PDA

View Full Version : OT, the planet has a collective Consciousness


Will Brink
November 22nd 04, 02:55 PM
"The mind's extended reach remains to be fully defined in scientific
terms, but research on human consciousness suggests that we may have
direct communication links with each other, and that our intentions can
have effects in the world despite physical barriers and separations. We
are compelled by good evidence to accept correlations that we cannot yet
explain. It appears that consciousness may sometimes produce something
that resembles, at least metaphorically, a nonlocal field of meaningful
information."


http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Helgi Briem
November 22nd 04, 03:32 PM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:55:11 -0500, Will Brink
> wrote:

>"The mind's extended reach remains to be fully defined in scientific
>terms, but research on human consciousness suggests that we may have
>direct communication links with each other, and that our intentions can
>have effects in the world despite physical barriers and separations. We
>are compelled by good evidence to accept correlations that we cannot yet
>explain. It appears that consciousness may sometimes produce something
>that resembles, at least metaphorically, a nonlocal field of meaningful
>information."
>
>http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Have you been at the waccy baccy again, Will?

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Will Brink
November 22nd 04, 04:00 PM
In article >,
Helgi Briem > wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:55:11 -0500, Will Brink
> > wrote:
>
> >"The mind's extended reach remains to be fully defined in scientific
> >terms, but research on human consciousness suggests that we may have
> >direct communication links with each other, and that our intentions can
> >have effects in the world despite physical barriers and separations. We
> >are compelled by good evidence to accept correlations that we cannot yet
> >explain. It appears that consciousness may sometimes produce something
> >that resembles, at least metaphorically, a nonlocal field of meaningful
> >information."
> >
> >http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
>
> Have you been at the waccy baccy again, Will?

Not today. I think it's very interesting. No one knows what to make of
the results so far, but it's interesting.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

David Cohen
November 22nd 04, 05:05 PM
"Will Brink" > wrote
> Helgi Briem > wrote:
>> Will Brink > wrote:
>> >"The mind's extended reach remains to be fully defined in scientific
>> >terms, but research on human consciousness suggests that we may have
>> >direct communication links with each other, and that our intentions can
>> >have effects in the world despite physical barriers and separations. We
>> >are compelled by good evidence to accept correlations that we cannot yet
>> >explain. It appears that consciousness may sometimes produce something
>> >that resembles, at least metaphorically, a nonlocal field of meaningful
>> >information."
>> >
>> >http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
>>
>> Have you been at the waccy baccy again, Will?
>
> Not today. I think it's very interesting. No one knows what to make of
> the results so far, but it's interesting.

All us Rutgers alumni know what to make of it: as usual, Princeton is full
of ****.

David

Richard Smith
November 22nd 04, 05:58 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Will Brink" > wrote
> > Helgi Briem > wrote:
> >> Will Brink > wrote:
> >> >"The mind's extended reach remains to be fully defined in scientific
> >> >terms, but research on human consciousness suggests that we may have
> >> >direct communication links with each other, and that our intentions
can
> >> >have effects in the world despite physical barriers and separations.
We
> >> >are compelled by good evidence to accept correlations that we cannot
yet
> >> >explain. It appears that consciousness may sometimes produce something
> >> >that resembles, at least metaphorically, a nonlocal field of
meaningful
> >> >information."
> >> >
> >> >http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
> >>
> >> Have you been at the waccy baccy again, Will?
> >
> > Not today. I think it's very interesting. No one knows what to make of
> > the results so far, but it's interesting.
>
> All us Rutgers alumni know what to make of it: as usual, Princeton is full
> of ****.
>
> David
....he said, ex cathedra from the hallowed hall of his belly button.

Richard
>
>

Proton Soup
November 22nd 04, 06:40 PM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:00:42 -0500, Will Brink
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Helgi Briem > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:55:11 -0500, Will Brink
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"The mind's extended reach remains to be fully defined in scientific
>> >terms, but research on human consciousness suggests that we may have
>> >direct communication links with each other, and that our intentions can
>> >have effects in the world despite physical barriers and separations. We
>> >are compelled by good evidence to accept correlations that we cannot yet
>> >explain. It appears that consciousness may sometimes produce something
>> >that resembles, at least metaphorically, a nonlocal field of meaningful
>> >information."
>> >
>> >http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
>>
>> Have you been at the waccy baccy again, Will?
>
>Not today. I think it's very interesting. No one knows what to make of
>the results so far, but it's interesting.

