all relative. It’s just as inaccurate to treat the sun as stationary with everything else moving around it. Most of us believe that the rotating solar system is moving around the galaxy, but we cannot experience this directly with our senses. We can, however, experience this reality in our imagination. That is what I mean by active imagination.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster point out the strange correlation between the number of pirates and global warming.
[Splutter] There’s a difference? You do understand that the RNGs are not actually physically paired, right? You have the outputs from all of the RNGs, and you pair them up to do the analysis. But the number of possible combinations is the same either way. [!]
I am betting that you calculated the number of different ways to choose one pair out of 38 RNGs:
=38 ways to pick the first one, and 37 ways to pick the second one. 38 x 37 = 1406.
Hence your CYA “Close to 1500”
But you forgot to divide by 2 — there’s only 703 distinct pairs you could create.
What we are interested in, however, is how many different ways we could take 38 RNGs and generate 19 pairs. The easiest way to think about this is to imagine that we have already ranked all of the RNGs, whether by age, or serial number, or distance from Princeton. Start with the #1 RNG, and pair it. Then go to the next unpaired RNG and pair it, etc.
With 38 RNGs, there’s 37 ways to pair the first one, then 35 ways to make the second pair, etc. That’s 8 x 10^21 ways.
I only had 27 glitch-free RNGs for 9/11, so I had a mere 5 x 10^13 available ways to make 13 pairs and leave one unused. I picked one that looked promising.
Well, that’s entirely within your own control, Charlie.
So what I think is that we make these conclusions that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not the sun revolving aound the Earth, because we introduce a universal observer, outside of space. A god if you will. So we say, according to that observer, that is what it would look like.
I guess Carl Sagan was not an atheist afterall.
No. It is pragmatism, not truth.
Heliocentrism works much better than geocentrism if you are doing astronomy.
If your main interest is terrestrial navigation, then geocentrism works quite well. But it is a poor choice for astronomy.
Unless the outside observer looks very closely. I was a bit surprised to learn that, when all planets are on one side of the sun, the system barycenter actually wanders outside the sun. In fact, this would be the case if Jupiter were the only planet. Our hypothetical outside observer would be able to chart the movement of the system’s center of mass, and thus observe that the orbits of both the planets and the sun are continuously being altered because they are all revolving around a moving barycenter.
There is no closed-form for the solution of these orbits, which (except in special cases) never repeats. In other words, the future orbit of any of the planets or the sun cannot be calculated. Their motions all affect the obits of each other.
Another strike against Cartesian determinism.
Neil Rickert,
Well, you are taking the position that Entropy took, and then didn’t take, and then we don’t know what he meant-its convenient, but not true.
Why, if its not true?
phoodoo,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
It (heliocentrism) is true in the sense that we humans say that it is true. It is conventionally accepted as true.
There isn’t any more to truth, other than what humans agree is true. There is no grand ultimate truth.
Sounds like a grand ultimate truth.
Because geocentric model is as equally not true and is not as useful as a model .
That depends on whether we agree that it is true.
😀
I explained that to you phoodoo: because the calculations work with minimal error.
Furthermore, these calculations allow for estimating gravitational effects given mass, in turn getting us to realize that the physics of the universe are the same as those in our own planet. They unite the parables formed by “proyectiles” in our planet, to planetary orbits, to the motions of objects all across the universe.
I suspect you don’t understand the meaning of such words as “pragmatism” and “convenience”, perhaps you also have trouble with “minimal error.”
It’s only your opinion that it’s a fact. 🙂
All I’ve got is a few examples of psi research. I’m sure there’s plenty more places and examples that I haven’t looked at. I would think that it’s pretty difficult to get funding for psi research.