Historical Background
|
GCP BackgroundLaboratory ResearchThe history of controlled laboratory research on interactions of human consciousness with physical random systems tracks the development of microelectronics and computers. The first large database experiments were conducted by Helmut Schmidt, at Boeing Laboratories, in the late '60s and early '70s. The number of experiments and investigators grew over the next decade, and in 1979, Robert Jahn, at Princeton University, established the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory to focus on an engineering approach to the question whether sensitive electronic devices including random components might be affected by special states of consciousness, including strong emotions and directed intention. I joined the PEAR group in 1980. REG ExperimentsAt the PEAR lab, the primary experiment used a custom designed Random Event Generator (REG or RNG) incorporating a well-developed commercial source of electronic white noise. This bench-top experiment provided control over parameters such as the speed and size of the samples drawn from the random sequence of bits. For example it might be set to collect a 200 bit sample at a rate of 1000 bits per second, and to register a trial each second consisting of the sum of the 200 bits. The equipment displayed the current output trial value and a running mean as feedback to the operator. The experiment used a tripolar protocol, with instructions to maintain an intention to achieve either a high or a low mean, or to let the machine generate baseline data. Over more than a decade this basic experiment yielded an enormous database, with a bottom line indicating a small but significant effect of human intention on a random data sequences. A paper describing 12 years of research (pdf) at PEAR, using several different mind-machine interaction experiments, is available. FieldREGMy job at PEAR was to coordinate the research, focusing on experimental design and analysis. Attention was given immediately to computerizing the REG experiment for security and ease of data processing, and to allow greater flexibility in experimental design. An early proposal was to record a continuously running random data stream, and to use that as a target for intention with a variety of timing and assignment schemes. Such a system was finally developed in the early 1990's, when John Bradish built the first of a series of truly portable REG devices, and York Dobyns wrote software to record and index a continuous datastream of 200-bit trials, one per second, hour after hour and day after day. The "continuous REG" was used as a direct focus for some experiments, with intentions identified in the index, but we also could mark and later analyse data collected while something else was going on in the room -- another experiment, or perhaps a small, intense meeting or group discussion. Given portable REG devices and newly available laptop computers, we were inspired to take the experiment into the field, running a modified version of the continuous software called FieldREG. The name was a double entendre, since the purpose of the experiment was to monitor something that might be regarded as a consciousness field. The FieldREG experiment did not have an intention, and indeed could be used to gather data in situations with little or no direct interest or attention from people. We looked for situations that might produce a "group consciousness" because people would be engaged in a common focus, resulting in a kind of coherence or resonance of thoughts and emotions. For contrast, we identified other, mundane situations we could predict would not bring people to a shared focus. A long series of FieldREG experiments produced striking, statistically significant results. As in the laboratory, the effects are small, but they have implications of substantial importance to studies of human consciousness, assuming the results represent what we believe they do. Prototype Global TestsOther investigators, including Dean Radin and Dick Bierman began doing similar field experiments looking at a broad array of situations, and we set up collaborations. For example, Dean asked some colleagues to collect data during the O. J. Simpson trial, which was expected to garner attention from huge numbers of people. The combined data from several REGs showed an impressive departure from expectation at the time the verdict was announced. Other tests looked at data taken during the Oscars, with segregation of the data into periods of strong and weak interest. Again the difference was significant. In December 1996 I met by chance two people who were organizing a global "Gaiamind Meditation". This meeting coincided with the developing idea of attempting to register some indication of a global consciousness, making a kind of FieldREG group consciousness experiment in the large scale. The coincidence led me to arrange a collaboration with colleages who could record REG data that might show evidence of a "consciousness field" during the Gaiamind event. The composite of data from 14 independent REG systems showed a significant effect. This work was a prelude for our attempt to register effects of the world-wide expression of compassion at Princess Diana's funeral in September of 1997, which, coincidentally, was followed exactly a week later by the memorial ceremonies for Mother Teresa. These were prototypical "global events" for the Global Consciousness Project, in that they were the focus of a great deal of attention, and at least in the case of Princess Diana, also occasions for an unusually widespread feeling of shared compassion.
Establishing the EGG ProjectIn November 1997, at a meeting of professional researchers in parapsychology and psychophysiology, the various component ideas for what ultimately became the Global Consciousnes Project coalesced into a practical form. The technology was becoming available to create an Internet-based array of continuously recording REG nodes placed around the world. This would metaphorically resemble the placement of electrodes on a human head for Electroencephalogram or EEG recordings, though of course the data would not be fluctuating voltages, but randomly varying numbers. The resemblance led Greg Nelson to suggest the network could be envisioned as an "Electrogaiagram", and we began to call it the EGG Project. We later adopted the formal name "Global Consciousness Project" but continue to use an efficient terminology based on the EGG acronym and associations. HardwareThree kinds of random sources are used in the project. They all were developed for use in research and all are high quality sources that produce random data meeting stringent criteria. The data are difficult to distinguish from theoretical expectation in calibration runs, although as real, physical devices, they cannot be perfectly random. All use a quantum level process, either thermal noise or electron tunneling for the fundamental source of random fluctuation. SoftwareThe original software architecture for the project was designed by Greg Nelson, and refined by John Walker. It was well-considered, and has served with little modification since the beginning of the project. The primary operational software consists of two parts. At each of the host sites around the world an REG (or RNG) device is attached to a computer running the "eggsh" or "egg.exe" software (for Linux and Windows, respectively). The software collects one trial consisting of 200 bits each second, and stores the sum of the bits as the raw data. The indexed sequence of trials is recorded in a daily file on the host computer. The computer is connected to the Internet, and sends a packet of data at regular intervals to a server located in Princeton, NJ, running a program called the "basket", which writes the data as it arrives from each egg into a permanent archive. The software is open source and available for inspection. Host SitesWhen one of the qualified hardware random sources is combined with the project software running on an Internet-connected computer, we call the resulting unit an "Egg", hosted by a volunteer contributor. Host computers also run a program that synchronizes their clocks to network timeservers, to keep the independent data sequences synchronized to the second. The early egg hosts were colleagues in Europe and the US. As word of the project spread, people from other parts of the world volunteered to host an egg, and we gradually built a fairly broad geographic coverage. Approximately 40 countries are represented, in most continents, and in most timezones with substantial populations. Data ArchiveAt the heart of the research project is the archival database. The raw data are stored in a binary format with header information to identify the specific source and timing for every trial. A web-based data extract form invokes scripts to decode the archive and present the specified data for inspection or analysis in a readable format. A completely normalized and standardized version of the data can be made available for well-defined research and analysis projects. WebsiteThe development and major features of the project are presented in the GCP website, which is split into two tracks. One documents the rigorous scientific work we do to ensure the quality of the data and the analyses designed to identify and assess any anomalous structure that may appear in the data. The other branch presents a complementary, aesthetic approach to the project, fostering the subjective and interpretive perspectives that we believe are also valuable in efforts to study the subtle aspects of consciousness interacting with the physical world. In addition to the descriptions, the website is presents primary analyses and summaries, as well as access to the data. Support
The project has been supported from the beginning by generous
contributions of time and expertise as
well as money to defray expenses. A long list of people are responsible
but I would like especially to note the help in various forms from Greg
Nelson, John Walker, Dean Radin, Paul Bethke, Richard Adams, Peter Bancel,
and Rick Berger. The full list is much
longer, and includes the egg hosts as
well.
We begin the description of the GCP Formal Experiment with a
short list of links to particular aspects. This material is
also found in content and links in this page, but are
presentedher for convenience.
The GCP recorded its first data on August 4, 1998.
Beginning with a few random sources, the network
grew to about 10 instruments by the beginning of 1999, and to 28 by
2000. It has continued to grow,
stabilizing at roughly 60 to 65 eggs by 2004.
The early experiment simply asked whether the network
was affected when powerful events caused large numbers of people to
pay attention to the same thing. This experiment was based on a
hypothesis registry
specifying a priori for each event a period of time
and an analysis method to examine the data for changes in statistical
measures.
Various other modes of analysis including attempts to find general
correlations of GCP statistics with other longitudinal variables
have been considered, and continue to be developed.
In the most general sense, the purpose of the project was and is
to create and document a consistent database of parallel streams of
random numbers generated by high-quality physical sources. The goal
is to determine whether any correlations might be detectable of
statistics from these data with independent long-term physical
or sociological variables. In the original experimental design we
asked the more limited question
whether there is a detectable correlation of deviations
from randomness with the occurrence of major events in the world.
The formal hypothesis of the original event-based experiment is very broad.
It posits that engaging global events will correlate with
deviations in the data. The identification of global events and the
times at which they occur are specified case by case, as are the recipes
for calculating the variance deviations. There is some latitude of choice
but this is appropriate for an experiment exploring new
territory. The approach uses "operational definitions" to
establish what is done in the experiment unambigously. The
loose criteria for identifying events results in exploration
of a variety
of categories, while the pre-specification of
each event in the formal series assures valid statistics.
The statitistcs are combined to yield a confidence level for
the composite of all formal trials.
This
constitutes a general test of the broadly defined formal
hypothesis, and provides a body of data -- a database for
futther analysis.
The formal events are fully specified in a
hypothesis registry. Over the years, several different
analysis
recipes were invoked, though most analyses specify either the
"network variance" (the squared Stouffer Z) or the "device variance" method.
Each recipe stipulates how the event statistic is
calculated, by first specifying a block statistic within the
blocked examination period and then a method for combining these to give an
event statistic. Note that the test statistic is a single
value representing the deviation from expectation for the
whole period specified in the registry. The results table
has links to details of the analyses, typically including a "cumulative
deviation" graph tracing the history of the second-by-second
deviations during the event, leading to the terminal value
which is the test statistic.
The following table shows the precise algorithms for
the basic statistics used in the analyses.
It is possible to generate various kinds of controls, including
matched analysis with a time offset in the actual database, or matched
analysis using a pseudorandom clone database. However, the most general
control analysis is achieved by comparisons with the empirical distributions of the test
statistics.
These provide a rigorous control background and confirm the
analytical results for the formal series of hypothesis tests.
Over the six years since the inception of the project, 170
replications of the basic hypothesis test have been accumulated.
The composite result is a statistically
significant departure from expectation of 4 standard deviations.
The combined result from
these analyses thus gives support for the formal hypothesis,
and this encourages a deeper look, beginning with a thorough re-analysis
of the original findings, and proceeding to extensive analysis using
other methods.
The focus of our effort turns now to a more comprehensive program of
rigorous analyses and incisive questions intended to characterize the
data more fully and to facilitate the identification of any non-random
structure.
We begin with thorough documentation of the analytical and
methodological background for the main result, to provide a solid
basis for new hypotheses and experiments. The goal is to
increase both the depth and breadth of our assessments, to develop
sound interpretations, and ultimately to elucidate the meaning
of the original findings.
A variety of analyses have been undertaken to establish the
quality of the data and characterize the output of individual devices
and the network as a whole.
The first stage is a careful search for any data that are problematic
because of equipment failure or other mishap. Such data are removed.
With all bad data removed,
each individual REG or RNG can be
characterized to provide empirical estimates for statistical parameters.
These are used to convert the database into a normalized, completely
reliable data resource to facilitate rigorous analysis.
The intent is to lay the basis for an
assessment of the multi-year database with sophisticated statistical and
mathematical techniques.
We then
can use a range of statistical tools to look for small, but reliable
changes from expected random distributions that may be correlated with
natural or human-generated variables.
A major effort was made to identify the "formal" events that could be
accepted according to rigorous criteria. This resulted in a set of
170 usable events over the first 6 years of the project.
A total of 13 events that were originally in the formal series were
excluded because they were partially redundant or overlapped others, or
were not unambiguously defined in the original narrative hypotheses.
Ideally, the trials recorded from the REGs distribute like
binomial [200, 0.5] (mean 100, variance
50). But although they all are high-quality random sources, perfect
theoretical performance is not
the case for these real-life devices. A logical XOR of the raw
bit-stream with a fixed pattern of bits with exactly 0.5 probability
compensates mean biases of the regs.
After XOR'ing, the mean is
guaranteed over the long run to fit theoretical expectation. The trial
variances remain biased, however. The biases are small (about 1 part in
10,000) and generally stable on long timescales. We treat them as real
albeit tiny biases that need to be corrected by normalization for
rigorous analysis.
They are corrected by converting the trialsums for each individual egg
to standard normal variables (z-scores), based on the emprirical standard
deviations.
The normalized and standardized data resource allows us to to a rigorous
analysis of the experiment. A recent (2008) assessment is detailed
event-based experiment New Analyses: Extensions and ExplorationsThis material has been supplanted by more up-to-date analyses published in Journal of Scientific Exploration and other peer reviewed journals. For more information, contact the Director, Roger Nelson. |
