It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Something is Happening :: Global Consciousness Project

page: 12
105
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
So what does the Mood meter tell us today?
Jus wunderin if it was translated yet




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
wow. some heavy fluctuations (wed am in europe)
it seems the 'something is happening' spirit hasn't changed since this thread was first posted... if anything it's intensified. crazy single red patch.
it seems to my untrained eye that 'global consciousness' is swaying between extremes of heart and mind focus. the reasons for that can only be speculated upon.
any ideas?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
The graph was moderately weird yesterday, and it's on its way to being significantly weird to my untrained eye today, long stretches in blue then long stretches in red. Maybe something's up?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Found this thread yesterday. Its very interesting, will be looking into this more.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
So has anyone come to any conclusions about what could be causing this? Over the weekend there were long stretches of blue, which indicates group focus. I believe that could have been a result of the worldwide meditaion that took place. What about recently, with these fluctuations deep into red and then blue? Is this "normal for the GCP dot?
I hate to put a negative spin to it as we all seemed pretty optimistic over the weekend but....we all know the GOM situation isn't looking good. We are all waiting for the best, yet preparing for the worst. Is this having an effevt on our global conscience? What do you guys think?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


i'm interested in global consciousness, too ... somewhat ... which is why i don't necessarily want to jump on the bandwagon of some folks who may or may not have sound data and who may or may not have any idea what they're doing.

because i want to believe in something is, for me, the very reason why i should not accept whatever is thrown my way in regard to the subject; it's all the more reason to have a critical mind. but to notice an anomaly in something ... of all the things and systems in the world ... and to associate it with global consciousness is super-duper freeform, in my opinion and difficult to reconcile with science ... and therefore i'm doing a disservice to myself if i don't question it.

like if i bake a cake every day and notice that the cakes start burning on one side every day, every time, i'm not thinking that's related to global consciousness. it may or may not be related to the oven's thermostat or several other factors. it could be global consciousness. but i'm just saying it ain't likely the best place to look initially.

perhaps that's the case with these "eggs," which, to boot, are kinda weird and suspicious as an input device into measuring global consciousness anyway. we don't know, factually that there is such a thing as global consciousness, yet we profess to have developed machinery for measuring it's ebb and tide? i dunno ... i think people are giving these guys a free ride.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 

More comprehensive News services, better communications and larger TV screens...
...of course human consciousness will become 'more global'.




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Let's wish all it to be blue. If it stays there, I'll believe that the meters actually can detect change or that concentrated consciousnesss can change things



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by HalfBlind
 


Need a new thread for that. This one has died out a bit. Start one with a catchy title, and hype it up a little bit. Reference this thread, the gcp site, and perhaps give some info on the experiments done back in the 80's.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Hadrian
 


I dont think what I am doing is jumping on a bandwagon. Nor am I on the attack either.

For me, aggressive discounting of something is the opposite side of the same coin "bandwagon" is on. Which is what the author of the Skeptoid article degraded to, after making some reasonable criticisms. Being critical differs qualitatively from discounting, or mocking.

I dont care what you do or do not believe, or support, etc. I think I made it clear that I believe to each their own in terms of pursuing their intellectual or other interests. Follow you own muse. You however, seem not to agree that people should be allowed to follow their own interests, as you repeatedly bring up, "why are they assuming global consciousness?" Why not? Its something that interests them. Its the way they want to study it.

As for their "free ride," if people are willing to donate to their cause, why do you care? Just dont donate to it. If your argument is "my tax dollars" take it up with your politicians. My tax dollars are supporting a lot of stuff I dont agree are worthy, like murdering civilians around the world for resources. I take it up with my politicians. Not the soldiers, or the people who work in the factories that make the planes, bombs, etc. They cant do what they do without politicians funneling my tax dollars in that direction.

Some of your points are well taken. I do think that the methodology could use some refinement. I just disagree that they are malevolent or fraudulent. I attribute the possible problems to the fact that they are trying something very new. And I feel that they will likely refine it as they go. They seem very forthcoming about sharing their data and methodology, which frauds rarely do. Even the skeptics acknowledge that.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
just curious for those who have been watching for years...i just started watching...
does the chart look a bit more normal now?



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Hadrian
 
I dont care what you do or do not believe, or support


i disagree "aggressive discounting" is the same as "wildly believing anything you're told." skepticism emerges from the default position … that is nothing. once a claim is made, just like with UFOs, religion, et al, evidence merits an adoption of belief. otherwise, one would not be able to function because one would believe anything that hasn't been disproven (that oxygen is actually poisonous and that's why we age, for example). the default position is that oxygen isn't poisonous because we have no reason to believe it is so, we breathe it every day and it seems good. but there is some evidence suggesting oxygenation is what ages cells. some day we may determine it is in fact poisonous. until then, it doesn't seem wise to fear it.

i wish you cared about what i do and what i believe. i don't see why you wouldn't. i'm a nice enough guy and you kinda hurt my feelings.

i can get into the whole "following your muse" thing. but that doesn't mean i can't wish to share my thought and opinions just as you do. why would you post so much if not to want to persuade, convince, entertain, educate other people? i do the same, just maybe from an opposing view on this particular subject.

i don't object to anyone believing whatever they want. but if i disagree and think they are wrong sometimes i wish to offer information to suggest to them other possibilities. perhaps it's arrogant to want to change other people's minds, but gosh, i think it's pretty much human nature and the de facto essence of this web site. just as i have engaged you, you have engaged me and though you've told me you don't care what i do and believe, you seem somewhat interested enough.

"why not global consciousness?" well, that's fine. but it really lessens any solidity the claim could have. because picking the item of correlation/causation, rather than discovering the item is faulty science. if it's global consciousness for the heck of it, then it's bs because it could be anything and none of the other possibilities have been ruled out.

i don't mind if anyone donates to this cause. i find it interesting and hope it does continue to get funding. could be wrong, but i don't think my tax dollars, nor anyone else's fund this project. but i, personally, wouldn't really object … though i imagine quite a few people would.

i don't think these guys are malevolent or fraudulent. i have no reason to think so. just have various questions about the premise and the methodology. that's all. i acknowledged their openness way back in post #1.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I don't want anyone to get the idea that I am promoting GCP or driving the bandwagon of the same. I have made my living for a significantly long time doing sophisticated data analytics and find the project interesting. No one, including the people running the program at Princeton, know what is really behind it. It was christened 'Global Consciousness' back in the '80s as a theory of the phenomenon.

It seems necessary to repeat the same information periodically. The REG's --- the devices creating the data stream --- are NOT snesors or detectors of any kind. Quite the opposite. They are electronic circuits specifically designed to produce random output without any outside influence whatsoever. They are ordinarily used to test digital devices.

That being the case, there should never be any statistically significant deviation of their output. But there is. More unlikely is to network a large number of these devices together (as is the case with the GCP) and detect any statistically significant variation across the network (any individual REG variations should be cancelled-out by the network as a whole). But it happens frequently.

Why? What causes this? People who do not understand the mechanics of the program or the statistics behind its ongoing assessment can be quick to dismiss it as inconsequential. But there is nothing physically connecting these REGs. They are dispersed climactically and geographically. Yet they demonstrate network variances that defy the null hypothesis.

The phenomenon is real, it's observable, it's statistically significant and it's unexplainable. What it is not is dismissable.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hadrian


i disagree "aggressive discounting" is the same as "wildly believing anything you're told." skepticism emerges from the default position … that is nothing.


Its the difference between the atheist, "I believe there is for certain no God." and the creationist "I believe there IS for certain a God," and the agnostic "I have no evidence for or against a God, therefore, I withhold belief."

Atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin, belief in God.


Originally posted by Hadrian
i wish you cared about what i do and what i believe. i don't see why you wouldn't. i'm a nice enough guy and you kinda hurt my feelings.


Lol, you are a nice enough guy. When I say I dont care, I mean I am not trying to convince you to believe other than you do. I dont care what anyone believes. Its not my business to care what other people believe. If they are making an argument for that belief, I might make an argument in return, but ultimately, I dont care what people believe. Or do. I cant. I have no control over it. If you want to believe that they are wrong somehow for choosing to study what they do, and that their choice was designed for motives other than to pursue their interests, then you will. You will seek out opinions that support you belief, and you will discount opinions that challenge it. Thats what people do.


Originally posted by Hadrianwhy would you post so much if not to want to persuade, convince, entertain, educate other people? i do the same, just maybe from an opposing view on this particular subject.


I do post to educate. Both myself and others. One of the best ways to educate oneself is to engage in debate with another logical thinker. I dont always post based on the assumption I am giving my god like wisdom to others. Only by exposing my own thought process to others, do I open myself up to real challenges that may expose flaws in my logic and assumptions. Ultimately, I am selfish, as all are. I just include in my self interest real challenge to my thinking, and many dont. I want to be the best thinker I can be, for its own sake. I dont care to be the most popular thinker, for the sake of popularity.



Originally posted by Hadrian
because picking the item of correlation/causation, rather than discovering the item is faulty science. if it's global consciousness for the heck of it, then it's bs because it could be anything and none of the other possibilities have been ruled out.


Maybe we just have a different opinion or education about how science progresses. My understanding is not that people stumble upon things on accident, "Oops! I just tripped over some global consciousness, lets name it and proclaim it to the world!"

But rather that they formulate hypothesis, "Something is making x happen. I wonder if it could be y. Lets test in various ways to see if we can rule out y, or if the link still stands."

The scientist or thinker chooses what Y is. And many study that Y-X correlation forever. Many generations may study the Y-X correlation before someone else comes along, with better technology, or just a fresh perspective, and says, hmmm. I wonder if Y isnt causing X directly. Perhaps Z causes X, and Y just exacerbates the effects of Z.

A modern example is H. Pylori, (Z) stress, (Y) and ulcers,(X). It seems to me that happens all the time. People dont just fall into their results, they choose and then study, experiment, etc. We remember the winners, but the history of science is absolutely LITTERED with faulty assumptions, that many arent forced to study. This remembering of the winners and forgetting of the losers can leave some with a false impression of how science works.

Im just defending,

a) their seeming sincerity

b) their right to choose freely what hypothesis they pursue

Our only conflict seems to lie in the fact that you seem to feel there may be some ulterior motive in their choice of hypothesis. I argue there is ulterior motive in everyones hypothesis. (If you have no personal interest, you generally dont devote your research to a thing.)

I dont disagree that it would be nice for there to be other methods used to test their data. I just disagree it is their responsibility to exhaust every option themselves. Other scientists can choose to do so, or not. Thats how science works. If one scientist doesnt like the data and methodology, and it matters enough to him/her, they can test the data by another method or come up with a whole new way of collecting data.

Its not the GCP guys responsibility to do their critics work for them, in other words.





[edit on 24-7-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


fair enough. i think we can all agree i pretty much won that little peeing contest.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Check out the activity after the wikileaks documents were released Sunday.

noosphere.princeton.edu...

At about 13:00 UT the thing went off the charts, peaking at about 18:00 UT...I wonder if this aligns with the wikileaks documents release.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ExPostFacto]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Check out the activity after the wikileaks documents were released Sunday.

noosphere.princeton.edu...

At about 13:00 UT the thing went off the charts.
Those are just all the ATS members on at one time..
come on






posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
What happened to our conscious updater's
,...... they must be unconscious



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Just checking in on the subject. Looks like we've been gravitating towards the thinking/focusing end of things because there has been a lot of blue today. A few days ago it was leaning more towards red, but not by a great amount. Are we all thinking freedom and focusing on world peace and abundance?


edit to fix naughty code

[edit on 28-7-2010 by GnosisPhoenix]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
The dot is back up again after being down for the last week. Does anyone have any information as to what was changed while it was down? Or on why it was taken down in the first place?

Some serious time spent in the blue in the last 24 hours, before a 6-8 hour period where it hovered around the middle in green before 2 short peaks in the far red of the graph.

It will be interesting to see how much, if at all different the graph changes in appearance after whatever changes where applied, if indeed any where applied at all. It seems much cleaner than it did before, not as much noise in the signal.
GCP dot chart



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join