- "The behavior of our network of random sources is correlated with interconnected human consciousness on a global scale"
I don't believe you, Princeton. Via what mechanism could our human intention, emotion, focus, etc. influence a random number generator, whether on an individual level or collectively?
The last time I looked at their "supporting data", it seemed like a classic case of cherry-picked data that was cooked to order. So now, Hubski, I invite you to offer up your thoughts on the matter.
empty's post here reminded me of the noosphere concept, without any explicit mention of it by name. But why limit subscribing a collective consciousness to the United States alone? The article was a great read; the hypothetical alien lifeform scenarios had me smiling inside of a car dealership, which did wonders in warding away the salesmen.
bjopp, tagged for making the Gaia hypothesis analogy.
theadvancedapes, I know you're prolly hella busy, but drop me a line or two when/if you find the time.
Man, I need to learn to Google. Princeton should decline further hosting of this "project". Feeling kind of vindicated, but also like I made a worthless post. Thanks? Hahahh :)
Actually, I'm a little surprised that we haven't seen the idea popularized and (of course) mercilessly ruined by Hollywood. Soon! There was a time when I thought it could be true, and I sure did wish it was. But then I changed.
Not regarding the questions that this theory incurs, I find it crazy that a domain as prestigious as princeton.edu would post something regarding the noosphere concept. Maybe a testament to its validity? i don't know. This article leaves me with one good question ought asking you (anyone who is viewing the thread). When does the psuedo philosophy of hippies/acid heads/alan watts-esque people stop becoming pseudo bullshit, and start having real validity and significance today? I personally have always subscribed to this type of stuff mainly because I'm very into pantheistic theories, but where should we draw the line?
That was a major reason I submitted the link. Far-fetched speculation on consciousness is a dime a dozen here on the Internet, but for Princeton to host this piece lends it undeniable credence, where I believe none is due. When anything makes testable predictions, and those predictions hold up. The Global Consciousness would have you believe that it HAS made predictions that have held up under extensive testing. I thoroughly dispute that assertion. You might have noticed the link at the bottom of the link's homepage to The Institute of Noetic Sciences. I interpret most of their endeavors as pseudoscience, with the exception of meditation and yoga, which have accepted physical mechanisms of action. If we're getting personal, I draw the line at objectivity, or perhaps better said; the knowable. There may be some things that aren't knowable; the possibility of a creator, an afterlife, whether or not the universe is infinite, etc., and I've taken an agnostic stance on most of them. Again, personally, I do not believe a coherent global consciousness exists, at least not like Princeton details here, as a biological entity. I do find it terribly fascinating to imagine what may lie in store for us as a species, but our technological evolution is obviously outpacing our biological evolution, and any sort of coherent consciousness involving 2+ people will stem from external/"unnatural"/inorganic tech. And I think that'll be a while. Oh, and you know how you'd never heard of any of this before clicking the link? Maybe there's a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with any shortcoming of yours....I find it crazy that a domain as prestigious as princeton.edu would post something regarding the noosphere concept.
When does the psuedo philosophy of hippies/acid heads/alan watts-esque people stop becoming pseudo bullshit, and start having real validity and significance today?
I personally have always subscribed to this type of stuff mainly because I'm very into pantheistic theories, but where should we draw the line?
and they issued this warning in one of their articles detailing the charleston murder meaning they even acknowledge the fallibility of the experiments.Oh, and you know how you'd never heard of any of this before clicking the link? Maybe there's a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with any shortcoming of yours.
lol waay to creep me out.It is important to keep in mind that we have only a tiny statistical effect, so that it is always hard to distinguish signal from noise. This means that every success might be largely driven by chance, and every null might include a real signal overwhelmed by noise. In the long run, a real effect can be identified only by patiently accumulating replications of similar analyses.