Merged Ideomotor Effect and the Subconscious / Beyond the Ideomotor Effect

[Navigator]

I really do not see any sense in the sentences you presented, and I think that your bias may cause you to find meaning where there is none.

You then claim that I am biased myself. That may be so, but that only illustrates that your test is not objective and free of bias, no matter in what direction the bias goes.

To be convincing, you need some other method of determining whether the messages contain meaning or not.

I have simply presented a group of words and argued that these are all messages and together constitute a message. Meaning is in the interpretation (which is beyond what I am arguing). Just because someone finds no meaning in a message does not prove "therefore it cannot be a message"
(for example If someone doesn’t understand a foreign language, that does not mean the text is meaningless or not a message—it only means they don’t understand it)
Any "method of determining whether the messages contains meaning or not" is another argument which I think we can both agree would involve bias.

 

[Pixel42]

I have simply presented a group of words and argued that these are all messages and together constitute a message. Meaning is in the interpretation (which is beyond what I am arguing).

What then, according to you, is the difference between "a group of words" and "a message"? If it is not that the latter contains meaning, then what is it?

 

[junkshop]

No. I have not offered ANY interpretations. I have simply selected 4 line entries from the document - all of which constitute what fall under the definition of messages.

Your definition of messages, derived from your beliefs and biases. You have yet to convince anyone else to accept these.

As to you INTERPRETING the message as a dubious explanation of why we experience fear and asking what does raise your frequency even mean, that is beyond my argument as I have plainly only argued that it is a message (indeed - a grouped set of messages)

Hold up there a second. I thought your theory was that the 'message' comes from the ostensibly random combination of the phrases you chose. Are you now claiming that these phrases are themselves 'messages'? If so, then this:

It doesn't even matter what the source or the method of selection was

Is even more dishonest than it already was. Even if I have misunderstood your previous argument, then I would still vehemently disagree with this one. The source of these seed inputs, and the process of and justifications for their being chosen is very important.

(it was from a document and the lines were selected in what would be considered random) as my argument is simply that it is a message as far as the definition of message goes.

What document? Why this document? Who would consider the selection random, and why? What was the process?

Again, this all hinges on your personal definition of what a message is. This all relies on your biases being accepted as the objective truth. Without knowing the source of these seed phrases I cannot, and will not accept this axiom.

 

[Myriad]

"We experience fear in order to give us the opportunity to overcome that which triggers the fear. Even if Jesus does return... we shall have to cross that bridge when it happens – until then, such and event remains in the place of the imagination. Raise your frequency. Love & Respect. "

It appears this was concatenated from four segments from your library:

1. We experience fear in order to give us the opportunity to overcome that which triggers the fear.

2. Even if Jesus does return... we shall have to cross that bridge when it happens – until then, such and event remains in the place of the imagination.

3. Raise your frequency.

4. Love & Respect.

These don't seem to me to make up any coherent message. Mostly because 1 and 2 contradict one another in more than one way, and 3 and 4 are "compatible noise."

Segment 1 is advice to interpret fear as motivation to "overcome" whatever triggers the fear. To do that one would have to address the source of the fear, by eliminating it or at least preparing for its possible occurrence. If you're afraid of being mugged, you might move to a safer place, hire bodyguards, train in personal defense, stay at home, or whatever else you think might work.

Segment 2 is about Jesus's return. That is not about fear, because for those who believe in Jesus's return, Jesus's return is a good thing anticipated with hope instead of fear. Now, in Christian mythology Jesus's return is often associted with fearful events (tribulations, apocalypse, the Battle of Armageddon, the Beast, all that good Revelation stuff) but the sentence doesn't speak of those, it speaks specifically of Jesus's return.

But there are bigger contradictions than that. Because even if we grant Jesus's return as a suitable example of something to be feared to which the advice in segment 1 might possibly apply, actually applying it makes no sense. Note that it doesn't say to set aside or overcome or reject the fear itself (like a Biblical angel saying "Be not afraid!"); it says overcome the thing that triggers the fear. How would one go about overcoming Jesus's return? I can't see "Overcome Jesus!" or "Jesus Stay Away!" as slogans that would be appreciated by anyone except perhaps the most militant of atheists or anti-Christian zealots.

In more general terms, segment 1 says to address the causes of fear and segment 2 says to disregard future fears that have yet to be realized. That is irreconcilably contradictory. (In my opinion, neither is good advice in general, though one or the other might apply in different specific cases.

Perhaps the next segment helps to resolve this contradiction. "Raise your frequency." Well, no. That says nothing about fears of future events, fear in general, being proactive versus biding your time, whether Jesus is or is not likely to return, the relationship between reality and imagination, or anything else referenced in segments 1 and 2. At a reach we might imagine that raising your frequency refers to some mental technique or attitude change that could conceivably reduce fear, but that wouldn't overcome sources of fear nor delay feared future events.

I call this "compatible noise" because it conveys no clear meaning of its own, so it appears consistent with any context it occurs in because it isn't meaningful enough to contradict it. Try this little nugget of vague mystic wisdom:

Lower your frequency.
Raise your frequency.
Don't lower your frequency.
Don't raise your frequency.
Compatible noise is compatible.
(From the Myriad Koans, #122)

Here's where you might try to do the test I suggested earlier. Take "Raise your frequency" and concatenate it one at a time with every single one of your 6,999 other segments. How many of those combinations seem to you to combine in an intelligent way? If the answer is all the time or most of the time, or even much of the time, then you have a clear answer to your thesis question: the apparent intelligence is not arising from any random process but from your own proclivity to perceive intelligence in combinations of unrelated texts.

(Unfortunately I can't advise you to do the test with just, say, 100 of your segments, because you'd be tempted to conclude that a mysterious agency, hidden within whatever selection method you used to choose which 100 to try, was the source of the perceived intelligence instead.)

 

[arthwollipot]

Does this group of words contain a message?

Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the divine Miranda with those who for reasons unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment plunged in fire whose fire flames if that continues and who can doubt it will fire the firmament that is to say blast hell to heaven so blue still and calm so calm with a calm which even though intermittent is better than nothing but not so fast and considering what is more that as a result of the labours left unfinished crowned by the Acacacacademy of Anthropopopometry of Essy-in-Possy of Testew and Cunard it is established beyond all doubt all other doubt than that which clings to the labours of men that as a result of the labours unfinished of Testew and Cunard it is established as hereinafter but not so fast for reasons unknown that as a result of the public works of Puncher and Wattmann it is established beyond all doubt that in view of the labours of Fartov and Belcher left unfinished for reasons unknown of Testew and Cunard left unfinished it is established what many deny that man in Possy of Testew and Cunard that man in Essy that man in short that man in brief in spite of the strides of alimentation and defecation is seen to waste and pine waste and pine and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the strides of physical culture the practice of sports such as tennis football running cycling swimming flying floating riding gliding conating camogie skating tennis of all kinds dying flying sports of all sorts autumn summer winter winter tennis of all kinds hockey of all sorts penicilline and succedanea in a word I resume and concurrently simultaneously for reasons unknown to shrink and dwindle in spite of the tennis I resume flying gliding golf over nine and eighteen holes tennis of all sorts in a word for reasons unknown in Feckham Peckham Fulham Clapham namely concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown but time will tell to shrink and dwindle I resume Fulham Clapham in a word the dead loss per caput since the death of Bishop Berkeley being to the tune of one inch four ounce per caput approximately by and large more or less to the nearest decimal good measure round figures stark naked in the stockinged feet in Connemara in a word for reasons unknown no matter what matter the facts are there and considering what is more much more grave that in the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman it appears what is more much more grave that in the light the light the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman that in the plains in the mountains by the seas by the rivers running water running fire the air is the same and then the earth namely the air and then the earth in the great cold the great dark the air and the earth abode of stones in the great cold alas alas in the year of their Lord six hundred and something the air the earth the sea the earth abode of stones in the great deeps the great cold an sea on land and in the air I resume for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis the facts are there but time will tell I resume alas alas on on in short in fine on on abode of stones who can doubt it I resume but not so fast I resume the skull to shrink and waste and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis on on the beard the flames the tears the stones so blue so calm alas alas on on the skull the skull the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the labours abandoned left unfinished graver still abode of stones in a word I resume alas alas abandoned unfinished the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the skull alas the stones Cunard tennis... the stones... so calm... Cunard... unfinished...

 

[Navigator]

What then, according to you, is the difference between "a group of words" and "a message"? If it is not that the latter contains meaning, then what is it?

Meaning is associated with with interpretation which is directly linked to bias.
A "group of words" can constitute a message (as I have shown - and regardless of what method is used to create said group.) Meaning is not something I am arguing.

 

[theprestige]

Meaning is associated with with interpretation which is directly linked to bias.
A "group of words" can constitute a message (as I have shown - and regardless of what method is used to create said group.) Meaning is not something I am arguing.

No. You are arguing consistency of themes across multiple runs. That requires interpretation. Appeal to statistical models of entropy and information isn't enough.

 

[Spektator]

Does this group of words contain a message?

Do you feel Lucky?

 

[Navigator]

It appears this was concatenated from four segments from your library:

1. We experience fear in order to give us the opportunity to overcome that which triggers the fear.

2. Even if Jesus does return... we shall have to cross that bridge when it happens – until then, such and event remains in the place of the imagination.

3. Raise your frequency.

4. Love & Respect.

These don't seem to me to make up any coherent message. Mostly because 1 and 2 contradict one another in more than one way, and 3 and 4 are "compatible noise."

Segment 1 is advice to interpret fear as motivation to "overcome" whatever triggers the fear. To do that one would have to address the source of the fear, by eliminating it or at least preparing for its possible occurrence. If you're afraid of being mugged, you might move to a safer place, hire bodyguards, train in personal defense, stay at home, or whatever else you think might work.

Segment 2 is about Jesus's return. That is not about fear, because for those who believe in Jesus's return, Jesus's return is a good thing anticipated with hope instead of fear. Now, in Christian mythology Jesus's return is often associted with fearful events (tribulations, apocalypse, the Battle of Armageddon, the Beast, all that good Revelation stuff) but the sentence doesn't speak of those, it speaks specifically of Jesus's return.

But there are bigger contradictions than that. Because even if we grant Jesus's return as a suitable example of something to be feared to which the advice in segment 1 might possibly apply, actually applying it makes no sense. Note that it doesn't say to set aside or overcome or reject the fear itself (like a Biblical angel saying "Be not afraid!"); it says overcome the thing that triggers the fear. How would one go about overcoming Jesus's return? I can't see "Overcome Jesus!" or "Jesus Stay Away!" as slogans that would be appreciated by anyone except perhaps the most militant of atheists or anti-Christian zealots.

In more general terms, segment 1 says to address the causes of fear and segment 2 says to disregard future fears that have yet to be realized. That is irreconcilably contradictory. (In my opinion, neither is good advice in general, though one or the other might apply in different specific cases.

Perhaps the next segment helps to resolve this contradiction. "Raise your frequency." Well, no. That says nothing about fears of future events, fear in general, being proactive versus biding your time, whether Jesus is or is not likely to return, the relationship between reality and imagination, or anything else referenced in segments 1 and 2. At a reach we might imagine that raising your frequency refers to some mental technique or attitude change that could conceivably reduce fear, but that wouldn't overcome sources of fear nor delay feared future events.

I call this "compatible noise" because it conveys no clear meaning of its own, so it appears consistent with any context it occurs in because it isn't meaningful enough to contradict it. Try this little nugget of vague mystic wisdom:

Lower your frequency.
Raise your frequency.
Don't lower your frequency.
Don't raise your frequency.
Compatible noise is compatible.
(From the Myriad Koans, #122)

Here's where you might try to do the test I suggested earlier. Take "Raise your frequency" and concatenate it one at a time with every single one of your 6,999 other segments. How many of those combinations seem to you to combine in an intelligent way? If the answer is all the time or most of the time, or even much of the time, then you have a clear answer to your thesis question: the apparent intelligence is not arising from any random process but from your own proclivity to perceive intelligence in combinations of unrelated texts.

(Unfortunately I can't advise you to do the test with just, say, 100 of your segments, because you'd be tempted to conclude that a mysterious agency, hidden within whatever selection method you used to choose which 100 to try, was the source of the perceived intelligence instead.)

Your evaluation centers on meaning, which is distinct from the argument I'm making. My point is that a collection of words can form a message, irrespective of how they were produced. Whether the message is coherent, contradictory, or open to interpretation does not alter this fact. Meaning introduces bias, as evidenced by your own analysis and other posters conflating meaning with message.

I can of course do more selections from my current list, which in effect would build on the overall message, but meaning is something else. Coherency is key here as you yourself have shown in your reply that you understand the coherency. The message under examination is coherent even though some have interpreted it as "nonsense" - they are conflating interpretation with face value coherency. They are taking it one step further...into the land of bias...

Face value coherency is as dictionary definition rather than resorting to interpretation bias. Dictionary definitions appear to support coherency as a factor rather than interpretation. Meaning introduces bias, as your own breakdown demonstrates.

eta.... out of curiosity I engaged in more selections and the message is

Discernment What is something I've been avoiding that I need to face? Hominid Disrupt Stay Present There Are Myriad Stories Happening Within The Main Story

 

[junkshop]

Your evaluation centers on meaning, which is distinct from the argument I'm making. My point is that a collection of words can form a message, irrespective of how they were produced. Whether the message is coherent, contradictory, or open to interpretation does not alter this fact. Meaning introduces bias, as evidenced by your own analysis and other posters conflating meaning with message...

Without meaning there is no message, there is only noise.

...I can of course do more selections from my current list, which in effect would build on the overall message, but meaning is something else...

Please describe the origin of your current list. What was its source? Why was that source chosen? How were the extracts chosen?

...Coherency is key here as you yourself have shown in your reply that you understand the coherency. The message under examination is coherent even though some have interpreted it as "nonsense" - they are conflating interpretation with face value coherency. They are taking it one step further...into the land of bias...
Face value coherency is as dictionary definition rather than resorting to interpretation bias. Dictionary definitions appear to support coherency as a factor rather than interpretation. Meaning introduces bias, as your own breakdown demonstrates.

The example you gave before (in post #971) was not coherent. The same goes for the highlighted portion above. Also the non-highlighted portion above.

You appear to be using somewhat idiosyncratic definitions of the words 'message', 'meaning', 'coherent' and 'bias'. Please explain what you understand these words to mean, so that we can be sure that we are discussing the same thing.

 

[Navigator]

No. You are arguing consistency of themes across multiple runs. That requires interpretation. Appeal to statistical models of entropy and information isn't enough.

No. What I am currently arguing is not consistency of themes (even if they are identifiable present) but the initial step - that the message under question actually constitutes the dictionary definition of what a message should consist of in order to be regarded as a message.
Identifying consistency within any message isn't the same thing as interpreting said message, where bias takes on a role.

 

[Navigator]

Without meaning there is no message, there is only noise.


Please describe the origin of your current list. What was its source? Why was that source chosen? How were the extracts chosen?


The example you gave before (in post #971) was not coherent. The same goes for the highlighted portion above. Also the non-highlighted portion above.

You appear to be using somewhat idiosyncratic definitions of the words 'message', 'meaning', 'coherent' and 'bias'. Please explain what you understand these words to mean, so that we can be sure that we are discussing the same thing.

At this stage, I am solely determining whether these examples align with the dictionary definition of a message. If you accept that definition, we can proceed. If not, please explain your reasoning.
I have already referenced multiple dictionary definitions that clarify what qualifies as a message. If you disagree with those definitions, please indicate which aspect you dispute.

Are you rejecting the definitions I provided earlier? If so, on what basis?

Currently you are just repeating a claim without explaining why my selections fail to meet the definition. I have already outlined why they do. If you believe they do not, please specify which part of the definition is not being met.

 

[junkshop]

At this stage, I am solely determining whether these examples align with the dictionary definition of a message. If you accept that definition, we can proceed. If not, please explain your reasoning.
I have already referenced multiple dictionary definitions that clarify what qualifies as a message. If you disagree with those definitions, please indicate which aspect you dispute.

Are you rejecting the definitions I provided earlier? If so, on what basis?

Currently you are just repeating a claim without explaining why my selections fail to meet the definition. I have already outlined why they do. If you believe they do not, please specify which part of the definition is not being met.

 

[Myriad]

Your evaluation centers on meaning, which is distinct from the argument I'm making. My point is that a collection of words can form a message, irrespective of how they were produced. Whether the message is coherent, contradictory, or open to interpretation does not alter this fact. Meaning introduces bias, as evidenced by your own analysis and other posters conflating meaning with message.

I can of course do more selections from my current list, which in effect would build on the overall message, but meaning is something else. Coherency is key here as you yourself have shown in your reply that you understand the coherency. The message under examination is coherent even though some have interpreted it as "nonsense" - they are conflating interpretation with face value coherency. They are taking it one step further...into the land of bias...

Face value coherency is as dictionary definition rather than resorting to interpretation bias. Dictionary definitions appear to support coherency as a factor rather than interpretation. Meaning introduces bias, as your own breakdown demonstrates.

eta.... out of curiosity I engaged in more selections and the message is

Discernment What is something I've been avoiding that I need to face? Hominid Disrupt Stay Present There Are Myriad Stories Happening Within The Main Story

I randomly select characters from the set {0, 1, 2..., 8, 9, +, - , *, =, >, <}

The first fifteen selections, my very first try (really), result in:

65-3239+797>2+9

Imagine I show the results to Naomi, who says: OMG this random process has produced a message!

Myrna also looks at it, and says: This is just the expected result of randomly sequencing these characters. It's not even a true inequality.

Naomi: You're missing the point! The very fact that you can interpret the string of characters as a coherent mathematical expression (which simplifies to -2377 > 11), and thus evaluate its truth or falsehood, proves it's not only a message but a meaningful one.

Myrna: There's no mathematical knowledge in the selection process, which is why the string it produced this time is false. It will not produce valid statements consistently, and will rarely produce true ones only by chance. More often, when the user decides when to stop the generation after examining the results so far.

Naomi: There must be intelligence entering into the process somehow, no doubt via undiscovered patterns in the pseudorandom selection algorithm used, to explain how it can produce such meaningful sequences.

Which do you agree more with in this case, Naomi or Myrna?

 

[Pixel42]

Meaning is associated with with interpretation which is directly linked to bias.
A "group of words" can constitute a message (as I have shown - and regardless of what method is used to create said group.) Meaning is not something I am arguing.

Here are the definitions of message I got from google:

1. a verbal, written, or recorded communication sent to or left for a recipient who cannot be contacted directly

2. a communication in writing, in speech, or by signals

3. a communication containing some information, news, advice, request, or the like, sent by messenger, telephone, email, or other means.

All imply meaning. "Communication" implies meaning.

Definitions of communication:

1. the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other medium.

2. Communication is commonly defined as the transmission of information.

3. a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior

So I ask again: What, according to you, is the difference between "a group of words" and "a message"?

The output of your bizarre process is groups of words. It is not messages because they do not contain information, and are not sent between individuals.

That they are messages is your hypothesis, for which you have yet to provide satisfactory evidence. Calling them messages is begging the question.

 

[Navigator]

I randomly select characters from the set {0, 1, 2..., 8, 9, +, - , *, =, >, <}

The first fifteen selections, my very first try (really), result in:

65-3239+797>2+9

Imagine I show the results to Naomi, who says: OMG this random process has produced a message!

Myrna also looks at it, and says: This is just the expected result of randomly sequencing these characters. It's not even a true inequality.

Naomi: You're missing the point! The very fact that you can interpret the string of characters as a coherent mathematical expression (which simplifies to -2377 > 11), and thus evaluate its truth or falsehood, proves it's not only a message but a meaningful one.

Myrna: There's no mathematical knowledge in the selection process, which is why the string it produced this time is false. It will not produce valid statements consistently, and will rarely produce true ones only by chance. More often, when the user decides when to stop the generation after examining the results so far.

Naomi: There must be intelligence entering into the process somehow, no doubt via undiscovered patterns in the pseudorandom selection algorithm used, to explain how it can produce such meaningful sequences.

Which do you agree more with in this case, Naomi or Myrna?

You have moved away from directly engaging with my argument by introducing an unrelated hypothetical analogy. This is a classic example of a “red herring.”

Instead of presenting an imagined scenario, why not simply address the fact that my selections do align with the dictionary definition of a message?

I understand that shifting to an unrelated concept may be an easier route than engaging with the actual issue I am arguing, but ultimately, it does not address the core point.

Would you prefer to refocus your critique on the issue at hand, or acknowledge that my arguments are valid?

 

[Navigator]

Here are the definitions of message I got from google:

1. a verbal, written, or recorded communication sent to or left for a recipient who cannot be contacted directly

2. a communication in writing, in speech, or by signals

3. a communication containing some information, news, advice, request, or the like, sent by messenger, telephone, email, or other means.

All imply meaning. "Communication" implies meaning.

Definitions of communication:

1. the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other medium.

2. Communication is commonly defined as the transmission of information.

3. a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior

So I ask again: What, according to you, is the difference between "a group of words" and "a message"?

The output of your bizarre process is groups of words. It is not messages because they do not contain information, and are not sent between individuals.

That they are messages is your hypothesis, for which you have yet to provide satisfactory evidence. Calling them messages is begging the question.

I pointed out recently that messages can be coherent without needing to contain clear or intentional meaning. A cryptic note, an encrypted message, or even poetic language can still be messages without a fixed meaning – opem to interpretation as it were…

Meaning is imposed by interpretation, and different people interpret the same message differently, which is sourced in bias. This is why I have focused on structure and coherence rather than subjective meaning.

Even if I were to reintroduce the idea that my selections show consistent themes, that would not contradict my point that they qualify as messages first.

If a message is left behind and never read, does it cease to be a message? If you write a note and leave it for someone to find, is it only a message after they read it? A message can exist without requiring an immediate sender-receiver interaction

So—while Google is a useful tool, much like AI chat, we have to consider which definitions are reasonable, such as those found in dictionaries, versus those that challenge or contradict clear and established dictionary meanings.

And finally, your assertion that the outputs of my examples of messages are the result of a “bizarre process” is an interpretation and thus bias and the claim from that bias that these are NOT messages “because they do not contain information”, is certainly wrong. A simple critique of your google inspired idea that messages have to be sent between individuals is to ask you if you have ever left a note to yourself – perhaps on the fridge or as a reminder on your phone.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The distinction is useful because we cannot say for sure that true randomness actually exists. And even if it does exist at quantum levels, we have to explain why that pattern hasn't persisted throughout the cosmos—because true order is identifiable.

If randomness is truly fundamental, then there must be an explanation for why we see persistent order—otherwise, randomness itself becomes an incoherent concept.

If order exists at any level, then it must have always existed in some form, because true disorder cannot logically give rise to structure without contradicting itself.

I'm not a scientist, and have only a layman's knowledge and understanding of things like quantum physics. That said, it is my understanding that true randomness does exist, and it is a fundamental part of our universe. Chaos arises out of order, and order from chaos. I see no contradiction in this at all.

Entropy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pixel42]

I pointed out recently that messages can be coherent without needing to contain clear or intentional meaning. A cryptic note, an encrypted message, or even poetic language can still be messages without a fixed meaning – opem to interpretation as it were…

Meaning is imposed by interpretation, and different people interpret the same message differently, which is sourced in bias. This is why I have focused on structure and coherence rather than subjective meaning.

Even if I were to reintroduce the idea that my selections show consistent themes, that would not contradict my point that they qualify as messages first.

If a message is left behind and never read, does it cease to be a message? If you write a note and leave it for someone to find, is it only a message after they read it? A message can exist without requiring an immediate sender-receiver interaction

So—while Google is a useful tool, much like AI chat, we have to consider which definitions are reasonable, such as those found in dictionaries, versus those that challenge or contradict clear and established dictionary meanings.

And finally, your assertion that the outputs of my examples of messages are the result of a “bizarre process” is an interpretation and thus bias and the claim from that bias that these are NOT messages “because they do not contain information”, is certainly wrong. A simple critique of your google inspired idea that messages have to be sent between individuals is to ask you if you have ever left a note to yourself – perhaps on the fridge or as a reminder on your phone.

I sometimes do send messages to myself, yes. There was an individual both sending and receiving those messages.

More importantly: There is nothing in that blather that alters the fact that you have yet to provide satisfactory evidence for your hypothesis that the groups of words generated by your process are messages.

 

[steenkh]

I pointed out recently that messages can be coherent without needing to contain clear or intentional meaning. A cryptic note, an encrypted message, or even poetic language can still be messages without a fixed meaning – opem to interpretation as it were…

You are still talking about meaning. A coherent message has meaning. An incoherent message has no meaning. You mention cryptic, or encrypted messages: they still have meaning but only if you can decrypt them. That is what makes them messages.

Meaning is imposed by interpretation, and different people interpret the same message differently, which is sourced in bias. This is why I have focused on structure and coherence rather than subjective meaning.

What does “coherence” mean to you without meaning?

With your use of the word “message”, everything is a message, and thus your entire project becomes a tautology, and fails.