1
00:00:07,519 --> 00:00:05,300
good morning everybody I won't take much

2
00:00:10,490 --> 00:00:07,529
time to tell you how the global

3
00:00:14,270 --> 00:00:10,500
consciousness project data are achieved

4
00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:14,280
but basically it's a continuous report

5
00:00:19,550 --> 00:00:16,650
of data from something like sixty

6
00:00:25,870 --> 00:00:19,560
locations around the world where the

7
00:00:30,950 --> 00:00:25,880
data are random number generator trials

8
00:00:33,080 --> 00:00:30,960
the bottom line of the experiment really

9
00:00:37,100 --> 00:00:33,090
gives quite good evidence that there is

10
00:00:42,560 --> 00:00:37,110
some effect on these random number

11
00:00:45,190 --> 00:00:42,570
generators and we calculate that effect

12
00:00:48,080 --> 00:00:45,200
during periods of time when people are

13
00:00:52,850 --> 00:00:48,090
stimulated by some tragedy tragedy or

14
00:00:53,569 --> 00:00:52,860
maybe a celebration to feel the same

15
00:00:55,069 --> 00:00:53,579
emotions

16
00:00:57,410 --> 00:00:55,079
think the same kinds of thoughts in

17
00:01:01,209 --> 00:00:57,420
other words we're looking for global

18
00:01:06,020 --> 00:01:01,219
events to gather people together and

19
00:01:08,120 --> 00:01:06,030
then and when we look at repeatedly such

20
00:01:11,000 --> 00:01:08,130
events we find that there's a very small

21
00:01:13,100 --> 00:01:11,010
but ultimately quite impressive

22
00:01:15,109 --> 00:01:13,110
difference from what's expected from

23
00:01:16,520 --> 00:01:15,119
random number generators the odds

24
00:01:18,859 --> 00:01:16,530
against chance are on the order of

25
00:01:22,340 --> 00:01:18,869
trillion to one that we've gives as much

26
00:01:25,640 --> 00:01:22,350
deviation as we do now Peter been cell

27
00:01:29,210 --> 00:01:25,650
my friend and colleague who lives in

28
00:01:31,999 --> 00:01:29,220
Paris is the person has done more

29
00:01:36,200 --> 00:01:32,009
analysis on this data set than anybody

30
00:01:38,390 --> 00:01:36,210
else in the world and up till a year a

31
00:01:40,730 --> 00:01:38,400
couple of years ago he was pretty much

32
00:01:42,350 --> 00:01:40,740
convinced that there that the best

33
00:01:44,870 --> 00:01:42,360
explanation might be some sort of a

34
00:01:48,020 --> 00:01:44,880
field even though he couldn't describe

35
00:01:49,340 --> 00:01:48,030
it or write equations for it in the

36
00:01:51,679 --> 00:01:49,350
meantime he's been doing further

37
00:01:55,190 --> 00:01:51,689
analysis and has come to the conclusion

38
00:01:58,819 --> 00:01:55,200
that because there are a couple of

39
00:02:03,980 --> 00:01:58,829
factors that he really can't see any way

40
00:02:07,639 --> 00:02:03,990
for a consciousness effect to get to the

41
00:02:10,270 --> 00:02:07,649
bits and change them that we need a

42
00:02:12,810 --> 00:02:10,280
different kind of model he says a

43
00:02:15,280 --> 00:02:12,820
consciousness field can't penetrate

44
00:02:19,570 --> 00:02:15,290
exclusive-or we used to protect the data

45
00:02:20,890 --> 00:02:19,580
from bias and furthermore something that

46
00:02:24,250 --> 00:02:20,900
you might think of as a global

47
00:02:28,180 --> 00:02:24,260
consciousness isn't something that could

48
00:02:30,970 --> 00:02:28,190
have intention and that both of those

49
