All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
June 10, 2007 - Skeptoid
16:06
Skeptoid #49: Unconscious Research of Global Consciousness

Some say that the collective emotions of humans can influence electronic hardware. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Global Consciousness Project 00:06:53
There is a subculture who believes so strongly in the power of the human mind that they think it impacts certain mechanical devices.
Specifically, when all the world's people experience a powerful event that causes strong emotions worldwide, they believe that certain sensitive random number generators will be thrown off.
Is it true?
They call it global consciousness.
And that's coming right up on Skeptoid.
Hi, I'm Alex Goldman.
You may know me as the host of Reply All, but I'm done with that.
I'm doing something else now.
I've started a new podcast called Hyperfixed.
On every episode of HyperFixed, listeners write in with their problems and I try to solve them.
Some massive and life-altering, and some so minuscule it'll boggle your mind.
No matter the problem, no matter the size, I'm here for you.
That's HyperFixed, the new podcast from Radiotopia.
Find it wherever you listen to podcasts or at hyperfixedpod.com.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Unconscious Research of Global Consciousness.
In this episode, we're going to take a look at a project that has captured imaginations for more than a decade, the Global Consciousness Project, which posits that events that emotionally affect large numbers of people cause measurable changes in the output of random number generators.
The principal public face of the Global Consciousness Project is Dr. Dean Raden, an electrical engineer and PhD in psychology.
Supporters like to say that the project is part of Princeton University, but this is not so.
The project director, Roger Nelson, is in the mechanical and aerospace engineering department there, but that's about the whole depth of the connection.
Some of Nelson's resources, like the website, are hosted by Princeton.
The project is funded by private donations through the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, California.
It is worthy to note that I cannot in good conscience criticize Dean Raiden.
He is said to be an awesome fiddle and banjo player, and the world needs more fiddle and banjo music.
So, Dr. Raden, when you hear this podcast, know that I am at heart a supporter.
And when you put down your random number generator and pick up your banjo, I'll be in the front row.
If you want to do some good in the world, stick with what works.
Now, let's talk about this global consciousness project of yours.
As of 2007, 65 people at various locations around the world have a small hardware random number generator, which they call an egg, connected to a computer.
All day, every day, each one spits out random numbers, which are regularly transmitted through the internet to Nelson's server in Princeton, New Jersey.
When the researchers choose an important world event, they pull the data from that time and put it through a series of filters and analyses and find patterns they say are improbably less random.
Now, I'm not going to go into all the details of how they do this.
It's really boring and confusing if you're not a statistician.
But they do openly publish all their methodology on Nelson's website at noosphere.princeton.edu.
Their theory is that somehow the collective consciousness of all the emotional or psychological energy of people focused on the chosen event somehow affects the random number generators.
They do not presume to have any hypothesis for how or why this might be possible, or what the mechanism might be, or really any satisfactory answers to any questions that mainstream scientists have asked them.
They simply put forth their findings for what they're worth, and they urge you and I and everyone else to look at their results and hopefully conclude, as they have, that there's something to all of this, and that it's worthy of further research.
The problem is that people outside their lab either fail to reach the same conclusions or find their methodology so flawed that it's pointless to even review the findings.
They do publish what they call criticism on their website, but it's mainly comments and suggestions from their associates.
There's not a lot of published criticism of global consciousness out there to cite, and one reason is that their theory lacks consistent claims that are specific enough to be tested.
Here are two fundamental questions that they must answer and have not.
Number one, what type of event qualifies as significant?
They pick events themselves without any defined criteria.
When they choose an event, they fail to test if there are other simultaneous events in other parts of the world that might override any effect.
What happened in Ghana during the O.J. Simpson trial?
There are no controls over what types of event triggers an examination of the data, and no controls to eliminate prospective events due to conflicting events.
Number two, what type of effect in the data constitutes a result?
Again, no criteria.
They maintain no standards for what constitutes a correlation, whether it's a trough or a spike or some other type of anomaly, whether it should happen before, during, or after the event, how long before or after the event it should be found, or what the duration should be.
In fact, their results are all over the map.
So as they look for undefined results from undefined events, they still manage to make additional errors in their methodology.
Here are some of the most flagrant.
Number one, the analysis is not blinded in any way.
When something happens, they look at their data until they find patterns.
Proper analysis would come from isolated statisticians with no reference indicating a timeline on the data, knowledge of what to look for, or knowledge of what world event is being matched.
Number two, they do not look for alternate causes of their data anomalies.
Sunspots?
Cell phone calls?
Number three, they make claims of specific numbers for how they beat chance.
Clearly, it's impossible to have any meaningful metrics, given the lack of standards for scoring or choosing events.
Number four, they make no attempts to falsify their theory.
They should be looking for alternate causes of the anomalies they claim to find in the output from their eggs, such as sunspots or electromagnetic interference from other devices.
They should be looking for alternate or additional effects caused by human emotions, like errors in calculators or digital watches.
Bucket List Adventure at Sea 00:02:36
Why not cell phones and toasters?
If this effect is real, their eggs would not be the only things affected.
Whenever a global consciousness event happens, there should be well-known and well-established failures of, or anomalies in, electric and or computerized devices worldwide.
It's improbable that these supposed effects would seek out and affect only one specific application of common hardware components used in many other devices.
