Global Consciousness Project

1
Global Consciousness Project
RESEARCH-QUESTION Does the coherent
attention/emotion of many people influence the
material world
An international web-based experiment coordinated
by Dr. Roger Nelson at Princeton University
2
Historical background Mind over Matter research
3
Traditional Mind Over Matter research

• People claimed to be able to influence matter by
  mind
• Ask a subject to influence a random process
• E.g. the fall of a coin (e.g. with target
  heads)
• Later Radioactive process and electronic
  equivalents (RNGs)
• Outcome measure the proportion of event in to
  the target direction.

4
Material world RNG
hardware random number generator (RNG)
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 ...
Example of random noise (200 samples)
This can be represented by a distribution
RNG distribution might be affected
5
Mind over Matter over-all results
6
In the field without intentionthe Druten
Poltergeist case
Event plot
Planned analysis Around an event the RNG becomes
coherent and produces more alternating sequences
(plt0.05)
7
Incidental Observation24 mei 1995 Ajax-AC Milan
RNG shows long series of 1 or 0 during the
soccer match (p lt0.05).
8
More RNGs, more emotion, more people at
different locations OJ Simpson Verdict
Show starts
Judge enters
verdict
More ordered
More random
This graph gives the odds of the behavior of 5
RNGs in Princeton, Las Vegas and Amsterdam
during the verdict
9
Currently 65 RNGs sending data to Princeton in
real time
10
Web predictions and Results Page
11
11 september WTC
How did the network of RNGs behave around the
attack? (see also article in Foundations of
Physics)
12
Sep11Results of all RNGs
Note that the deviant behavior already start on
sep-10!
13
Results GCP
Total number of events 276 Odds of over-all
results 1 in 20 million
14
GCP in media
15
What does all this mean and imply?

• Data Moments with global coherent attention
  correlate with coherent behavior of material
  RNGs
• Possible implication Non-local correlation
  between collective mind and matter (but possibly
  experimentator effect? Local or global?)
• The mechanism is unknown. But possibly more like
  an axiomatic principle than specifiable in
  underlying processes.

16
Thank you
Web site noosphere.princeton.edu Mail
d.j.bierman_at_uva.nl
17
Goal (1-0!) analysis
No effect on the RNG behavior
18
Collective Consciousness
like this.
Mental Coherence ...
does this affect this distribution...
HOW IT ALL STARTED
19
The prediction for the project
Mental Incoherence
Mental coherence
Results in moments of material incoherence
(randomness)
Result in moments of material coherence (order)
20
Data acquisition method
24 hours a dag, each second 200 bits. Many
(currently gt50) RNGs distributed over the globe
send at 10 seconds interval to Princeton server.
At preferable pre-specified moments where many
people attend to the same event we expect
cumulative deviations from the normal behavior of
Random Number Generators
http//noosphere.princeton.edu
21
Web Site noosphere.princeton.edu
home page
One can observe the bahavior of the RNGs in
real time
or display a movie covering the last day
(discontinued feature)..
22
Web experiment example earthquake in Turkije
Seismograph, August 17,1999
Odds of behavior of 20 RNGs, August 17,1999
earthquake
earthquake
23
Graphical representation of cumulative results
(till feb 2004)
p .000000025
Cumulative deviation
p .05 threshold
Chance expectation
Currently 165 formal events, p lt 0.000000025
24
What is an important event?

• Subjective ( Western centered!) but ..
• Correlations with objective news measures
• R 0.15 over het jaar 2000. (P lt0.01)
• Mysteries remain millenium (1999-2000) was less
  than 2001-2002. And Lady Di funeral was more
  than sister Theresas..
• Is sep-11 an important event?

25
Sep11 Device Variance
Note the start at 6 oclock in the morning
26
Sep11 between RNG Correlations
27
Quote from FoP artikelFoundations of Physics
Letters, Vol. 15, No. 6, December 2002, pp.
537-550
.The trace displays an unexceptional random walk
for several days preceding September 11 but then
changes dramatically. The trend beginning just
before the World Trade Center (WTC) attack is
unique in the three-year database. A deviation
with this slope continuing for so long would
happen by chance only once in about 2300 days,
28
NOVA may 2003
29
Criticism (e.g. tHooft)

• It is impossible theoretically
• Why correlations with human intention and not
  with massive cosmic phenomena.
• The statistics are too complex
• The events are not specified in advance

30
Can we resolve the issues?
31
Proposed Solutions

• Impossible
• Why not cosmic
• Complex statistics
• Post hoc event specificiation

• Data -gt theory not the reverse
• Maybe there is
• Possible to simplify
• Possible to circumvent and not always

32
Other method of data analysis

• Database is controlled by skeptics and can only
  be consulted after event specification
• After event specification the relevant data are
  extracted by the skeptics plus 5 control periods
  which are as long as the event. The dates-times
  are removed.
• These 6 sets of data are then be sent to the
  analyzer who has to pick out the real event.

33
A prespecified event New Year

• There are many new years in different timezones.
  We use them all.
• We analyze from -30 to 30 minutes around each
  new year. Thus avoiding overlap.

34
New Years analysis
New Years 1999-2004, Average Variance
Minutes from midnight
35
Concluding note New Years
We should recall that these new year analyses,
especially the combination of the variance
measure results, are in some degree post facto.
Only the last four years of the variance analysis
were fully prespecified, and if we compute the
aggregate result from those four years the
probability is 0.022 (compared with 0.007 for the
six years).
36
Current work

• Distance as variable
• Type of event as variable

37
Distance
38
Categories
Effectsizes for assigned subsets of Event Database