00:02:33,580 --> 00:02:30,980
are assumptions I think in any case he

50
00:02:36,760 --> 00:02:33,590
concludes that the GCP results must be a

51
00:02:39,430 --> 00:02:36,770
kind of goal or into or experiment or

52
00:02:42,700 --> 00:02:39,440
effect and gives some pretty persuasive

53
00:02:46,480 --> 00:02:42,710
arguments why that's the case among them

54
00:02:49,930 --> 00:02:46,490
for example looking back at data which

55
00:02:52,630 --> 00:02:49,940
we never analyzed for certain kinds of

56
00:02:56,140 --> 00:02:52,640
events for example the solstices and

57
00:02:59,020 --> 00:02:56,150
finding that the unexamined solstice

58
00:03:02,350 --> 00:02:59,030
periods did not show nearly as big an

59
00:03:07,330 --> 00:03:02,360
effect as the ones which we had selected

60
00:03:09,730 --> 00:03:07,340
to do analysis so the kind of counter

61
00:03:11,590 --> 00:03:09,740
arguments I think are pretty you know

62
00:03:15,610 --> 00:03:11,600
straightforward in a certain sense I

63
00:03:20,380 --> 00:03:15,620
think basically we're probably asking

64
00:03:24,250 --> 00:03:20,390
for too much to to conclude that we know

65
00:03:27,310 --> 00:03:24,260
how psy can or cannot work the

66
00:03:30,510 --> 00:03:27,320
assumptions that he makes about not

67
00:03:33,910 --> 00:03:30,520
being able to penetrate the x or or that

68
00:03:36,700 --> 00:03:33,920
intention has to be a part of the

69
00:03:39,760 --> 00:03:36,710
equation I think our vulnerable

70
00:03:43,030 --> 00:03:39,770
Jim carpenters first theory says we're

71
00:03:45,100 --> 00:03:43,040
basically doing something like psy all

72
00:03:48,490 --> 00:03:45,110
the time whether we're conscious of it

73
00:03:50,680 --> 00:03:48,500
or not but the real best argument is

74
00:03:53,260 --> 00:03:50,690
that there are quite a few things about

75
00:03:56,560 --> 00:03:53,270
the data elements of structure that

76
00:03:59,070 --> 00:03:56,570
simply don't fit very nicely into a goal

77
00:04:02,410 --> 00:03:59,080
orientation the formal prediction

78
00:04:04,450 --> 00:04:02,420
generally speaking will do so but what

79
00:04:05,980 --> 00:04:04,460
if we look at something different from

80
00:04:09,940 --> 00:04:05,990
the formal prediction which the

81
00:04:12,640 --> 00:04:09,950
experimenters have made in the case of

82
00:04:15,850 --> 00:04:12,650
9/11 data we had a effect but it was

83
00:04:19,090 --> 00:04:15,860
only point O three probability for the

84
00:04:21,130 --> 00:04:19,100
formal prediction on 9/11 it turns out

85
00:04:24,469 --> 00:04:21,140
that when we did a broader exploit

86
00:04:26,719 --> 00:04:24,479
exploration we discovered that the

87
00:04:29,540 --> 00:04:26,729
same effect that we're looking at

88
00:04:32,320 --> 00:04:29,550
persisted over three days a different

89
00:04:37,239 --> 00:04:32,330
kind of effect a different kind of

90
00:04:39,920 --> 00:04:37,249
variable not the subject of a prediction

91
00:04:42,800 --> 00:04:39,930
in other words a kind of independent

92
00:04:44,499 --> 00:04:42,810
measure also shows in effect even though

93
00:04:46,760 --> 00:04:44,509
there was no prediction and the

94
00:04:48,589 --> 00:04:46,770
experimenters had no intention of

95
00:04:52,700 --> 00:04:48,599
looking at that when the original

96
00:04:54,140 --> 00:04:52,710
prediction was made here is I think an

97
00:04:56,990 --> 00:04:54,150
