Just recently I've become more interested in Princeton's
Global Consciousness Project.
For those who don't know of it, it's a summary of data from a worldwide distribution of random number generators. The researchers have noticed that
when an attention-grabbing event occurs, these random number generators start producing
non-random data. Here are two examples of MSM handling
of this story...
I'm sure that any resemblance of one of the newscasters to
Chad from NewsBeat (the blond
one) is entirely coincidental...
You will note that in the interests of "balance", each news segment has a viewpoint from a "skeptic". We'll come to those guys in a minute.
First, I'd like to point out a massive piece of hypocrisy from the skeptical camp. How many times have we heard the line:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"?
I've never cared much for this, myself: and I've literally, just while writing this, realised that it's a logical fallacy - the
argument from personal incredulity, which Richard Dawkins is happy to cite against
those who doubt Darwinism (like me), and yet is blind to his own tenacious grip on it when it comes to the like of ESP.
Anywayyy...
The consciousness project has been going for some time now, and considering its implications, has, in my view, been drastically underreported. Human
attention can have a physical affect on electronic systems... and events, like 9/11, that get a large-scale response with intense human emotions
involved,
are registered before the event occurs.
Radical, right? Enough to turn our world upside-down?
Strangely, the skeptics have been a bit muted on this one. I was able to find
this
rather poor attempt at debunking it:
Anyone else suspect they know what's going on here? Various scientists claim to be baffled, so maybe I can help them out. Here's what's
probably happening -- humans are being human. You see a spike in the numbers, you scan the news headlines to look for some big event. If you find
something, then you can say that the spike you saw detected it. If you don't see anything, wait a bit and check again. Then when you find something,
you can say that the spike you saw predicted it.
Note the
Here's what's probably happening.
Here's what's
actually happening: a skeptic, fired up with an unacknowledged argument from personal incredulity, attacks the GCP without
actually looking at the data. If you doubt me, go to the website and check for yourselves how thoroughly they've covered it. That's why "various
scientists claim to be baffled" - because they're
scientists and have checked the protocols. The project has gone on for 10 years and has
scored a number of notable successes. There's some great stuff about it in Lynne McTaggart's fascinating book
The Field, which I commend to
one and all.
Now let's have a quick look at the skeptics involved in the two reports I linked above...
First up there's Jerry The Skeptic. How did he get a gig debunking accredited scientists who've been working in their field for ten years? I
don't know. Here's a rather revealing
review on Amazon:
I am not an academic, I have a scientific bent, and philosophically I'm a thorough going realist...
So that's all it takes? A scientific
bent? Do you think Jerry took the time to look at the data? If he did, would he have understood it? I
don't think so.
Now, if you look at the website, you'll see that the GCP make available their raw data for anyone to download. If someone really wanted to, they
could actually do the work and come up with some serious criticisms... if they could find any. So far, no-one has.
The other skeptic trotted out by the MSM is much more interesting:
Jeff
Scargle, who bears an uncanny likeness to Jerry on the news segments (when I first saw the clips I thought they were the same guy) but whose
website picture is much prettier... click the link and check. Nice job, NASA.
Now, unlike Jerry, Jeff really
is a scientist. I can't find much of his stuff on the web, but, again, a
book review he wrote provides us with an interesting tidbit:
The theme of this book is the detection and characterization of chaos in dynamical systems, based on measurements of the system state as a
function of time.
You'd think he might be a bit more trenchant than Jerry, but look at the clip again... he's on for less than two seconds. Weird.
It's possible that his analysis was too difficult for the target audience of presumped simps, or that what he said simply wasn't damning enough. I
suspect if the story continues to gain ground, he'll be trotted out again.
And I'm hoping that the story will continue to gain ground. There is research to suggest that collective meditation can produce a calming effect:
this was pioneered by the TM people, and of course has been rubbished simply because of presumed bias in the people concerned. However, of late, more
and more people are looking to influence things this way and the notion of collective meditation as a way of averting or ameliorating unpleasant
events and of "healing the planet" is starting to take hold.
Call me paranoid if you must (oh, come on! this is ATS - A Tinfoil-hat Speaks!) but it does seem to me that there are people who don't want this meme
to take hold. Those who've looked at the work of Richard Hoagland will know what I mean - and in that context it's interesting that Jeff is from
NASA.
If people wake up to the fact that they can change the world through collective meditation - you don't have to do anything or go anywhere, you just
sit on your butt and think beautiful thoughts - the PTB have a
real problem on their hands.
And there are already people trying to organise that kind of collective action:
www.glcoherence.org...
www.healingexperiment.com...
So watch out for growing disinfo about the GCP. It's the real deal and hard to deny. Under-reporting has only slowed things down a little and I
suspect that there'll be a lot more to come.
