Scientists from Princeton’s PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) group have been investigating the mind’s influence on random-event generators (REG). Having discovered that individual minds could influence the REG, they decided to see if collective minds could have an effect as as well.
Not only does the collective mind have an effect, it seems to have the strongest effect before major world events, in effect, seeing into the future by tapping into our collective intuition.
The full article is “Can This Black Box See Into the Future?”.
Scientists from Princeton’s PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) group have been investigating the mind’s influence on random-event generators (REG). Having discovered that individual minds could influence the REG, they decided to see if collective minds could have an effect as as well.
Not only does the collective mind have an effect, it seems to have [...]
Comments
@ 10:12
Arrgh@! No, this box cannot see the future. This damn story’s popping up all over & I’m getting sick of it. I understand why it’s spreading, it’s a compelling narrative. Problem is, it’s just not true. Here’s the other side of the story.
Tim
ps - TypeKey seems to be broke for the site.
@ 14:23
Have you actually gone and looked at the GCP egg data, Keller? Make your own hypothesis before you do, then go and simply look at the data. The best/worst you can say is that something anomalous is happening that deserves more evaluation and discussion and further research. You can’t say with absolute certainty that measurable precognition is excluded.
And yes, I’ve looked at the data. There is something worth continued research going on.
What intrigues me more is the “what if” — what if a substantial anomaly happens any time soon? What should GCP do with that information? And what if there is a potentially corresponding event of great magnitude? What then?
@ 19:49
I saw this on slashdot and it seemed so piss poor even then. Its all just looking back and correlating the spike and dips with happenings around the world. There is no prediction. There is always something happening that they can correlate an movement to if they want to. Can you say confirmation bias?
@ 21:53
First of all the scholars are from Princeton and second if you read the article they already accounted for all those rebuttals.
I love the provocative stuff
@ 20:04
Graham, do it backwards — look at the data after selecting an event, see if the data recorded something out of the norm.
The data isn’t being gathered AFTER the fact; it’s merely compiled chronologically, marked as above or below a norm of expected deviation. The researches didn’t “see” 9/11 in the data until well after the event had happened, and the data clearly showed something significant was recorded during the event. The fact that significantly off-norm data was captured hours before the events of that date is of great interest; there was no way for the researchers to know about the event in order to influence the outcome.
Go on. Pick a big event that’s already come and gone, make a prediction about the outcome — then go check the already compiled data. There’s no way to influence data that’s already gathered and recorded and the event has come and gone.
@ 07:20
Thats my point. Thats exactly what they are doing and thats why it is not intresting at all. Thier is always something going on in the world that they could attribute a dip or a spike to.
I dont think i suggested they collected data after the fact. I think i suggested that they added meaning to random numbers after the fact.
@ 10:42
One of the hallmarks of real science is predictive value. Another is the double-blind experiment. I see neither in play here. It leads me to seriously doubt the scientific value of this experiment.
Tim