interesting one I think we'll hear more

98
00:05:00,700 --> 00:04:57,000
about Burning Man later but in 2006 I

99
00:05:02,809 --> 00:05:00,710
decided to look at this interesting case

100
00:05:04,820 --> 00:05:02,819
which had been going on for quite a

101
00:05:06,890 --> 00:05:04,830
while had data for eight years and when

102
00:05:09,679 --> 00:05:06,900
I looked at the data I was I was

103
00:05:11,929 --> 00:05:09,689
startled there was a huge effect and

104
00:05:14,679 --> 00:05:11,939
again nobody was thinking about it there

105
00:05:16,820 --> 00:05:14,689
was no hypothesis this is a

106
00:05:18,890 --> 00:05:16,830
retrospective analysis and the only way

107
00:05:20,659 --> 00:05:18,900
this could be explained by as an

108
00:05:23,890 --> 00:05:20,669
experiment or effect would be for that

109
00:05:28,670 --> 00:05:23,900
to be something like retro Kinesis I

110
00:05:32,659 --> 00:05:28,680
think and this is a result of one of

111
00:05:36,559 --> 00:05:32,669
Peters analysis a very interesting and

112
00:05:41,659 --> 00:05:36,569
important in the context of whether the

113
00:05:43,639 --> 00:05:41,669
global excuse me whether a I a goal

114
00:05:47,360 --> 00:05:43,649
orientation model can explain the data

115
00:05:49,700 --> 00:05:47,370
here in the darker line is our standard

116
00:05:52,100 --> 00:05:49,710
measure that's the prediction we always

117
00:05:56,019 --> 00:05:52,110
make it has to do with a correlation of

118
00:05:59,360 --> 00:05:56,029
the data from separate pairs of devices

119
00:06:04,309 --> 00:05:59,370
there's a independent orthogonal

120
00:06:06,110 --> 00:06:04,319
comparison that shows pretty much the

121
00:06:08,800 --> 00:06:06,120
same trend it has a smaller effect size

122
00:06:11,269 --> 00:06:08,810
because the Avernus is larger but it's

123
00:06:17,290 --> 00:06:11,279
again a completely independent kind of

124
00:06:19,790 --> 00:06:17,300
thing we have data that can be looked at

125
00:06:23,119 --> 00:06:19,800
with many different kind of questions in

126
00:06:25,550 --> 00:06:23,129
mind one that we can ask is does

127
00:06:28,550 --> 00:06:25,560
distance have any effect on the outcome

128
00:06:31,459 --> 00:06:28,560
of in this experiment and the answer is

129
00:06:34,279 --> 00:06:31,469
a kind of interesting qualified yes we

130
00:06:36,619 --> 00:06:34,289
can't we talk about distance we can only

131
00:06:37,970 --> 00:06:36,629
do a reasonable analysis where the

132
00:06:40,160 --> 00:06:37,980
distance we're talking about is

133
00:06:44,990 --> 00:06:40,170
the separation between pairs of re G's

134
00:06:47,480 --> 00:06:45,000
and that different that the effect is a

135
00:06:50,870 --> 00:06:47,490
function of the separation of these re

136
00:06:53,150 --> 00:06:50,880
G's I have a poster session by the way

137
00:06:55,970 --> 00:06:53,160
so I can explain these things in more

138
00:06:59,330 --> 00:06:55,980
detail this gets interesting because it

139
00:07:02,060 --> 00:06:59,340
happens only or mainly for the smaller

140
00:07:04,400 --> 00:07:02,070
what you might call local events this

141
00:07:08,990 --> 00:07:04,410
one I think is a beautiful analysis

142
00:07:14,110 --> 00:07:09,000
again from Peter Mansell we asked what's

143
00:07:19,160 --> 00:07:14,120
the relative what's the relationship of

144
00:07:21,440 --> 00:07:19,170
the effect size to the time of day so it

145
00:07:23,780 --> 00:07:21,450
turns out that when we're awake the

146
00:07:26,380 --> 00:07:23,790
global consciousness effect size is a

147
00:07:29,420 --> 00:07:26,390
little bit larger than it is when we're

148
00:07:32,180 --> 00:07:29,430
when we're awake it's larger than when

149
00:07:34,810 --> 00:07:32,190
we're asleep the peak is around

150
00:07:41,140 --> 00:07:34,820
dinnertime 5:00 or 6:00 in the afternoon

151
00:07:44,240 --> 00:07:41,150
the valley the least effect size comes

152
00:07:46,580 --> 00:07:44,250
3:00 in the morning and at the bottom of

153
00:07:50,840 --> 00:07:46,590
the graph or our control data which we

154
00:07:54,560 --> 00:07:50,850
have huge amounts and they show no such

155
00:07:56,690 --> 00:07:54,570
effect here's one that's sort of a kind

156
00:07:59,750 --> 00:07:56,700
of logical argument you know when you

157
00:08:04,400 --> 00:07:59,760
think that psy is something like regular

158
00:08:07,580 --> 00:08:04,410
stuff modelling shows that some there

159
00:08:09,500 --> 00:08:07,590
may be some percentage of true negative

160
00:08:11,810 --> 00:08:09,510
outcomes in other words even though we

161
00:08:14,840 --> 00:08:11,820
predict and we'll be the outcome will be

162
00:08:17,090 --> 00:08:14,850
a positive deviation it turns out that

163
00:08:20,450 --> 00:08:17,100
within the database about two thirds

164
00:08:23,810 --> 00:08:20,460
show that about one-third show and no

165
00:08:27,350 --> 00:08:23,820
question null effect and about I'm not

166
00:08:31,100 --> 00:08:27,360
that many of about 17% show the null

167
00:08:36,370 --> 00:08:31,110
effect and another 17% show what you can

168
00:08:39,380 --> 00:08:36,380
think of as a kind of true negative so

169
00:08:42,680 --> 00:08:39,390
maybe we could say there's sign missing

170
00:08:45,980 --> 00:08:42,690
but I'm not sure that if you go that far

171
00:08:48,860 --> 00:08:45,990
that you'll be able to sustain an

172
00:08:51,650 --> 00:08:48,870
argument that a goal orientation or

173
00:08:55,660 --> 00:08:51,660
experimenter effect is false false

174
00:08:58,220 --> 00:08:55,670
ultimately so I think there's definitely

175
00:09:00,559 --> 00:08:58,230
something going on with the experimenter

176
00:09:03,379 --> 00:09:00,569
we after all we create the experiment

177
00:09:05,090 --> 00:09:03,389
and we know things like in physics that

178
00:09:08,600 --> 00:09:05,100
light is a wave or a particle depending

179
00:09:10,970 --> 00:09:08,610
on how you ask the question but I think

180
00:09:12,889 --> 00:09:10,980
the it's pretty pretty clear from a lot

181
00:09:15,699 --> 00:09:12,899
of experiments and the people here are

182
00:09:19,360 --> 00:09:15,709
familiar with that the experimenters is

183
00:09:24,679 --> 00:09:19,370
involved in creating part of the subtle

184
00:09:27,410 --> 00:09:24,689
effects as well and in any case I come

185
00:09:29,660 --> 00:09:27,420
to the conclusion ultimately that there

186
00:09:33,530 --> 00:09:29,670
are lots of aspects of the GCP data

187
00:09:36,290 --> 00:09:33,540
which aren't compatible with either kind

188
00:09:38,030 --> 00:09:36,300
of experiment or effect instead for

189
00:09:41,740 --> 00:09:38,040
those we need something like a field

190
00:09:45,290 --> 00:09:41,750
like model apologies for the

191
