Lecture on the Global Consciousness Project




This is an excellent introduction to the Global Consciousness Project by physicist Peter Bancel. It's part of a 5-part series of videos.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xBlccuiCkg

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skl5TsHnDQU

Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGMshLxg4VA

Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS9NCBDKqeQ
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Anonymous said…
These films remind me of my perennial question with "intention/attention" experiments. Namely: I would like to have a unit of measurement for psi talent, call it a "thaum."

The research has shown that the average run-of-the-mill person off the street can produce very small, but detectable, effects. Let's say the average person has one "thaum" of psi-talent. GCP shows that the cumulative total of very small effects is a bigger effect. I would like to measure GCP effects in thaums.

The "intentional chocolate" experiments show that experienced meditators can produce big effects.
It would be great to have a reading on the individual talents -- perhaps the shaman drumming over the chocolate had a personal force of fourteen thaums, but another meditator was exerting twenty thaums.

However - I myself am not a profound meditator. I do not have a training program that can mass-produce effective meditators. I would *like* to have some very effective training system so that I could run volunteers through a "boot camp" and make them into effective psi demonstrators. (The ping pong ball and white noise generators used in remote viewing seem to one method that's appropriate for secularly-minded Westerners.) Ideally, one could test subjects before boot camp at one thaum and then measure graduates at five or six thaums.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
David Bailey said…
Can we get at the other four videos - it finished just as it was getting interesting!
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Dean Radin said…
See FB's post with the other URLs above, or just expand the GCP channel info on the YouTube page and you'll find the other parts.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven

Image
Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. "The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area ...
Read more

Feeling the future meta-analysis

Before Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem published an article on precognition in the prominent  Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, it had already (and ironically given the topic) evoked a response from the status quo. The New York Times  was kind enough to  prepare us to be outraged .  It was called " craziness, pure craziness" by life-long critic Ray Hyman. Within days the news media was announcing that it was all just a big mistake .  I wrote about the ensuing brouhaha  in this blog .  But the bottom line in science, and the key factor that trumps hysterical criticism, is whether the claimed effect can be repeated by independent investigators. If it can't then perhaps the original claim was mistaken or idiosyncratic. If it can, then the critics need to rethink their position. Now we have an answer to the question about replication. An article has been submitted to the Journal of Social and Personality Psycho...
Read more

Show me the evidence

Image
Critics are fond of saying that there is no scientific evidence for psi. They wave their fist in the air and shout, "Show me the evidence!" Then they turn red and have a coughing fit. In less dramatic cases a student  might be genuinely curious and open-minded, but unsure where to begin to find reliable evidence about psi. Google knows all and sees all, but it doesn't know how to interpret or evaluate what it knows (at least not yet). In the past, my response to the "show me" challenge has been to give the titles of a few books to read, point to the bibliographies in those books, and advise the person to do their homework. I still think that this is the best approach for a beginner tackling a complex topic. But given the growing expectation that information on  virtually any topic ought to be available online within 60 seconds, traditional methods of scholarship are disappearing fast. So I've created a SHOW ME  page with downloadable articles on psi a...
Read more