I think you should pray about it.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Proton Soup
November 22nd 04, 08:10 PM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:11:31 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"Usenet Posting" > wrote
>> Proton Soup > wrote:
>>> Will Brink > wrote:
>>>> Helgi Briem > wrote:
>>>>> Will Brink > wrote:
>>>>> >"The mind's extended reach remains to be fully defined in scientific
>>>>> >terms, but research on human consciousness suggests that we may have
>>>>> >direct communication links with each other, and that our intentions
>>>>> >can
>>>>> >have effects in the world despite physical barriers and separations.
>>>>> >We
>>>>> >are compelled by good evidence to accept correlations that we cannot
>>>>> >yet
>>>>> >explain. It appears that consciousness may sometimes produce something
>>>>> >that resembles, at least metaphorically, a nonlocal field of
>>>>> >meaningful
>>>>> >information."
>>>>> >
>>>>> >http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you been at the waccy baccy again, Will?
>>>>
>>>>Not today. I think it's very interesting. No one knows what to make of
>>>>the results so far, but it's interesting.
>>>
>>>I think you should pray about it.
>>
>> Not too very long ago ANYTHING superluminal was for sci-fi tin-hatted
>> wackos.
>
>That was BGR...Before Gene Roddenberry.

The same guy who wrote "Earth, Final Conflict", the show about aliens
that was aired after his death? The aliens who functioned as part of
a spiritually/psychically connected collective? That Gene
Roddenberry?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

David Cohen
November 22nd 04, 08:11 PM
"Usenet Posting" > wrote
> Proton Soup > wrote:
>> Will Brink > wrote:
>>> Helgi Briem > wrote:
>>>> Will Brink > wrote:
>>>> >"The mind's extended reach remains to be fully defined in scientific
>>>> >terms, but research on human consciousness suggests that we may have
>>>> >direct communication links with each other, and that our intentions
>>>> >can
>>>> >have effects in the world despite physical barriers and separations.
>>>> >We
>>>> >are compelled by good evidence to accept correlations that we cannot
>>>> >yet
>>>> >explain. It appears that consciousness may sometimes produce something
>>>> >that resembles, at least metaphorically, a nonlocal field of
>>>> >meaningful
>>>> >information."
>>>> >
>>>> >http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
>>>>
>>>> Have you been at the waccy baccy again, Will?
>>>
>>>Not today. I think it's very interesting. No one knows what to make of
>>>the results so far, but it's interesting.
>>
>>I think you should pray about it.
>
> Not too very long ago ANYTHING superluminal was for sci-fi tin-hatted
> wackos.

That was BGR...Before Gene Roddenberry.

David

DZ
November 22nd 04, 09:16 PM
Usenet Posting > wrote:
> Proton Soup > wrote:
>>Will Brink wrote:
>>> Helgi Briem > wrote:
>>>> >http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
>>>>
>>>> Have you been at the waccy baccy again, Will?
>>>
>>>Not today. I think it's very interesting. No one knows what to make of
>>>the results so far, but it's interesting.
>>
>>I think you should pray about it.
>
> Not too very long ago ANYTHING superluminal was for sci-fi tin-hatted
> wackos.

Interesting, but hard to tell from the information on the site if it's
for real. There is always something happening in the world and if you
look hard enough you'd find an event around a large statistic
value. Some terminology is sloppy, e.g. they call a normal variable
the "composite Chisquare", like here: "This composite Chisquare is the
"Stouffer Z" which is a normalized sum of the Z-scores for all
predefined segments". There is a review of what "Stoufer's" and
related methods are here:

http://statgen.ncsu.edu/zaykin/some/TruncProdMethod.pdf

If I'm not mistaken they suppose (e.g. appendix from the site map)
that chisquares are unbiased around probabilities deviating from 0.5
in either direction. This is not so - chisquares treat ~1/e as a
"turning point" - probabilities above that are "large" and below that
are "low". This is not so well known. For example, if one is summing
up many (k) chisquares each with the corresponding p above 1/e, (say
taking all p= 0.5), the resulting "combined" p will approach 1 instead
of 0.5 like one might think. This is because the solution of p = 1 -
CDF_of_Gamma(-k*ln(p)) has the limit of 1/e as k increases, starting
from 0.284668 for k=2, where the Gamma distribution is with parameters
(k,1). For large number of p's this also follows from the Central
Limit Theorem.

DZ

Will Brink
November 22nd 04, 10:42 PM
In article >,
Proton Soup > wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:00:42 -0500, Will Brink
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Helgi Briem > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:55:11 -0500, Will Brink
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >"The mind's extended reach remains to be fully defined in scientific
> >> >terms, but research on human consciousness suggests that we may have
> >> >direct communication links with each other, and that our intentions can
> >> >have effects in the world despite physical barriers and separations. We
> >> >are compelled by good evidence to accept correlations that we cannot yet
> >> >explain. It appears that consciousness may sometimes produce something
> >> >that resembles, at least metaphorically, a nonlocal field of meaningful
> >> >information."
> >> >
> >> >http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
> >>
> >> Have you been at the waccy baccy again, Will?
> >
> >Not today. I think it's very interesting. No one knows what to make of
> >the results so far, but it's interesting.
>
> I think you should pray about it.