They do not look at other species besides humans, whose emotions might be responsible for the effects.
Why not dolphins or whales, or for that matter, ants?
Most of the living matter on Earth is ants, and ants certainly have collective behavior.
If collective consciousness did have a measurable effect on hardware, ants are the first place I would look.
Hey everyone, I want to remind you about a truly unique and once-in-a-lifetime adventure.
Join me and Mediterranean archaeologist Dr. Flint Dibble for a skeptoid sailing adventure through the Mediterranean Sea aboard the SV Royal Clipper, the world's largest full-rigged sailing ship.
This is also the only opportunity you'll have to hear Flint and I talk about our experiences when we both went on Joe Rogan to represent the causes of science and reality against whatever it is that you get when you're thrown into that lion pit.
We set sail from Málaga, Spain on April 18th, 2026 and finished the adventure in Nice, France on April 25th.
You'll enjoy a fascinating skeptical mini-conference at sea.
You'll visit amazing ports along the Spanish and French coasts and Flint will be our exclusive onboard expert sharing the real archaeology and history about every stop.
We've got special side quests and extra skeptical content planned at each port.
This is a true sailing ship.
You can climb the rat lines to the crow's nest, handle the sails.
You can even take the helm and steer.
This is a real bucket list adventure you don't want to miss.
But cabins are selling fast and this ship does always sell out.
Act now or you'll miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Get the full details and book your cabin at skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Hope to see you on board.
That's skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Why We Should Be Skeptical 00:06:33
One of their biggest claims to fame is the finding of a massive data anomaly, stronger than any other found, at the time of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
And Raden calculated that it was 6,000 to 1 that that spike in the data was due to chance.
Such a finding would make sense if the theory were true, although 9-11 probably didn't bother very many ants.
You'll hear this result time and time again if you listen to one of Raden's lectures or read their materials.
But you will have to go out on your own to find a dissenting opinion, which can be heard from anyone else who's actually looked at their data.
One such person is Jeffrey Scargill of the NASA Ames Research Center, who undertook an analysis on his own time.
Scargill's finding on the 9-11 data was, quote, I personally disagree with the conclusion that anomalous effects have been unequivocally established, and I judge the degree of cogency of all the results in both Raden's and Nelson's papers as low, end quote.
Scargo attributes their positive findings to the questionable application of an XOR filter to the raw data, the use of a discredited p-value test, the lack of blinding, limited choice of likely effects, and a suspicious process that he describes as data fiddling.
Dr. Edwin May and James Spottiswood also performed an independent analysis of Raden's 9-11 results.
Their conclusion states in part, We show that the choice was fortuitous in that had the analysis window been a few minutes shorter or 30 minutes longer, the formal test would not have achieved significance.
We differ markedly with regard to the posted conclusions.
Using Raden's analysis, we do not find significant evidence that the GCP network's eggs responded to the New York City attacks in real time.
Raden's computation of 6,000 to 1 odds against chance during the events are accounted for by a not unexpected local deviation that occurred approximately three hours before the attacks.
We conclude that the network random number generators produced data consistent with mean chance.
Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room.
To any reasonable person, the whole concept of global consciousness is ridiculous at face value.
This is true of many pseudosciences.
But all that should raise is a red flag.
People used to think flight was ridiculous too.
But when you find red flags everywhere, they start to add up.
Let's look back at Skeptoid episode number 37, How to Spot Pseudoscience, and see if there are any other warning signs.
Here's one.
They make their announcements through the mass media rather than through scientific journals.
When respected journals won't touch research, it's a pretty good indicator that there's something wrong.
But radio shows like Coast2Coast AM that promote pseudoscience are all over it.
Another warning is that their claim is based on some unknown form of energy or force.
Also, the claim fails the Occam's razor test.
Again, this doesn't prove anything.
It's just another red flag.
Which is more likely to be true?
That there's nothing to the idea of global consciousness, which is what the consensus of mainstream science maintains?
Or that these few people, using tremendously flawed methodology, have uncovered something so profound it would change the way we view everything and is based on some mystical force unknown to science.
Another problem is the claim comes only from one source that's dedicated to supporting that cause.
Legitimate research is always successfully replicated by independent labs.
When it's not, you have good reason to be skeptical.
Global consciousness does pass a few of these tests, but legitimate research and facts always pass all of them.
Now, Dr. Raden, I know I said I wouldn't criticize you, but I do have to take issue with one of your quotes.
You said, There is no kind way to say this, but the most stubborn skeptics do not understand scientific methods or the use of statistical inference, nor do they appreciate the history, philosophy, or sociology of science.
Their emotional rejection of the evidence seems to be motivated by fundamentalist beliefs of the scientific or religious kind.
This is the classic strawman argument against the scientific method.
You're dismissing the rejection of your questionable evidence by calling it emotional and suggesting that it's motivated by a quasi-religious fundamentalist belief in science.
Okay, whatever.
But when you declare that the people who fail to use your methods to find your same results, quote, do not understand scientific methods, you're really pushing credibility.
You're not the only person in the world who understands the scientific process.
In fact, you don't appear to understand it very well at all.
Please, do us all a favor.
Foggy Mountain Breakdown.
Go.
You're listening to Skeptoid, a listener-supported program.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello, everyone.
This is Adrian Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and moose.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double-doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection