• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Ideomotor Effect and the Subconscious / Beyond the Ideomotor Effect

theprestige said:
I think my post is still relevant.
Click to expand...
I agree that your post is relevant. What has created the confusion is that my thread—focused on structured intelligence beyond the Ideomotor Effect—was merged into this one.
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
The fact that the responses remain structured, coherent, and interactive over time, despite these controlled variables, suggests that the subconscious—or another unknown process—operates in a far more structured way than previously assumed.
Click to expand...

Last time you were here you had nothing but your subjective interpretation of random data which you, and you alone, found meaningful.

So I have to ask: what objective, repeatable and verifiable process are you using in order to conclude the highlighted?

Because if it's still just your subjective interpretation, you've still got nothing.
 
Navigator said:
This raises an interesting question: if the discussion of structured intelligence—particularly in material-based processes—is framed as a subset of subconscious responses, does this mean that emergent intelligence as a scientific or philosophical concept is considered indistinguishable from subconscious auto-responses?

If so, this raises deeper questions about how skeptics differentiate between structured intelligence and subconscious activity. Is all intelligence beyond direct human intention assumed to be subconscious rather than emergent or structured?
Click to expand...
I see words. Just words.
 
Navigator said:
I agree that your post is relevant. What has created the confusion is that my thread—focused on structured intelligence beyond the Ideomotor Effect—was merged into this one.
Click to expand...
You're not doing beyond. You're doing instead of.

Bibliomancy has its own failure modes, independent of the ideomotor effect. Swapping one risk of subconscious bias for another doesn't get you any closer to "structured intelligence". It leaves you just as wrong as you were before, for a different reason.
 
Pixel42 said:
Last time you were here you had nothing but your subjective interpretation of random data which you, and you alone, found meaningful.

So I have to ask: what objective, repeatable and verifiable process are you using in order to conclude the highlighted?

Because if it's still just your subjective interpretation, you've still got nothing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for replying Pixel. In reviewing this old thread before creating the new one (re BEYOND Ideomotor Effect) I noted your genuine interest and hoped to see you respond.Given the old thread subject is 10 years on and since now the new thread has been merged we should be able to expect changes have occurred in that time and they have.Have you read posts #865 and 866? These are the OP and explanation of how the system I am currently focused on, works. These should help you distinguish the old from the new and help avoid any confusion the merging of the thread might have cause.Now to answer your immediate concerns...

The key difference between what I’m discussing now and what you’re implying is that we are not dealing with a purely subjective phenomenon. The responses remain structured, coherent, and interactive over time, despite being drawn from a randomized system. This is not about my personal interpretation of random noise—it's about whether intelligence can emerge through structured processes beyond direct human intention.That leads to an important question: If this is purely subjective, then why does the system continue generating coherent and contextually relevant responses across multiple trials? A truly random process should produce randomness, not sustained coherence.So I’ll ask you this: If you assume it’s just my subjective interpretation, then what would falsify that assumption? What evidence would you require to acknowledge that structured intelligence might be playing a role here?
 
theprestige said:
You're not doing beyond. You're doing instead of.

Bibliomancy has its own failure modes, independent of the ideomotor effect. Swapping one risk of subconscious bias for another doesn't get you any closer to "structured intelligence". It leaves you just as wrong as you were before, for a different reason.
Click to expand...
Your response suggests you may not have read posts #865 and #866, which outline the OP and the explanation of how the system works. Since my focus is beyond the Ideomotor Effect, those posts will help clarify the distinction between what you’re assuming and what is actually being demonstrated.

The key issue here is that the system produces structured, coherent, and interactive responses over multiple trials. That’s not just swapping one subconscious bias for another—it’s an observable pattern. If you still believe it’s purely subconscious bias after reading those posts, then my question for you is: What results would falsify that assumption?
 
Navigator said:
Your response suggests you may not have read posts #865 and #866, which outline the OP and the explanation of how the system works. Since my focus is beyond the Ideomotor Effect, those posts will help clarify the distinction between what you’re assuming and what is actually being demonstrated.

The key issue here is that the system produces structured, coherent, and interactive responses over multiple trials. That’s not just swapping one subconscious bias for another—it’s an observable pattern. If you still believe it’s purely subconscious bias after reading those posts, then my question for you is: What results would falsify that assumption?
Click to expand...
The system is just I Ching divination with extra steps.

And I haven't seen any of your results that demonstrate otherwise. Just descriptions of methods, and claims about their efficacy.

Where's your list of phrases? Where's your replicable experimental protocol? Where's your independently-verified repeatable results?

All I've seen so far is a description of using preselected phrases to randomly generate prompts for just so stories. Might as well just have used the I Ching.
 
Navigator said:
The key issue here is that the system produces structured, coherent, and interactive responses over multiple trials. That’s not just swapping one subconscious bias for another—it’s an observable pattern. If you still believe it’s purely subconscious bias after reading those posts, then my question for you is: What results would falsify that assumption?
Click to expand...
Independent verification.
 
theprestige said:
The system is just I Ching divination with extra steps.

And I haven't seen any of your results that demonstrate otherwise. Just descriptions of methods, and claims about their efficacy.

Where's your list of phrases? Where's your replicable experimental protocol? Where's your independently-verified repeatable results?

All I've seen so far is a description of using preselected phrases to randomly generate prompts for just so stories. Might as well just have used the I Ching.
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
Independent verification.
Click to expand...
If the concern is independent verification, the best way to determine whether structured intelligence is at play is through replication rather than reviewing a single result in isolation.

The OP makes it clear that this system is based on a culmination of structured results over time, not just one-off responses. It specifically highlights:

  • Coherence Across Time – The system generates responses that build upon past interactions rather than producing random or fragmented outputs.
  • Externally Referencing Intelligence – Responses link to information not consciously recalled at the time of inquiry, challenging the idea that all responses are drawn purely from pre-existing conscious knowledge.
  • Structured, Interactive Intelligence – The system does not produce vague, ambiguous statements but instead interacts meaningfully with input.
A proper scientific approach would be replication—if structured intelligence is to be ruled out, that should be done through direct experimentation, not assumptions.

So, instead of debating whether structured intelligence exists in the abstract, why not test the process yourself? If you believe the system is just subconscious bias, replicating it should demonstrate the same kind of randomness you expect.

Would you be open to engaging in a structured test of the process? If time is a concern, perhaps we could discuss ways to make such a test more accessible.

As to the list I use to select line entries through random number selections - the line entries in my dataset are not narrowly tailored to personal beliefs. They come from a broad range of sources, including:

  • Personal events that have happened in my life.
  • Lines from popular movies and books.
  • Common sayings and expressions.
  • Links to scientific papers.
  • Various philosophies and perspectives.
  • YouTube videos—music, lectures, atheist and theist podcasts, ted talks et al
  • Anything else that diversifies the dataset to provide a broad range of subject material.
If structured intelligence isn’t at play, then repeating the process should demonstrate the randomness and subconscious bias you expect.

Additionally, I am not adverse to attaching files of either the current list I am using or examples of what the process is able to achieve. If this would be useful for the discussion, I can upload a file for review.
 
arthwollipot said:
I said independent verification.
Click to expand...
Could you clarify exactly what you mean by 'independent verification' in this context?

  • If you mean replication, then the best way to verify or falsify the results is for skeptics to run the process themselves. Are you open to doing that?
  • If you mean third-party review, then someone needs to engage with the structured responses first to assess their validity.
  • If you mean a formal controlled study, that would require participation from interested parties willing to collaborate in designing such a test.
Independent verification isn’t just a phrase—it requires a clear definition and an agreed-upon method of assessment. What would independent verification look like to you?
 
I mean all those things. Right now all I'm seeing is you pulling ◊◊◊◊ out of your arse.

And for the record, yes, I have also done automatic writing before. A lot of people have. It has zero meaning.
 

arthwollipot​

Clearly, you have no serious interest in this subject, as evidenced by your false equivalence between automatic writing and this structured process. (Posts 865 and 866) Wishing you well.
 
Navigator said:
arthwollipot
Clearly, you have no serious interest in this subject, as evidenced by your false equivalence between automatic writing and this structured process. (Posts 865 and 866) Wishing you well.
Click to expand...
Well okay, let's do this. Let's put together a formal protocol as though you were putting this up for the Million Dollar Challenge.

The first thing to do is state your claim - simply, and in only a few sentences. Go ahead. My process can do x.
 
arthwollipot said:
Well okay, let's do this. Let's put together a formal protocol as though you were putting this up for the Million Dollar Challenge.

The first thing to do is state your claim - simply, and in only a few sentences. Go ahead. My process can do x.
Click to expand...
Okay.

My Claim: The system I have developed generates structured, coherent, and contextually relevant messages using a randomized selection process. These responses exhibit meaningful continuity across multiple trials, suggesting the presence of an underlying structured intelligence beyond simple randomness or self-imposed bias.

By 'messages,' I mean structured responses that convey meaning—just as any sentence or statement does. A message, in this context, is not random gibberish but something that can be understood as a coherent communication, even if generated through a randomized process.
 
Last edited:
The problem with that protocol is that it leaves the content of the "message" completely open to interpretation. You could look at a sequence of words like "correct horse battery staple" and find meaning in it. To be testable, it needs to produce something concrete and unambiguous, something that is not open to individual interpretation. Can you do that?

Also, what is the purpose of these "messages"? What can you do with them?
 
I understand the concern about subjective interpretation, but this is not simply about finding patterns in randomness. The system produces responses that exhibit structured continuity over multiple trials, rather than random, disjointed sequences.

If the process were purely random, we would expect incoherent outputs with no thematic consistency. Instead, the messages build upon past interactions in a way that suggests an underlying structure. If you are looking for a testable standard, one way to approach this is to determine whether multiple independent observers would recognize coherence in the generated responses. Would you be open to discussing how structured continuity could be tested objectively?

As for the reference to the Million Dollar Challenge, that was designed to test paranormal claims—not structured intelligence emerging from randomized processes. My claim is not supernatural, but rather about the presence of structured coherence beyond chance expectations.

If James Randi were still around, how do you think he would approach this? He was known for being rigorous but also willing to put claims to the test in controlled conditions. Since this isn’t a paranormal claim, the usual dismissal tactics associated with that challenge wouldn’t apply here. Wouldn’t the best approach be to determine a fair and falsifiable test for structured coherence?"**

Regarding the purpose of these messages, the primary question is not their use but their validity. First, we need to determine whether they exhibit structured intelligence beyond random chance. If structured coherence is present, then the implications can be explored later.

However, if you are asking what these messages could be used for, one possible answer is that they may offer insight into how intelligence organizes meaning, similar to how AI processes information or how subconscious cognition works.

But before discussing applications, we need to address the core question: Do the responses exhibit structured coherence beyond random output? That’s what we should focus on first
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
But before discussing applications, we need to address the core question: Do the responses exhibit structured coherence beyond random output? That’s what we should focus on first
Click to expand...
Okay, we're getting somewhere. How would you propose to examine the responses for structured coherence? What standard would you apply? Does "correct horse battery staple" exhibit structured coherence?
 
Good question. Structured coherence can be examined through the following criteria:

1️⃣ Contextual Relevance: The generated responses should relate meaningfully to the input rather than producing disjointed, irrelevant, or nonsensical outputs.
2️⃣ Thematic Continuity: Over multiple trials, responses should exhibit consistent themes rather than purely random variations.
3️⃣ Sequential Dependency: Responses should build upon previous ones in a way that suggests an internal structure rather than isolated outputs.
4️⃣ Low Probability of Random Generation: The likelihood of generating meaningful sequences by chance should be statistically low compared to control trials using pure randomness.

Regarding your example, ‘Correct Horse Battery Staple’ is a randomly selected sequence of words, with no inherent relationship between them. By contrast, a structured response system should demonstrate patterns of coherence across multiple trials, beyond what chance would predict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom