Merged Ideomotor Effect and the Subconscious / Beyond the Ideomotor Effect

[Navigator]

I decided to create this thread in relation to my experiences using Ideomotor – principally the ‘Ouija effect’ which involves the use of a flat surface with symbols on it and a pointing device which used together create opportunity for communication between the conscious self and the subconscious aspect of the individual.

The word ‘Ouija’ itself comes from a marketing strategy and is associated with the most common type of ‘message board’ and sold mainly as a toy.

My understanding of ideomotor is that it involves the unconscious hand movements of the individual(s), which – in relation to the message board and pointing device (which the hand(s) rest on) produce a form of communication which is attributed to either some external agency, (common belief is that the hand movements are controlled by ‘dead souls’, or ‘dark energy entities and spirits’) or (slightly less commonly,) that it is an internal agency, namely the ‘unconscious’ or ‘subconscious’ of the individual.

My own approach in initially using such device was on the assumption I was communicating with ‘the dead’ and through continued use over many months this understanding changed as I was lead to understand that I was communicating with an intelligent aspect of my self to which I had previously been totally ignorant about.

It was actually this other aspect of my self which ‘broke the news’ to me regarding this.

Importantly, opinions I have read up on regarding the ‘unconscious’ or ‘subconscious’ do not report these things to being conscious or intelligent. They are merely aspects of a person’s consciousness which are working internally and quietly in the background as part of the overall necessity of human function and ability.

I would like to continue the discussion from the Near death and out of body experiences Thread.


And answer this post

How is it verifiable?

Communication is verifiable through the data it produces. For example, everything written and posted on this message board is actual communication which is verifiable as being actual communication.

Just in case it's not clear, I'm genuinely interested in your experiences as I've been fascinated by the ideomotor effect ever since I first encountered it. Just because I'm not (yet?) convinced by your interpretation of your experiences, that doesn't mean I'm not keen to learn more about them.

Well perhaps together we can sort out a way in which you can feel comfortable with the method in order to learn more about it for yourself.

There's a difference between never being aware of the meaning of the symbols and not having them memorised. My impression was that you meant the latter, in which case it's not the equivalent of a blindfold test. Everything you've ever seen or heard is available to your subconscious, even if you can't consciously recall it.

I would like you to expand on this observation. [hilited]
For now I will accept that I may be mistaken as to what qualifies as a ‘blindfold test’ in relation to any individual using this communications technique.

 

[Navigator]

Is the subconscious really what we think it is?

"If someone talks of subconsciousness, I cannot tell whether he means the term topographically – to indicate something lying in the mind beneath consciousness – or qualitatively – to indicate another consciousness, a subterranean one, as it were. He is probably not clear about any of it. The only trustworthy antithesis is between conscious and unconscious.” Sigmund Freud, The Question of Lay Analysis(Vienna 1926; English translation 1927)

Freud, it would seem, had little use for the word. He preferred to focus on the ‘unconscious’
Psychologists and psychiatrists seem to generally take a much more limited view of the capabilities of the unconscious than people who believe there is power to harness from the realms of the subconscious and bring into the real world.

Physicist Ali Alousi, criticized this belief because it as unmeasurable and questioned the likelihood that thoughts can affect anything outside the head.
Skeptics generally criticize the lack of falsifiability and testability of such claims.

I have not come across any particular method whereby the subconscious mind can be interacted with and the results of those interactions recorded, apart from the method commonly associated with ‘Ouija’.

My own observations in regard to thoughts being able to affect anything outside the head is that they can and do and this is a common method used for intelligent beings with our capabilities to express ourselves. I understand though that the reference may well have to do with magical thinking in which case I can agree but have reservations that all ‘new age’ communities are 100% in agreement that magical things can be brought into the real world.

More to the point, I think they are often referring to the power of the subconscious to be trained to focus on improving their lives in general and doing so through the power of thought and the expression of thought into positive action.

From my own experience I know that this thing referred to as ‘subconscious/unconscious’ is not only conscious but able to communicate with the conscious aspect of the ‘ego self’ - the individual.

