Merged Ideomotor Effect and the Subconscious / Beyond the Ideomotor Effect

[junkshop]

Trying this again (battery died part way through last time)

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.

I am not rejecting the definitions that you referenced. I agree with them.

You don't seem to be using those definitions, though. You keep trying to separate 'meaning' from 'message'. If you do this, then there is no message.

You know this, or you did (highlighting mine):

...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.

 

[Navigator]

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.

You dismiss my response as "blather," yet you haven’t actually addressed any of my points. If you disagree with my argument, explain why—rather than disregarding it without justification.

You acknowledge that a message can be sent and received by the same person, which contradicts your earlier claim—sourced from Google—that messages require multiple individuals.

You are demanding "satisfactory evidence" even after I have provided dictionary definitions that support my position. Are you rejecting those definitions? If so, on what grounds? Do you believe the definitions you found on Google are superior simply because they align with your personal bias?

You have neither refuted the dictionary definitions I provided nor explained why my examples fail to meet their criteria. Simply insisting that I have not provided evidence—when I clearly have—is not a valid argument.

 

[Navigator]

Trying this again (battery died part way through last time)


I am not rejecting the definitions that you referenced. I agree with them.

You don't seem to be using those definitions, though. You keep trying to separate 'meaning' from 'message'. If you do this, then there is no message.

You know this, or you did (highlighting mine):

I’m glad that you agree the dictionary definitions support my selections as messages. That was the main point I was establishing. If we agree on that, then we can move forward

My argument here has always been that a message can contain meaning, but meaning is not required for something to be classified as a message. This is why I focused on structure and coherence instead of subjective interpretation.

My previous statement simply noted that messages can be understood as coherent communication. That does not mean that every message must have a fixed, universal meaning. Messages can be ambiguous, open to interpretation, or even encrypted, and they would still qualify as messages.

Earlier, the argument was about whether my selections qualified as messages under dictionary definitions. Now that we agree they do, why are you shifting the discussion to meaning instead?

Coherence is an objective property of structured language. A message does not need a universal interpretation to be coherent—it only needs to be structured in a way that makes linguistic sense.

If a message were truly random nonsense, no one would be able to recognize any structure or meaning within it. The very fact that people identify themes in my selections demonstrates that they are coherent messages rather than meaningless gibberish.

Different biases may lead to different interpretations of the same message, but that does not negate its coherence. This is why I have emphasized structure over subjective interpretations of meaning.

The original counter claim was that my selections were not messages at all. However, I have shown that this claim stems from bias rather than logic. As a result, the argument has now shifted to whether these messages convey fixed meaning—a separate issue from whether they qualify as messages in the first place.

 

[Navigator]

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.


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.

The following is for educational purpose.

A coherent message is one that is structured and readable, even if its meaning is ambiguous.
Example: "The stars whisper in silent echoes."

Coherent? Yes.
Clearly understood? Not necessarily.
Open to interpretation? Certainly.

A message does not cease to be a message simply because its meaning is obscure.
An encrypted message remains a message, even if no one ever deciphers it.
A cryptic note is still a message, even if its interpretation is contested.
This demonstrates that meaning is not a prerequisite for something to be recognized as a message.A coherent message is one that is structured and readable, even if its meaning is ambiguous.

 

[junkshop]

I’m glad that you agree the dictionary definitions support my selections as messages. That was the main point I was establishing. If we agree on that, then we can move forward

That is not what I said. We do not agree.

My argument here has always been that a message can contain meaning, but meaning is not required for something to be classified as a message. This is why I focused on structure and coherence instead of subjective interpretation.

My previous statement simply noted that messages can be understood as coherent communication. That does not mean that every message must have a fixed, universal meaning. Messages can be ambiguous, open to interpretation, or even encrypted, and they would still qualify as messages.

This is untrue. You previously said:

...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.

Earlier, the argument was about whether my selections qualified as messages under dictionary definitions. Now that we agree they do, why are you shifting the discussion to meaning instead?

We don't agree, and I didn't introduce the requirement that a message convey meaning. That was you.

By the way, you still haven't answered my questions about the source and selection process of your seed phrases. Are you going to?

 

[steenkh]

The following is for educational purpose.

A coherent message is one that is structured and readable, even if its meaning is ambiguous.

I disagree. You are talking about sentences, not messages. But never mind, we can work with your concept.

Example: "The stars whisper in silent echoes."

Coherent? Yes.
Clearly understood? Not necessarily.
Open to interpretation? Certainly.

A message does not cease to be a message simply because its meaning is obscure.

Sure, not in your definition.

An encrypted message remains a message, even if no one ever deciphers it.

Nope, now you are defining anything as a message. Nothing can be determined not to be an encrypted message of some sort.

