Global Consciousness Project Results, August 1998 to December 2012! "Highly Significant"

Hey guys, check this out!

Graph of Accumulating Deviations: The Complete Formal Database

The two following figures represent the history of our formal hypothesis testing. The first shows the Z-scores for more than 350 formally specified events in an ordinary scatterplot. While there is a noticeable positive bias, it is not easy to see its significance. Yet the odds against chance of this meanshift over a database this size are about a thousand million to one.



The second figure displays the same data as a cumulative deviation from chance expectation (shown as the horizontal black line at 0 deviation). Truly random data would produce a jagged curve with no slope, wandering up and down around the horizontal. The dotted smooth curves show the 0.05 and 0.001 and 0.000001 probability envelopes that indicate significant versus chance excursions. This figure can be compared with a "control distribution" using simulations of the event series.

The jagged red line shows the accumulating excess of the empirically normalized Z-scores relative to expectation for the complete dataset of rigorously defined events. The overall result is highly significant. The odds against chance are much greater than a million to one.



Looks very promising, eh?

There has been a disturbance in 'the Force...'



In terms of the volumes of evidence to indicate psychic functioning in people, this is a tiny drop in the bucket.

But a very interesting drop!

Something is happening in the Noosphere...

...it's not quite what many people expected, and it's not something that many people can consciously perceive. BUT IT'S REAL.

I'm not really sure what these graphs are telling me.

I've read a little about the project, yet I can't figure out how they are coming to make these graphs.

Is this like the Timewave Zero graphs? Is there a upper-end, a stop point?

OK, I'll sound like the dumbass... what, exactly, is this measuring?

Thanks!

In a nutshell, its measuring the cohesion of a global consciousness envelope. It uses devices all over the planet called eggs...there is a network of them. They are fancy random-number generators.

I do not see the point in graphing the z-score versus number of global events. Based on the first plot graph there is nothing that can be drawn from it aside from an average zscore that corresponds to all events? .. when the data cannot be portrayed clearly its not a good sign.

This 3 minute vid gives a good intro to the GCP.

And this 3-part vid is more indepth:

reply to post by MrRottenTreats


I'm confused by your response. We have a large network of independent random event generators. Their 'randomness' decreases in correlation to a set of global events. They measure the standard score of these deviations. You can go to the project's website and download the raw data if you feel like the Princeton statistics wonks may have gotten it wrong.

I had a bizarre thought tying this in somehow to the notion that we're in a computer simulation being run by a future civilization of our selves.

Thinking of codecs which separate layers of static to dynamic images.

Thinking about people changing a step here or there for the purpose of tinkering in a simulation.

Imagining that this cohesion is perhaps a major change ripple. A new variable being introduced.

Originally posted by unityemissions
I had a bizarre thought tying this in somehow to the notion that we're in a computer simulation being run by a future civilization of our selves.

Thinking of codecs which separate layers of static to dynamic images.

Thinking about people changing a step here or there for the purpose of tinkering in a simulation.

Imagining that this cohesion is perhaps a major change ripple. A new variable being introduced.

It could be thought of in those terms. I think of it in terms of a future Noosphere of very great power. A Noosphere from a future point that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin called the Omega Point.

4. Jung, Fuller, Sheldrake, Russell, Biosphere 2, et al. Following Reiser’s synthesizing work some such notion of the noosphere or psi fields was taken up by various thinkers though none approaching the whole system completeness of Vernadsky, de Chardin or Reiser. The work of Carl Jung on synchronicity and archetypal theory is a natural adjunct to a theory of the noosphere which would assume a common “collective unconscious” - the noosphere being the common collective conscious field of the Earth. The idea of synchronicity further assumes a method of telepathy or a parapsychological medium of communication within the common field of the collective unconscious. The vindication of Jung’s theories (and of Reiser as well) came with the 1973 discovery by Martin Shoenberger (The I Ching and the Genetic Code, The Hidden Key to Life, 1973) of the exact identity of the binary code of the I Ching and DNA, a discovery which had to raise the issue of a synchronistic medium of communication within some great planetary field of thought - the World Sensorium.

Source: www.lawoftime.org...

I can tell that ATS is just ...shocked... into a numb silence because of this earth-shattering development! (as it should be) so I'll just keep the information coming. No need to all thank me at once.

COHERENT CONSCIOUSNESS: PROBING THE EDGES OF WHAT WE KNOW

In 2012 we have half a dozen paradigms presenting strong evidence for psi operating in the world. They all show departures from expectation on the order of 6 sigma—a typical standard for “real” phenomena. Ironically, while this should draw serious attention and curious participation in parapsychology, the field remains the domain of a few hardy souls unafraid of going it alone. But creativity, which is needed to face the challenge of integrating those 6-sigma findings into predictive models, thrives best when we work together. We will make progress when there are teams prodding these experiments, attempting to wrestle instructive parameters from the mysteries that shroud the data. Working together, we see more aspects of any problem, and thus also the likely solutions. This will be the challenge and opportunity of the next quarter century.

I'll speak of one of these paradigms in which I have been most involved, an experimental program that touches on the power of group consciousness to change the world. The first version was called “FieldREG.” It took RNG-based mind-machine interaction experiments out of the laboratory and into the field. The lab studies had focused on intention, but in the field we looked for an effect of group consciousness, defined as a shared state of mind driven by special situations or events. For example, a captivating stage performance, or participation in a powerful ritual tends to produce a common emotional response across the group. People report feeling “together” when they give up (unconsciously) some of their individuality in order to create a group consciousness. The experimental proposition is that this shared state of consciousness may have effects similar to intention in the lab studies. Just as intention somehow yields changes in the behavior of RNG devices, coherent group consciousness produces data deviations even without an intention. Indeed, there is no recognition of the group consciousness while it is operational, for it depends on deeper layers of mind than we normally perceive. The implication is that we are subtly interconnected but unaware of this, even though it has consequences that are very important for understanding our nature.

(con't)

(con't)

These group consciousness experiments opened a broader range of considerations. What if the group were widely distributed and very large, perhaps millions of people all sharing a focus? What if instead of using one RNG, we were to collect data from many of them, and what if they too were distributed, perhaps separated by global distances? Questions like these were at some intuitive level pushing me toward what became the Global Consciousness Project (GCP). There were other sources as well, some deep in my personal history and philosophy. In particular, when I encountered the priest and paleontologist, Teilhard de Chardin, I was deeply affected. Teilhard wrote about the phenomenon of man with such poetic grace that his ideas captured my attention and stayed with me through decades of change and development. His central notion was that while we tend to think of humanity as the pinnacle of evolution, there is another stage that will come. Through what Teilhard called “complexification” and “planetization” we humans would gradually be forced together in ever denser conditions that inevitably, he thought, must yield an organic integration. In short, we humans would become a functioning “noosphere,” a layer of intelligence for the earth. We would take on the role of neurons in a global brain. Though uniquely expressed, this is not a new concept; the wise ones of all cultures have long said “We are one.”

But Teilhard's idea was evolutionary and physical, and not simply a philosophical description. It was a proposition that could be treated scientifically. I decided to ask whether there might be any evidence of a noosphere, a global version of the group consciousness we had already seen with the tools developed to study mind-machine interactions. Together with colleagues and volunteers, I created the GCP to look for such evidence. We built an instrument with RNGs placed around the world, sending continuous streams of random data for archiving in Princeton. We created a formal protocol for defining special moments that we expected would bring large numbers of people to a shared state of consciousness and emotion. We predicted changes in the random data during great tragedies and grand celebrations and began building a large database. The general hypothesis is that we would find structure in our otherwise random data, correlated with events of great importance to humans.

The GCP is 14 years old in 2012 and has compiled more than 400 independent replications rigorously testing the general hypothesis. The composite database shows a deviation from expectation greater than 6 sigma, with odds against chance of 100 billion to one, and the simplest interpretation is that we humans become a faint suggestion of Teilhard's noosphere, brought together in response to emergencies and ritual celebrations. What is more important in considering the next quarter century of parapsychology, there are aspects of the data that can go directly into parametric models, producing insights into what eventual explanations must be like. Hint—field-like models handle the data best. We can generate prescriptions for new research on consciousness at the edges of what we know.

Is there really an interconnection that links us even though we are unaware of it—except when we fall in love, or when we “know” that our long-lost friend will be on the phone when we answer its ring? The poets and sages have told us so for all our history, but mainstream science says no, that's impossible. Now it seems that good science is opening the question again. The next decades will exploit an opportunity presented by these strong, 6-sigma databases. They hold information and implications that beg to be understood, and they will be joined by new, equally potent paradigms. We need more bright minds to look at these data, and to work on the theoretical demands they make on our present picture of the world.

This is interesting and worth a look. There is a lot of data and it is a bit of an odd study.
I glanced over the website to try to get the gist of what this is.

From what I could gather it looks like they have these random number generators placed around the world. As a baseline, they use the expected randomness from thes devices. The graph is suppose to show that the randomness is not so random when a global "event" occurs. It is concluded to mean that there is a thing called "Global Consciousness" that effects things at a quantum level.

The data was crunched by folks at Princeton but this not a Princeton study. Is that correct?

I think I got it. I want to understand this first before I comment.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Then you might want to watch the vids I posted in this thread.

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Then you might want to watch the vids I posted in this thread.

I will as time permits but did I get the gist of it? Thats my question for now.

First, thank you very much for posting this. It is the first time I've ever heard of this project, and it's very exciting stuff. Second, I'm not a statistician - although I did have about 12 hours of stats class in college and had to use statistics in my work (before quitting and becoming a mom and my brain turned to baby-mush). So I love data, I understand most basic statistics, but I am FAR from an expert.

Of course, none of that stops me from having an opinion. I read the pages on the Princeton website regarding this project and looked at the summary of data they had. While it is certainly intriguing, there were a couple of issues that are just nagging me. These may not be real issues, but just my own lack of understanding in how - exactly - they obtained this data.

First, how did they select which data points to use? Did they make a list of significant events and then go grab 10 -15 minutes worth of data around the time of the event? Or did they comb the data for anomalies and then match it up to a world event? Obviously the former versus the latter is a significant difference in how "real" this data is.

Second, how often to random number generators produce anomalies? (Meaning, anything outside the expected?) They mentioned on their website that they "cleaned up" some data, through out some outliers and this really worried me. Fluctuations in a random number generator are inevitable, right? The cynic in me thought "if they could have corresponded those anomalies with a world event, you can bet they would have kept them!" Cleaning up data of this nature seems questionable. How can the z-scores still be viable with cleaned data?

Anyway, those were my main concerns when looking at this. Sorry if I didn't make much sense - like I said, I'm not at statistician so I may not be grasping any of this correctly. I wouldn't be too shocked to learn there is something to the concept of global consciousness, and I'm thrilled that people are seriously exploring it. If proven, it would prove my bottle of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap is right - we are one!

Thanks for the update!

A book I read a few years ago explains and offers hope for the spiritual evolution of humankind, creeping towards Chardin's Omega Point ....

The Death of the Mythic God by Jim Marion

from the above interview

WIE: Could you describe what you feel a culture based on the higher levels of development would look like?

MARION: I think you can see it in individual people, but in the culture as a whole, we're so far away from that, I just wouldn't have any idea how it would look. I think basically people at the highest levels of development see no separation between themselves and God. You know, as Jesus said, “The Father and I are one.” They see no separation between heaven and earth. Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven is in front of our face and lying all about us. They see no separation between themselves and other people. “Whatever you do to one of these, you do it unto me.” So you actually do treat people as Christ, not as if they were like Christ or pretending they were Christ; you actually see people as divine and you treat them accordingly. Of course, that would be a whole different world if we ever got people to that level.

But you're also talking about people who haven't maybe made it all the way but who are very spiritual and relatively integrated, dynamic people. Maybe the best examples would be people like Martin Luther King, Jr., or Clara Barton or Booker T. Washington or Abraham Lincoln-people who are profoundly spiritual and who bring their spirituality into politics or medicine or science and have a tremendous effect on the world. They may not technically be enlightened, but they are so evolved spiritually and have developed themselves so much-emotionally, psychologically, spiritually-that they make tremendous contributions to this world. Now imagine if everybody in the world were operating at the level of a Martin Luther King or a Clara Barton or a Booker T. Washington or an Abraham Lincoln. This world would be nothing like it is now. There would be no comparison.

reply to post by VegHead


This excellent vid will do your questions justice. I watched it earlier today. Very informative.

www.rhine.org...

i always find it suspicious that something like this shows many positive 'on-target' hits with past data, yet there is not one single event mentioned for the future. Example, what level of crap is going to hit the world after Jan 21 2013 Inauguration Day.

Everyone already knows the world has dropped off the cliff.

These guys cannot be bothered to tell us the date that the world will hit hard rock.

reply to post by BlueMule


Excellent video! I haven't got to the part of the video yet where it would address my statistics questions, but I'm going to have to watch it in bits as time permits. So far I've really enjoyed his talk on this history of the program and what all led up to the GCP.

I'm also looking forward to exploring the entire Rhine website.

Thank you again for posting this and bringing this fascinating study to everyone's attention. I can't believe I hadn't heard of it before. To say the implications are exciting and amazing is an understatement.