In doing so, it is only natural to treat it as something separate from ones self , certainly in the initial stages of the ‘getting to know one another’ process, although – again from my own experience – the ‘subconscious’ part already knew me...in every detail. After all I am part of what it is...So the reality was that I was ‘getting to know it.’

 

[Pixel42]

Communication is verifiable through the data it produces. For example, everything written and posted on this message board is actual communication which is verifiable as being actual communication.

Your claim is that what you are communicating with via the ideomotor effect is an intelligent, conscious entity which is separate from what you call your ego self. This is contrary to the standard interpretation which is, as you say that it is "aspects of a person’s consciousness which are working internally and quietly in the background as part of the overall necessity of human function and ability" (except I'd question the use of the word consciousness, though I'm not sure what the correct one would be). You said in the other thread that this claim was verifiable (at least, that was what I understood you to be saying). So I repeat: how is it verifiable?

I would like you to expand on this observation.

My understanding is that everything our senses register is stored, even if it is not brought to the attention of our conscious awareness. This is why, for example, eye witnesses can sometimes recall previously forgotten details of what they saw under hypnosis.

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)

My understanding is that everything our senses register is stored, even if it is not brought to the attention of our conscious awareness. This is why, for example, eye witnesses can sometimes recall previously forgotten details of what they saw under hypnosis.

"Everything" seems pretty strong, was that your intent?

 

[Pixel42]

"Everything" seems pretty strong, was that your intent?

That's my understanding, though I could of course be wrong. It's a long time since I read around this subject.

The specific example in the other thread was a set of symbols which it seems Navigator himself created and assigned meanings to. He couldn't consciously recall all the meanings, so thought that when he used the ideomotor effect to receive messages using those symbols it was the equivalent of a blindfold test. I maintained it was not, because the meanings of the symbols were still accessible to his unconscious mind.

 

[marplots]

That's my understanding, though I could of course be wrong. It's a long time since I read around this subject.

The specific example in the other thread was a set of symbols which it seems Navigator himself created and assigned meanings to. He couldn't consciously recall all the meanings, so thought that when he used the ideomotor effect to receive messages using those symbols it was the equivalent of a blindfold test. I maintained it was not, because the meanings of the symbols were still accessible to his unconscious mind.

That latter sounds right. I was thinking you meant something like an eidetic memory (or even better than that), accessible by hypnosis. But this, to me blends in with the known confabulation problems we see with hypnosis and "recovered" memories.

My reading has more of a "created" picture as the norm, rather than an "accessed" file of retained data. Considering all the filtering that happens with things I am conscious of, I see no reason for something similar not being the case with memory generally. However, this still allows for the "created picture" being created from "something." How factually accurate that "something" may be is the question.

In my experience, it is quite difficult to try to remember something when it doesn't spring immediately to mind. I struggle to create some linked narrative that gives me a satisfactory answer. But when the process is effortful, it very much feels like I'm not authentically remembering at all - at least not with the same accuracy as those things I don't have to work at.

The "work" in my example doesn't seem to be a searching of data as much as a construction using related, "easy" memories and logic.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Communication is verifiable through the data it produces. For example, everything written and posted on this message board is actual communication which is verifiable as being actual communication.
...

Your 'data' being in this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10452318&postcount=881

There's no indication that your scrapbook of symbols is actually data. The way you produce that scrapbook clearly suggests it is not data.
We only have your unsupported word:

Could you give a couple examples of such translation?

No. I could, but prefer not to. It is not here nor there what the content of the communication is. The focus is that it works.
...

How can we tell? We can't.

 

[Donn]

I want to say I'm impressed by Navigator's ability to remain within the bounds of reason. He could, and I think has on a few other posts, veer off into woo turf, but he has a logical facility that steers him back.

I don't know what or whom he's talking to, that's up to specialists in the mind and its pathologies.

It must be a conundrum to be in his shoes. Here is evidence, as good as your own senses and your own experience, that another mind, shall we say, is communicating with you. That's very tangible and we're primed to respond to agents and agency.

On the other hand, he could be mistaken - a lack of proper knowledge about what he's doing, and how he does it - and he's talking to himself through a poor connection that is guaranteed to create the kind of wobbling chaos that one expects to find in an external agency.

The more convincing this communication, the more he (Navigator prime) believes he's actually talking to a "something" that is there -- an agent.

Logical questions are not likely to get use anywhere. I keep wondering why this smart agent cannot simply speak in some more direct language? Why the bad analogue modem ideomotor approach?

I think the answer is: because that's where it starts to feel real. If he messes with the authenticity of the connection, if the fidelity changed - it might shed the illusion.

To be fair, I must say I don't know how the mind works and, for all I know, there may be some legitimate mechanism to this. Some minds, I have heard, are two to a brain - one per half. It might be Navigator prime and SubNavigator are both proper persons!

(Navigator, please forgive any hurt I may cause by mentioning mental health. I am not interested in taunting or othering you.)

 

[Pixel42]

Some minds, I have heard, are two to a brain - one per half. It might be Navigator prime and SubNavigator are both proper persons!

I too am reminded of split brain cases. I'm assuming Navigator is aware of them, if not the wiki article is informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

I do find Navigator's experiences with the ideomotor effect genuinely fascinating, and potentially offering genuine insight into how the brain/mind works.

 

[Donn]

I do find Navigator's experiences with the ideomotor effect genuinely fascinating, and potentially offering genuine insight into how the brain/mind works.

Yes, although I don't know how much more we can learn here, as amateurs.

 

[Navigator]

Your claim is that what you are communicating with via the ideomotor effect is an intelligent, conscious entity which is separate from what you call your ego self.

Separate only in that the ego self is not usually aware of this other aspect of itself, other than naming it 'subconscious' or 'unconscious' and giving it various attributes mainly derived from egos need to be seen as less ignorant.

This is contrary to the standard interpretation which is, as you say that it is "aspects of a person’s consciousness which are working internally and quietly in the background as part of the overall necessity of human function and ability" (except I'd question the use of the word consciousness, though I'm not sure what the correct one would be).

I am aware it is somewhat contrary to the standard interpretation of what 'subconscious/unconscious' is but those are ego based interpretations which have not considered the possibility that these 'things' it has named and attached various attributes to (as theory) is one thing, - they cannot even agree on that ,which is why some use the word 'unconscious' in order to make sure we don't think of it as actually being conscious and others use the word 'sub conscious' and - while admittedly give it more credit for being somewhat conscious, think they can somehow manipulate it to do what they want, and seem to treat it as some kind of mechanism rather than understanding that it is a part - a very big part - of who they really are.

You said in the other thread that this claim was verifiable (at least, that was what I understood you to be saying). So I repeat: how is it verifiable?

And I repeat.

Communication is verifiable through the data it produces. For example, everything written and posted on this message board is actual communication which is verifiable as being actual communication.

That is what I am referring to. If we want to verify the validity of what is being communicated, that is another step. the first step is to verify that there is indeed communication occurring. This can be done by the individual.

My understanding is that everything our senses register is stored, even if it is not brought to the attention of our conscious awareness. This is why, for example, eye witnesses can sometimes recall previously forgotten details of what they saw under hypnosis.

People have different opinions as to the validity of hypnosis, (I have none either way) and I had a recent discussion in which I argued the possibility that memory could be recalled accurately through the process and therefore this could be one way to verify that while memory is selective in relation to the ego personality, it is intact in relation to the (so called) subconscious aspect of the self.
The argument against hypnosis being reliable is that the regressed is subject to suggestion which may effect the recall sufficiently enough to render the memory somewhat fabricated.

However, I do agree with you that everything we (ego personalities) experience is stored. I have no doubt whatsoever that the ego self is completely known (and for that, known far better than ego thinks it knows itself) by the so-called 'sub conscious' aspect.

I have my own 'name' for my 'subconscious' aspect but use the word 'subconscious' in order to acknowledge the loosely understood workings of the internal as well as to make plain that I am not referring to any external 'paranormal entities'.

So I (the ego personality) communicate with the aspect of my self which is often referred to by certain sciences as 'the unconscious" (because they do not like the connotations of using the word 'subconscious') and have discovered that not only is this 'unconscious' actually conscious but it is more than able to communicate with the individual ego consciousness and explain and give account of itself We do not need any middle/go between/medium -ego personalities such as physiologists, spiritualists, etc who presume to know much about what they really know so little. They are ignorant and making things up and presenting these things as if they are real and true.

This in turn keeps everyone ignorant about, not only the true nature of themselves (way beyond ego personality) but also the true nature of the so called unconscious/subconscious.

(eta: Which of course are the same thing the true nature of your self is discovered in knowing the true nature of the so called unconscious/subconscious.)

However, while this in itself is somewhat tragic, it is redeemable. Individuals can find out for themselves. They just have to want to use the time and make the effort. That is the only 'price'.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
And I repeat.

Communication is verifiable through the data it produces. ...

Then I'll also repeat:

Your 'data' being in this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10452318&postcount=881

There's no indication that your scrapbook of symbols is actually data. The way you produce that scrapbook clearly suggests it is not data.
We only have your unsupported word:



How can we tell? We can't.

You appear to have no data which verifies your claimed communication.

 

[barehl]

Your unconscious is just the non-verbal hemisphere of your own brain. It's very good at pattern matching but not very good at serial analysis. If you want related associations I can mention them. Sleepwalkers can do activities that they are familiar with but are not able to actually problem-solve. People within the autism spectrum can likewise often see patterns and do familiar activities but have limited problem solving ability. If you get intoxicated enough, your behavior can be similar with distinctly impaired problem solving.

People often get non-verbal impressions from this hemisphere that are described as hunches, intuition, or gut feelings. When people think the source is external they may ascribe it to ghosts, ESP, or other non-existent psychic phenomenon. When this pattern recognition works well in concert with deductive reasoning we label it as experience or judgement. When a new concept is learned we get that "eureka" feeling as information forms a strong pattern association.

I'm not sure if I can adequately explain this but the entire purpose of normal brain function is to submerge information below conscious perception. Your window of perceptive reasoning is fairly small and if you had to use this for everything you would be overloaded. So, your brain offloads whatever it can into learned associations and repetitive actions. You don't think about how to ride a bicycle or how to talk; it's learned behavior. You also don't think about how to read or do math or most other things that you have learned.

Some people claim that your brain somehow records everything even if you are not consciously aware of it. For the most part, this claim is false. In fact, it is just the opposite, people routinely fail to notice things that one would think would be obvious. It's called Selective Attention or Change Blindness. I've seen dozens of experiments that confirmed this so it isn't really a topic of debate. In some experiments, a man was on a date. After talking for a few minutes, the woman would get up to go to the restroom and a similarly dressed woman would return. The men didn't notice. Other experiments included someone asking for directions where movers, carrying a large object interrupted them briefly. During this time, the person would be switched, and again, without notice. You can check this yourself. Go here and watch the video called "A movie perception test - conversation".

It seems to me that you are essentially claiming that somewhere inside your head is another consciousness that is smarter or perhaps more knowledgeable than you. I can assure you that no such consciousness exists. However, you do have parts of your brain that perform functions that you are not generally aware of. For example, the emoticons that we can use on this board are automatically recognized as faces even though they don't actually resemble human faces. The same is true of cartoons and stick figures.

If you had a severed corpus collusum then you could close your eyes and draw something unknown with your non-writing hand. This doesn't work with an intact corpus collosum because you will be consciously aware of what your hand in doing. In other cases, the non-verbal brain is independent enough to lead to alien arm syndrome. In more severe cases you get hemispatial neglect where people seem unaware of half of their body. There are also phenomenon like blind sight where perception occurs but not at a conscious level.

It's not exactly a secret that people subconsciously bias results. This is why we have double blind experiments. This led to the mistaken belief that the horse, Clever Hans, could do math and also led to the embarrassing scandal of Facilitated Communication with autistic people.

 

[Navigator]

I have not read any information where the 'experts' have delved into this sufficiently to have come to such conclusions. I understand why they prefer to call this real thing 'unconscious' because these experts do not want to think of the implications of it being actually conscious, and also because they can then justify NOT looking carefully and fully into all ways which can produce measurable data. “There is nothing to see here folks, move along’



It is easier to say 'no, there is no other part of an individuals consciousness which can interact and communicate in a way which is understandable' because the implications of it being otherwise create questions about other ‘expert opinions’ which have gained acceptability in the ego driven perception of the world and how that world is run.

In much the same way so called psychics ‘explain’ that use of such device ‘opens the door to invite unsavoury spirits’ as a means of placing fear, uncertainty and self doubt into people, the motivation for doing so has to do with (as usual) the almighty $.

If people were freely able to access their inner consciousness they would have far less need to go looking for the answers outside their selves, from the so-called experts, psychic or psychiatric.

Perhaps the almighty $ isn’t the main motive for why such ‘expert’ advice is peddled. Perhaps a more caring and concerned agenda is involved?

Perhaps, but knowing the ego personality, and its propensity to fabricate for personal gain/recognition etc, I am likely pretty well correct.


So while your post has all the sound of knowing, you don’t really know do you? You haven’t given the process any real exploration have you? You are parroting what you have learned from the ‘experts’, and the particular explanation which you believe and have offered suits you enough that you will go with that, right?

Well believe what you will. Your belief does not change my knowing. Nor does your explanation align with my personal experience.

Anyone who is not willing to at least put the effort into replicating in order to see for themselves if there is any truth to what I am claiming, simply does not need to be taken seriously in relation to their opinion (expert or otherwise) about the process and what actually is involved.

 

[Olowkow]

Anyone who is not willing to at least put the effort into replicating in order to see for themselves if there is any truth to what I am claiming, simply does not need to be taken seriously in relation to their opinion (expert or otherwise) about the process and what actually is involved.

You seem to be claiming that the ouija board and the ideomotor effect generally are being controlled by a part of your brain that you don't have conscious control over. Or you are claiming that some external consciousness is responsible for the effect. If not either of these, then I have totally misunderstood your claims. For some reason, it feels like you are hesitant to actually say in straightforward language what you are claiming.

The autonomic nervous system is a control system that acts largely unconsciously and regulates the heart rate, digestion, respiratory rate, pupillary response, urination, and sexual arousal. Is some external control independent from the brain at work here?

What experiment would you devise to determine that it is not simply your own subconscious mind that controls the movements of a pendulum or ouija planchette, as pretty much everyone tends to believe? Are your hypotheses falsifiable? What is controlling the dowser's rods in your view? Is it some entity with special knowledge unknown to the dowser that leads him to water? Or is it the dowser's own subconscious?

 

[Navigator]

You seem to be claiming that the ouija board and the ideomotor effect generally are being controlled by a part of your brain that you don't have conscious control over. Or you are claiming that some external consciousness is responsible for the effect.

Well I am not claiming that at all. The brain is a vehicle for consciousness and as such is not any more conscious than your computer is.
What I am claiming is that individuate consciousness is separated into at least two distinct aspects – the one which is primarily that which identifies with the human form – which I am calling the ego personality, and the other which is more like an observer with the ability to quietly direct as it sees necessary, and is otherwise enabled.
That one is as conscious as the ego personality but has a different perspective as it is not focused totally on the small picture of the ego personality’s experience.
Since the nearest descriptive for that aspect of consciousness are 'the unconscious' or 'the subconscious' I am presently using those labels, although admittedly they are a fairly inadequate representation.
It would more appropriate and accurate to see the ego personality as being the sub conscious of the overall consciousness of the individual.
Certainly I am not claiming that this aspect of our consciousness is external although - if there is external consciousness, I would not be surprised if indeed there is some type of connection between these - in my (ego personalities) interactions with that aspect of my overall consciousness (for now identified as 'the subconscious) there have been hints regarding this concept. In relation to that (should it be the case) the individuate consciousness (both ego and 'sub') are aspects of that.

But that is not here nor there in the present context of this topic, and I am not particularly interested in distracting the discussion away from the thread topic focus.

If not either of these, then I have totally misunderstood your claims. For some reason, it feels like you are hesitant to actually say in straightforward language what you are claiming.

I think I have been fairly clear regarding what it is I am claiming.

In the attached diagram, {A} the blue represents the total consciousness of the individual. The yellow represents the dominant aspect of normal individual self identification- the ego personality - which predominantly identifies with being the human body, including the personality, gender, race, culture, country of origin, family name, political orientation, sexual preference etc.

Ego personalities for the most part do not identify with the larger aspect of their overall consciousness because they are unaware or otherwise ignorant of this aspect and only acknowledge it because it cannot be totally ignored. In acknowledging it, attributes are attached to it, mainly from either a religious/spiritual point of view, or a more materialistic one, depending on the type of ego personality attaching the attributes. Because both types of descriptions are sourced from ego personality perspective, both types are misrepresenting this aspect.

As I have claimed, this aspect is quite capable of explaining itself to the individual ego personality, if indeed it can 'get a word in edge-ways', as the saying goes.

{B} is another analogical way of looking at it.
The ego self (represented as yellow) has a more limited outlook and point of view than does the overall individuate consciousness (represented as blue)

The autonomic nervous system is a control system that acts largely unconsciously and regulates the heart rate, digestion, respiratory rate, pupillary response, urination, and sexual arousal. Is some external control independent from the brain at work here?

Not unless we are really all brains in jars somehow wired to a simulation machine giving us an experience we call 'physical reality'.

All the body functions you mention could be understood as being 'unconscious machinations principally driven by the brain' which itself is driven by both aspects of individuate consciousness.

What experiment would you devise to determine that it is not simply your own subconscious mind that controls the movements of a pendulum or ouija planchette, as pretty much everyone tends to believe?

Not everyone believes 'the subconscious mind' controls the movements.
Even those who do believe this, have misconceptions as to exactly what 'the subconscious mind' actually is.
Certainly it is my understanding that it is 'the subconscious mind' which controls the movement of the indicator (ouija planchette etc) and is able to communicate its self to the ego personality in this way.

Are your hypotheses falsifiable?

Sure, why not?

What is controlling the dowser's rods in your view? Is it some entity with special knowledge unknown to the dowser that leads him to water?

Yes.

Or is it the dowser's own subconscious?

Yes.

 

[barehl]

I have not read any information where the 'experts' have delved into this sufficiently to have come to such conclusions.

It's kind of hard to miss the evidence of hemispacial neglect or alien arm syndrome. This things are not exactly subtle.

Anyone who is not willing to at least put the effort into replicating in order to see for themselves if there is any truth to

The items I have mentioned have been replicated many times so there really isn't much debate about whether they are true.

what I am claiming, simply does not need to be taken seriously in relation to their opinion (expert or otherwise) about the process and what actually is involved.

I'm curious what amazing things you've learned from your other consciousness. And, since you are apparently the only expert on your process, you would have to explain it in more detail. Are you able to do that?

 

[Pixel42]

Anyone who is not willing to at least put the effort into replicating in order to see for themselves if there is any truth to what I am claiming, simply does not need to be taken seriously in relation to their opinion (expert or otherwise) about the process and what actually is involved.

No-one has disputed your account of your experiences and there are plenty of other accounts which agree with yours. What is in dispute is your interpretation of such experiences. You have jumped straight from "it seems like I'm communicating with another conscious entity" to "I definitely am communicating with another conscious entity", and that is an unjustified leap.

In the other thread you made the same unjustified leap from "evolution seems to be an intelligent process" to "evolution is an intelligent process", and most posters here know enough about how evolution really works to know that is simply wrong. I have given you other historical examples where leaping from "it seems like X" to "it is X" was proven wrong.

In the case of consciousness there is much less knowledge and understanding here than there is for evolution, but we know that those who study it in depth have not reached the same conclusions as you. In order to convince us that you're right and they're wrong you're going to have to offer much better arguments than "it seems like X therefore it is X", even though it would seem like X to us too if we replicated your experiments.

 

[Navigator]

No-one has disputed your account of your experiences and there are plenty of other accounts which agree with yours. What is in dispute is your interpretation of such experiences. You have jumped straight from "it seems like I'm communicating with another conscious entity" to "I definitely am communicating with another conscious entity", and that is an unjustified leap.

Neither of those two perceptions are accurate interpretations of what I have been saying.
I have always stated that I am communicating with an aspect of myself which I (the ego self) had not been aware of.
So no, not 'another entity'.
What I have said is that initially it feels like the aspects are strangers and thus separate (from ego self's perspective at least) and this changes as the realization (Again by ego self) of what is actually happening is more clearly understood.

Indeed the whole 'entity' is an individuate consciousness of which the ego self is an aspect of. That would be the more accurate way of saying it, but naturally it has to be approached from the ego self perspective because that is what we understand our SELF to be - our perspective is that we are the real and only 'self' we know of and identify with as being 'the self'., and our perceptions come from that perspective.
Thus we view anything else not being who we think of as our self as 'other'.

In the other thread you made the same unjustified leap from "evolution seems to be an intelligent process" to "evolution is an intelligent process", and most posters here know enough about how evolution really works to know that is simply wrong. I have given you other historical examples where leaping from "it seems like X" to "it is X" was proven wrong.

That is one reason why I started this thread because I did not want the focus shifted from what I was sharing regarding ideomotor. I started with 'it seems like' but the focus went away from ideomotor to arguing about whether intelligence was involved in the process of biological evolution or not.
So since the focus was more intently on that subject, I shifted from 'it seems like' to 'it obviously is'
However, I do not wish to argue anymore about that either in that thread or this one.

While I am of the opinion that the two subjects are related, the subject I want to focus on in this thread is ideomotor effect and the 'subconscious' so if you or anyone else wants to pursue the issue of biological evolution and intelligence in this thread, I will consider that to being an attempt to change the focus of the thread topic, and won't be getting involved with that.

In the case of consciousness there is much less knowledge and understanding here than there is for evolution, but we know that those who study it in depth have not reached the same conclusions as you. In order to convince us that you're right and they're wrong you're going to have to offer much better arguments than "it seems like X therefore it is X", even though it would seem like X to us too if we replicated your experiments.

I have never said 'it seems like' in relation to my experiences with this process of communication, other than to explain the direction I took when first exploring the effect.

I made that clear enough in the other thread. I even reiterated in my opening post in this thread, when I said this:

My own approach in initially using such device was on the assumption I was communicating with ‘the dead’ and through continued use over many months this understanding changed as I was lead to understand that I was communicating with an intelligent aspect of my self to which I had previously been totally ignorant about.
It was actually this other aspect of my self which ‘broke the news’ to me regarding this. ​

If you were to replicate my own experiments, you would not need to approach it with in mind that you are speaking with some external 'entities' but rather that it was with your own SELF, even being the case that this aspect of who you are has been hidden from your (ego self's) awareness.

Our ego self is what we have identified with as our understanding of 'self' throughout our lives up to the point where we become aware of - through communicating with - that hidden aspect...which is NOT an external entity, but which IS (most accurately) who we really are.

Or as I mentioned in the other thread, this post;

So 'the illusion of self' has more to do with how the self puts on a costume and acts out.
I have been saying as much in relation to my experience with ideomotor. The ego personality is at the helm and the real self is ignored and/or presumed to be something it isn't.

It is that real self which I am speaking about communicating with through ideomotor.

It is quite the humbling experience for ego personality as the real self slowly undresses it and washes it clean of makeup.
​

 

[marplots]

I think I'm up to speed. It seems to me there's only one difference between what is being described as conscious and the communication with the subconscious. That difference I'll call "the feeling of authorship."

So long as consciousness arises from the subconscious, the grounding between ego and the "automatic writing" described is the same. I don't find this mysterious at all. Nor do I think there's anything particularly useful to mine in the way outlined.

My question is then whether there has been anything particularly valuable or insightful - as perceived by a neutral observer - using the method, rather than the same sort of stuff which percolates up and we communicate overtly. I ask because I've never found anything really extraordinary in alien-authored stuff. It mirrors, quite well, the same product as relaxed musing creates.