Well, the Global Consciousness Project has yet to convince mainstream scientists. Does it mean they're wrong? No. But it does mean they should not be taken as authority. I think my first point stands, which is: if something just works for some and not for others, without explanation, it is not convincing. I've seen dozens of churches claiming to produce real miracles, but just for those with faith. I could be true, but it's not convincing. I can't see the difference from their position and the position you present (does it have a name? I actually don't know).
About the long answer, of course you're right about the consensus thing. In trying to be mild, I ended up using the wrong word. It's not that it lacks consensus, since even the theory that the Earth is round lacks consensus. Speaking plainly, this ideas are not backed by reputable scientists of relevant fields (Deepak Chopra for example has only rudimentary understanding of quantum physics). This idea doesn't follow from our current understanding of science any more than what is proposed by mystics.
The reason I say those things is only one: I am genuinely curious. If you started from science, why you make the leap from science into this belief system? Or if it's the other way around, and you started by the belief, and since science does not back those beliefs, why appeal to science to explain them? Wouldn't it be more helpful to say we believe XYZ but have no idea what's causing it?
Edit: Changed "the theory that the world is flat" to "the theory the world is round". I'm not a flat Earther yet.
If I apply this principle to other sectors of science, there would be a paralysis by analysis situation. I mean, steem is not even based on scientific principles. Based on science and maths, it shouldn't exist. There is no mathematical proof of P not being equal to NP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
We could say that all cryptography, cryptocurrency, etc etc, are bogus because they are not based on the mathematical proof that they are not trivial to break. Mathematically, and until proven otherwise, all of these are considered potentially trivial to break (!) and thus useless as a building block.
There should be no https, there should be no online banking, no cryptography, no cryptocurrency. Yet all these exist. We don't say cryptographers shouldn't be taken as authorities since they lack the mathematical proofs required to prove their claims. Are they "convincing" without mathematical proofs? No. They can't ever be convincing unless what they do is mathematically proven.
Because as you pointed out, there is no "scientific consensus" for this whole framework to be considered "science" - but some aspects are.
So it can be termed "beliefs", "pseudoscience" or "ramblings". That's normal because science is incomplete. But that doesn't stop the truth being the truth, whether science has extended its perimeter to include new knowledge, or not.
A PhD in Psychology will not be able to replicate manipulation tactics (suggestion/hypnosis/creation of stimuli-response scenarios to create desired responses) that a mentalist can. The mentalist has a theoretical and practical framework that the psychology student/master/phd never learned because it is not taught in academia. The mentalist is not practicing his "belief system". He knows his "theory" works because he can get results. Is he bothered that he can only perform his manipulation tactics on 60-70-80% of the people and not to 100% to have full replication? No. He doesn't sit there arguing with himself on whether what he is doing is even possible because there is no 100% replication. He knows he can get 100% replication in a lower population threshold instead ("suggestible people") and move on in doing what he does - even while the academics will tell you that something isn't even possible... even extreme things like creating hypnotized criminals and assassins.
I actually know what is causing it, but that would require expansion into other "theories": This reality is a programmed reality / an information based reality. Its functional framework is coded. This happens when X, that happens when Y, etc etc. Everything are code routines and subroutines. Our beliefs and expectations are likewise coded to play a central role on what we get.
Now you could say "but this is a belief too - how can you know that this is a simulated reality running on code?". And the answer to that would most likely not convince you (personal experiences). Personal experience is tricky to replicate because you can tell me "yesterday I was doing X and the Y thing happened" and you have no way of proving that it did happen - although that doesn't mean it didn't happen. You were the only witness, but that doesn't make what happened less real. Still you are unable to prove anything. The good news is that science will manage to prove that the universe is information-based, although it will take a few decades to do so.
Great! Let me remark that I didn't say 'rambling'. You've been nothing but reasonable and articulated so far, and I thank you for it.
But of course, I disagree with the paralysis argument. From Cromwell's Rule I'd argue that we have 100% certainty of nothing at all, but from that does not follow paralysis. We act on what is most probable from our perspective. The matter with the Global Counsciousness problem is that they haven't been able to persuade unbiased scientist with evidence, so we there's no cause for lay people like myself to believe in them for they authority.
The fact I cannot definitively prove either X or not X is true, doesn't mean they're equally probable.
Now, in your mentalist example, he should indeed be worried with discovering what is causing his techniques to fail in some people, because it might help him become more effective. In the church example I gave you, it is usually said that if you didn't get the miracle, it was because of your lack of faith. So there's no falsifying hypothesis. How's it different from your proposition?
But you did provided me with the answer I asked for. The reason you are extrapolating beyond the limits of our scientific knowledge is because of personal experience. Now that's interesting. I frequently say that's the only fair reason I ever encountered to justify religious beliefs. But the problem is, it is only valid for the person experimenting it. Should we allowed ourselves to be persuated by them, we'd by converting to new religions on a daily basis.
Our conversation here's probably coming to an end, but could I ask you one more thing? You said we choose our reality. Every phenomena creates a parallel universe and we choose which is preferred, or something similar to that, right? Doesn't it mean both universes will have a “you” on it? And if so, both yous expected to be in the good universe, but only one you gets to be there, even though you were both exactly the same. Doesn't this invalidate your premise that we can control this phenomenon, since your probability of getting into the right universe is 50%, regardless of your conscious efforts?