Praying is for the weak minded.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
November 22nd 04, 10:48 PM
In article >,
DZ > wrote:

> Usenet Posting > wrote:
> > Proton Soup > wrote:
> >>Will Brink wrote:
> >>> Helgi Briem > wrote:
> >>>> >http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
> >>>>
> >>>> Have you been at the waccy baccy again, Will?
> >>>
> >>>Not today. I think it's very interesting. No one knows what to make of
> >>>the results so far, but it's interesting.
> >>
> >>I think you should pray about it.
> >
> > Not too very long ago ANYTHING superluminal was for sci-fi tin-hatted
> > wackos.
>
> Interesting, but hard to tell from the information on the site if it's
> for real.

The project was the focus of a show on the Descovery channel I recall,
or it may have been Scientific American on PBS, I forget which. The gut
is a legit proff.

>There is always something happening in the world and if you
> look hard enough you'd find an event around a large statistic
> value.

There data points, and strength of correlations, and the time frame,
leads me tobelive it's clearly of stat sig.What it is I don't know, but
it's not random. Interestingly, there is other studies finding human
thought altering random number generators.


> Some terminology is sloppy, e.g. they call a normal variable
> the "composite Chisquare", like here: "This composite Chisquare is the
> "Stouffer Z" which is a normalized sum of the Z-scores for all
> predefined segments". There is a review of what "Stoufer's" and
> related methods are here:
>
> http://statgen.ncsu.edu/zaykin/some/TruncProdMethod.pdf
>
> If I'm not mistaken they suppose (e.g. appendix from the site map)
> that chisquares are unbiased around probabilities deviating from 0.5
> in either direction. This is not so - chisquares treat ~1/e as a
> "turning point" - probabilities above that are "large" and below that
> are "low". This is not so well known. For example, if one is summing
> up many (k) chisquares each with the corresponding p above 1/e, (say
> taking all p= 0.5), the resulting "combined" p will approach 1 instead
> of 0.5 like one might think. This is because the solution of p = 1 -
> CDF_of_Gamma(-k*ln(p)) has the limit of 1/e as k increases, starting
> from 0.284668 for k=2, where the Gamma distribution is with parameters
> (k,1). For large number of p's this also follows from the Central
> Limit Theorem.

So did you consider their methodology solid?

>
> DZ

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Proton Soup
November 23rd 04, 02:47 AM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:42:46 -0500, Will Brink
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Proton Soup > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:00:42 -0500, Will Brink
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > Helgi Briem > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:55:11 -0500, Will Brink
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"The mind's extended reach remains to be fully defined in scientific
>> >> >terms, but research on human consciousness suggests that we may have
>> >> >direct communication links with each other, and that our intentions can
>> >> >have effects in the world despite physical barriers and separations. We
>> >> >are compelled by good evidence to accept correlations that we cannot yet
>> >> >explain. It appears that consciousness may sometimes produce something
>> >> >that resembles, at least metaphorically, a nonlocal field of meaningful
>> >> >information."
>> >> >
>> >> >http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
>> >>
>> >> Have you been at the waccy baccy again, Will?
>> >
>> >Not today. I think it's very interesting. No one knows what to make of
>> >the results so far, but it's interesting.
>>
>> I think you should pray about it.
>
>Praying is for the weak minded.

I think you should pray about it.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Lordy
November 26th 04, 12:01 PM
Will Brink > wrote in news:WillBrink-
:

> "The mind's extended reach remains to be fully defined in scientific
> terms, but research on human consciousness suggests that we may have
> direct communication links with each other, and that our intentions can
> have effects in the world despite physical barriers and separations. We
> are compelled by good evidence to accept correlations that we cannot yet
> explain. It appears that consciousness may sometimes produce something
> that resembles, at least metaphorically, a nonlocal field of meaningful
> information."
>
>
> http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

I heard somewhere that "The Power of Prayer" was "proved".
They got a bunch of seriously ill people, a bunch of random prayer groups,
some people got prayed for others did not, and the ones prayed for got
better quickly. It was a repeatable experiment and worked across
denominations. Of course this may all be just religious propaganda 'til I
do some digging around...

Without reading Will's link, I suspect the two things may be related.
--
Lordy

Axel of the North!
December 2nd 04, 05:21 AM
On 26 Nov 2004 12:01:33 GMT, Lordy > wrote:

>Will Brink > wrote in news:WillBrink-
:
>
>> "The mind's extended reach remains to be fully defined in scientific
>> terms, but research on human consciousness suggests that we may have
>> direct communication links with each other, and that our intentions can
>> have effects in the world despite physical barriers and separations. We
>> are compelled by good evidence to accept correlations that we cannot yet
>> explain. It appears that consciousness may sometimes produce something
>> that resembles, at least metaphorically, a nonlocal field of meaningful
>> information."
>>
>>
>> http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
>
>I heard somewhere that "The Power of Prayer" was "proved".
>They got a bunch of seriously ill people, a bunch of random prayer groups,
>some people got prayed for others did not, and the ones prayed for got
>better quickly. It was a repeatable experiment and worked across
>denominations. Of course this may all be just religious propaganda 'til I
>do some digging around...
>
>Without reading Will's link, I suspect the two things may be related.
>--
>Lordy

ever seen the movie "man on fire"?