00:09:47,350 --> 00:09:45,300
misalignment so unbalanced I think we

192
00:09:50,929 --> 00:09:47,360
have to understand that psy is neither

193
00:09:55,069 --> 00:09:50,939
just an experiment or effect goal

194
00:09:56,870 --> 00:09:55,079
oriented nor is it necessarily what we

195
00:10:00,280 --> 00:09:56,880
might think of as the nominal source

196
00:10:06,450 --> 00:10:00,290
it's not either/or but I think both

197
00:10:15,880 --> 00:10:08,770
Thank You Roger okay we have time for

198
00:10:19,390 --> 00:10:15,890
questions Roger do you have you compared

199
00:10:24,460 --> 00:10:19,400
the effect sizes of the GCP would say

200
00:10:27,160 --> 00:10:24,470
other goal-oriented experimenter sigh to

201
00:10:28,630 --> 00:10:27,170
get a sense of this seems like the field

202
00:10:30,520 --> 00:10:28,640
effect it would be sort of a different

203
00:10:34,390 --> 00:10:30,530
kind of effect in therefore the the

204
00:10:35,860 --> 00:10:34,400
effect sizes might be different yeah and

205
00:10:37,900 --> 00:10:35,870
we haven't actually done any kind of

206
00:10:41,050 --> 00:10:37,910
formal in comparison like that but I I

207
00:10:43,480 --> 00:10:41,060
think it's clear that the global

208
00:10:45,670 --> 00:10:43,490
consciousness effect is really small

209
00:10:48,660 --> 00:10:45,680
it's about one third of a standard

210
00:10:51,640 --> 00:10:48,670
deviation on average so that means that

211
00:10:55,930 --> 00:10:51,650
great many of the trials you make will

212
00:10:57,640 --> 00:10:55,940
show no effect it's a good question but

213
00:11:01,870 --> 00:10:57,650
it's very difficult to ask because we

214
00:11:06,670 --> 00:11:01,880
have at least nominally maybe millions

215
00:11:08,380 --> 00:11:06,680
of people involved and different you

216
00:11:13,540 --> 00:11:08,390
know positive and negative kinds of

217
00:11:15,580 --> 00:11:13,550
circumstances and what I'd like to talk

218
00:11:19,630 --> 00:11:15,590
with you sometime about how one might go

219
00:11:22,500 --> 00:11:19,640
about making that comparison I think

220
00:11:26,200 --> 00:11:22,510
that the distinction between the field

221
00:11:31,540 --> 00:11:26,210
effect and the experimenter effect is a

222
00:11:34,690 --> 00:11:31,550
false dichotomy not only is I so you

223
00:11:36,280 --> 00:11:34,700
I think you massaged it a little bit by

224
00:11:39,370 --> 00:11:36,290
saying there there appear to be both

225
00:11:42,640 --> 00:11:39,380
effects I'd go a step farther and say

226
00:11:46,020 --> 00:11:42,650
both effects are the same thing in that

227
00:11:49,030 --> 00:11:46,030
when you have a stochastic process and

228
00:11:52,630 --> 00:11:49,040
you apply intention to it you're

229
00:11:56,320 --> 00:11:52,640
essentially programming a Sai system so

230
00:11:58,750 --> 00:11:56,330
your intention is that the global

231
00:12:02,560 --> 00:11:58,760
consciousness project should work to

232
00:12:05,680 --> 00:12:02,570
measure global events and so it does so

233
00:12:08,620 --> 00:12:05,690
you genuinely are measuring global

234
00:12:10,780 --> 00:12:08,630
events and field effect but you're doing

235
00:12:15,280 --> 00:12:10,790
it because you've mentally programmed it

236
00:12:17,080 --> 00:12:15,290
to do so as the experimenter and I don't

237
00:12:19,210 --> 00:12:17,090
think there's a dichotomy here I don't

238
00:12:21,400 --> 00:12:19,220
think there's a problem well in

239
00:12:24,240 --> 00:12:21,410
I have to agree with you in large part

240
00:12:27,009 --> 00:12:24,250
but I'm a little worried about the

241
00:12:29,379 --> 00:12:27,019
unfalsifiable 'ti of that kind of

242
00:12:32,889 --> 00:12:29,389
extension if you allow yourself to go

243
00:12:34,689 --> 00:12:32,899
that way when you stop this this is the

244
00:12:39,249 --> 00:12:34,699
challenge of sigh we don't know where

245
00:12:41,829 --> 00:12:39,259
this is and I've got several experiments

246
00:12:43,749 --> 00:12:41,839
in which I programmed machines to

247
00:12:46,840 --> 00:12:43,759
produce a certain effect and then those

248
00:12:50,470 --> 00:12:46,850
machines did it mm-hmm were the

249
00:12:52,900 --> 00:12:50,480
experimenters of course were the

250
00:12:56,259 --> 00:12:52,910
machines experimenters yeah that's

251
00:12:59,819 --> 00:12:56,269
another question yeah I feel a little

252
00:13:03,100 --> 00:12:59,829
bit obliged to defend Peter pencils

253
00:13:07,449 --> 00:13:03,110
conclusion that there can be no global

254
00:13:10,230 --> 00:13:07,459
fields effect and his major and one of

255
00:13:13,360 --> 00:13:10,240
his major arguments you didn't show here

256
00:13:16,869 --> 00:13:13,370
and it did it goes as follows

257
00:13:20,280 --> 00:13:16,879
these aren't G's all over the world that

258
00:13:25,920 --> 00:13:20,290
they have a slight misalignment in times

259
00:13:30,699 --> 00:13:25,930
if you and he did a reanalysis trying to

260
00:13:33,579 --> 00:13:30,709
get all these timing exactly the same

261
00:13:36,249 --> 00:13:33,589
and if you do that so you shift the

262
00:13:37,869 --> 00:13:36,259
signals of each of these oranges a

263
00:13:40,780 --> 00:13:37,879
little bit so that they now they're

264
00:13:42,759 --> 00:13:40,790
simultaneously and if you do Orenda

265
00:13:46,689 --> 00:13:42,769
analysis then the whole effect

266
00:13:49,629 --> 00:13:46,699
disappears that shows to me that in some

267
00:13:51,460 --> 00:13:49,639
way there cannot be a feel and at least

268
00:13:54,569 --> 00:13:51,470
that's his conclusion that cannot be

269
00:13:58,809 --> 00:13:54,579
filled because why would that be so

270
00:14:01,150 --> 00:13:58,819
dependent of the the accidental

271
00:14:04,660 --> 00:14:01,160
misalignment in time of the orange

272
00:14:07,660 --> 00:14:04,670
cheese that that's just crazy and I

273
00:14:10,420 --> 00:14:07,670
should add that he is a he was a strong

274
00:14:13,840 --> 00:14:10,430
believer and a supporter of global

275
00:14:18,129 --> 00:14:13,850
fields so his conclusion is against his

276
00:14:22,199 --> 00:14:18,139
own worldview so I think his conclusion

277
00:14:27,490 --> 00:14:22,209
is correct so please comment on that I

278
00:14:28,929 --> 00:14:27,500
have I have no doubt that I I really

279
00:14:29,610 --> 00:14:28,939
love what Peters been doing all these

280
00:14:31,200 --> 00:14:29,620
years

281
00:14:35,250 --> 00:14:31,210
to revealed a great deal about the data

282
00:14:38,700 --> 00:14:35,260
but the models that he uses are as he

283
00:14:41,820 --> 00:14:38,710
will say and you know very simple field

284
00:14:44,370 --> 00:14:41,830
models so seems to me to be entirely

285
00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:44,380
possible you have a more let's say

286
00:14:53,730 --> 00:14:47,770
robust in the sense of powerful field

287
00:14:56,970 --> 00:14:53,740
model that can affect not just this one

288
00:15:00,150 --> 00:14:56,980
second synchronised moment in time but a

289
00:15:03,660 --> 00:15:00,160
period around that time I I'm not I

290
00:15:08,190 --> 00:15:03,670
don't want to spend time now debating

291
00:15:10,110 --> 00:15:08,200
our link but let's talk about it hi I'm

292
00:15:12,120 --> 00:15:10,120
really sympathetic with the global I'm

293
00:15:17,250 --> 00:15:12,130
like the x-files I want to believe in

294
00:15:18,510 --> 00:15:17,260
the global field but whatever I look at

295
00:15:21,240 --> 00:15:18,520
those small effect sizes

296
00:15:24,060 --> 00:15:21,250
I keep thinking that there I want them

297
00:15:28,230 --> 00:15:24,070
to be bigger and I keep thinking that

298
00:15:31,079 --> 00:15:28,240
may be unintentional influences on our

299
00:15:32,610 --> 00:15:31,089
energies are very similar to intentional

300
00:15:34,920 --> 00:15:32,620
influences such that there are some very

301
00:15:36,060 --> 00:15:34,930
few skilled people and they're the ones

302
00:15:38,790 --> 00:15:36,070
who are basically dragging the effect

303
00:15:42,690 --> 00:15:38,800
and everyone else has zero effect what

304
00:15:45,750 --> 00:15:42,700
do you think about that I'm not exactly

305
00:15:47,790 --> 00:15:45,760
sure what the bottom-line question is

306
00:15:48,990 --> 00:15:47,800
it's the bottom line question is do you

307
00:15:51,840 --> 00:15:49,000
think it could be the case that the

308
00:15:53,940 --> 00:15:51,850
stein enos of the effect size is because

309
00:15:55,470 --> 00:15:53,950
you have skilled people who don't know

310
00:15:57,449 --> 00:15:55,480
their skill this is unintentional psy

311
00:16:00,470 --> 00:15:57,459
who are basically producing the entire

312
00:16:04,680 --> 00:16:00,480
effect and it's washed out by a ton of

313
00:16:07,620 --> 00:16:04,690
well aren't in the context of the idea

314
00:16:09,870 --> 00:16:07,630
that it's an experiment or effect there

315
00:16:12,510 --> 00:16:09,880
are a few of us who know a great deal

316
00:16:15,570 --> 00:16:12,520
about it and most of us people think we

317
00:16:20,910 --> 00:16:15,580
don't have any personal experiment or

318
00:16:21,930 --> 00:16:20,920
effect potency but in terms of all those

319
00:16:23,820 --> 00:16:21,940
people out in the world they're

320
00:16:25,079 --> 00:16:23,830
completely unconscious of you know the

321
00:16:28,110 --> 00:16:25,089
why this would be people who are skilled

322
00:16:29,280 --> 00:16:28,120
at unintentional psy so in other words I

323
00:16:32,760 --> 00:16:29,290
guess I'm drawing a parallel between

324
00:16:34,199 --> 00:16:32,770
intentional PK like like at the pair lab

325
00:16:36,390 --> 00:16:34,209
right you have people who are skilled at

326
00:16:38,010 --> 00:16:36,400
an intentional micro PK and maybe

327
00:16:39,810 --> 00:16:38,020
there's a rule that there are some

328
00:16:41,790 --> 00:16:39,820
people who are skilled at unintentional

329
00:16:43,650 --> 00:16:41,800
PK

330
00:16:46,429 --> 00:16:43,660
I don't think I can answer the question

331
00:16:49,290 --> 00:16:46,439
and I'm not sure I understand it but

332
00:16:52,799 --> 00:16:49,300
basically the intentional sigh in the

333
00:16:57,600 --> 00:16:52,809
lab is also an extremely tiny effect and

334
00:17:00,150 --> 00:16:57,610
it it's attached you might say to only a

335
00:17:04,169 --> 00:17:00,160
few people about 15% in the pair right

336
00:17:05,939 --> 00:17:04,179
data set there may there may be a

337
00:17:07,230 --> 00:17:05,949
tremendous amount of unconscious sigh

338
00:17:09,569 --> 00:17:07,240
going on in the part of the

339
00:17:15,779 --> 00:17:09,579
experimenters that set up the whole

340
00:17:18,510 --> 00:17:15,789
operation I guess yeah okay hi there I

341
00:17:21,870 --> 00:17:18,520
just want to read something in response

342
00:17:23,899 --> 00:17:21,880
to your co-authors quote global

343
00:17:31,519 --> 00:17:23,909
consciousness does not have intention I

344
00:17:35,430 --> 00:17:31,529
just hear from the Yoga Sutras and

345
00:17:40,669 --> 00:17:35,440
nothing can be predicated apprecia which

346
00:17:45,899 --> 00:17:43,560
except as a corrective negation no

347
00:17:48,659 --> 00:17:45,909
positive attribute process or intention

348
00:17:51,029 --> 00:17:48,669
can be affirmed of it I said no

349
00:17:53,220 --> 00:17:51,039
intention can be affirmed of it though

350
00:17:55,019 --> 00:17:53,230
it is behind all the activity of the

351
00:17:57,120 --> 00:17:55,029
road so I just want to submit that does

352
00:17:58,950 --> 00:17:57,130
these great thinkers from millennia I

353
00:18:02,430 --> 00:17:58,960
have been like chewing on this stuff

354
00:18:06,899 --> 00:18:02,440
daily and maybe they be useful those

355
00:18:07,289 --> 00:18:06,909
stuff thank you all right Thank You

356
00:18:09,050 --> 00:18:07,299
Roger