It talks about "the index" on the site but doesn't define the index. Reading up on this is like not watching the news for years and then watching it one day and they are years deep into the details and never explain the basic premise. Professor types can't ever explain the basics.I get that they have random number generators running and think people affect them with their consciousness somehow. If I flip a coin 100 times and every time it lands heads, would the dot be blue or red?
>>41233411>"the index" on the site but doesn't define the indexThe index is just the list where the random numbers generated are stored and referred to.>Reading up on this is like not watching the news for years and then watching it one day and they are years deep into the details and never explain the basic premisehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_ProjectHere you have a link to Wikipedia? I don't know what specifically you find so hard to understand or feel like you are missing?>Professor types can't ever explain the basics.The basics you are saying here?>I get that they have random number generators running and think people affect them with their consciousness somehow.>If I flip a coin 100 times and every time it lands heads, would the dot be blue or red?The hypothesis/theory is that you can affect the outcome of the 100 coin flips with your mind, being that it can go from around 50/50 split of heads and tails to a 60/40 split by using your mind and focusing on one of the outcomes.
>>41233529>feel like you are missing?I’m not OP but GCP is missing the actual raw data.All they publish is a graph in JPG format. It’s useless.Without seeing how the data is being collected and processed in to the “dot”, it’s completely meaningless.
its literally a random number generator
>Blue Dot>Significantly small network variance. Suggestive of deeply shared, internally motivated group focus.>Red Dot>Significantly large network variance. Suggests broadly shared coherence of thought and emotion.Sounds pretty similar for opposite ends of the spectrum. They don't even say if blue means they're getting 100 heads in a row or 100 tails in a row or what. There is no context to put meaning to "index is above 95%" or "index is below 5%," it's just science-sounding words.This reminds me of when I looked into the observer effect on the double-slit experiment and found out, at the end of the day, it's not even a real experiment. It's a thought experiment. They don't even have a machine that can shoot out a single electron and video tape it. It's just like Schrodinger's Cat or If A Tree Falls In The Woods, Does It Make A Sound? It's not science and not real. It never was. It's philosophy.>>41233706I think this guy's right.
So, 9/11 is used as an example where it supposedly did something significant. Did the dot turn red or blue then if it was going haywire? Wikipedia doesn't say.
>>41233411>>41233706random number generators are literally impossible
>>41233411the dot doesn't mean shit honestlyit's as if I said ooga booga and you tried to find some deep meaning in it
>>41233699Yup, I agree. The concept i simple, but they actually do not provide full transparency on how they collect data, so it can just be a prank for all we know.Can faind raw data, or the algoritm that they use.So I was wrong here >>41233529, the site has a cool concept, but we have no way of verifying the results. So it is Fake and gay
>>41233804>It's not science and not real. It never was. It's philosophy.modern academia in a nutshell
>>41233855This
>>41233411In astrology there are some shits like that that show when there are tense aspects and something is likely to happen.example, Pluto-Saturn conjunction 2020 = coronavirus
ITT: he ponders the dot too deeply
>>41233855Yes, exactly. Even something like the entropy of lava lamps can, in theory, be calculated it's just that we humans lack the capability. There is no true randomness in the universe. Einstein believed the same; he held on to a deterministic view of reality until the end of his life.