A cryptic note is still a message, even if its interpretation is contested.
This demonstrates that meaning is not a prerequisite for something to be recognized as a message.A coherent message is one that is structured and readable, even if its meaning is ambiguous.

Your inclusion of encrypted messages destroys your project. Even sentences that are not coherent in your definition, can be encrypted messages.

 

[Myriad]

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?

I was creating an additional story within the main story. A message from the hidden intelligences of the universe told you to expect this. And yet, you object? This is something you've been avoiding that you need to face. Stay present.

 

[Navigator]

That is not what I said. We do not agree.

Previously, you stated: ‘I am not rejecting the definitions that you referenced. I agree with them.’ If that was true, then we did agree that my selections qualify as messages under those definitions. Are you now reversing your position?

This is untrue. You previously said:

Nice try with the selective quoting Junkshop, but here is the full message you quoted from.

"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."

I was referring to my system’s outputs, not a universal definition of messages.
My focus was (and is) on coherence and structure, which some were claiming in the example message I gave, was ‘nonsense” as a false ploy rather than admit it qualified as a message, under the dictionary definitions.

We don't agree, and I didn't introduce the requirement that a message convey meaning. That was you.

You previously stated you were not rejecting the definitions that I referenced. You agreed with them.
If that is true, then my selections qualify as messages under those definitions. Are you now reversing your position?
If you are reversing your position, then are you now arguing that you do not agree with the dictionary definitions?

By the way, you still haven't answered my questions about the source and selection process of your seed phrases. Are you going to?

The source of the phrases and selection process is irrelevant to whether they qualify as messages under dictionary definitions.

 

[Navigator]

I disagree. You are talking about sentences, not messages. But never mind, we can work with your concept.

Sentences can be messages when they are used for communication. A coherent, structured sentence meets the dictionary definition of a message when it conveys information or can be interpreted.

Sure, not in your definition.

Nope, now you are defining anything as a message. Nothing can be determined not to be an encrypted message of some sort.

That’s a misrepresentation of my argument. I never claimed that ‘anything’ is a message, only that encrypted messages do not cease to be messages simply because they require decryption.

An encrypted message remains a message because it retains structure and intended meaning. If we later decrypt a coded message, it was always a message—it was just unreadable until deciphered.

You are trying to argue that my inclusion of encrypted messages ‘destroys’ my argument, but that’s not true. My argument was and is that messages do not require immediately accessible meaning—encryption is just one example of this.

Your inclusion of encrypted messages destroys your project. Even sentences that are not coherent in your definition, can be encrypted messages.

A locked diary is still a diary. A sealed letter is still a letter. A coded message is still a message.

This is an attempt to invalidate my argument by twisting it into an absurd extreme,

I never claimed that any actual random nonsense is necessarily an encrypted message—only that messages do not cease to be messages just because they are encrypted.

 

[Navigator]

I was creating an additional story within the main story. A message from the hidden intelligences of the universe told you to expect this. And yet, you object? This is something you've been avoiding that you need to face. Stay present.

That is an interesting response, but it does not answer my question. Are you going to engage with my argument or not?
Instead of addressing the point I made, you’ve chosen to respond with abstract metaphors. That’s fine, but it does not challenge my argument in any meaningful way.

This discussion is about whether my selections qualify as messages under dictionary definitions. If you want to have a separate discussion about hidden intelligences, that will have to wait.

If you’re not going to address my argument directly, I should take that as a concession that my selections do meet the definition of messages.

 

[steenkh]

That’s a misrepresentation of my argument. I never claimed that ‘anything’ is a message, only that encrypted messages do not cease to be messages simply because they require decryption.

An encrypted message remains a message because it retains structure and intended meaning. If we later decrypt a coded message, it was always a message—it was just unreadable until deciphered.

You are trying to argue that my inclusion of encrypted messages ‘destroys’ my argument, but that’s not true. My argument was and is that messages do not require immediately accessible meaning—encryption is just one example of this.

A locked diary is still a diary. A sealed letter is still a letter. A coded message is still a message.

This is an attempt to invalidate my argument by twisting it into an absurd extreme,

I never claimed that any actual random nonsense is necessarily an encrypted message—only that messages do not cease to be messages just because they are encrypted.

So how do you recognise that you are encountering an encrypted message, or just meaningless nonsense?

 

[Myriad]

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 was creating an additional story within the main story. A message from the hidden intelligences of the universe told you to expect this. And yet, you object? This is something you've been avoiding that you need to face. Stay present.

That is an interesting response, but it does not answer my question. Are you going to engage with my argument or not?
Instead of addressing the point I made, you’ve chosen to respond with abstract metaphors. That’s fine, but it does not challenge my argument in any meaningful way.

This discussion is about whether my selections qualify as messages under dictionary definitions. If you want to have a separate discussion about hidden intelligences, that will have to wait.

If you’re not going to address my argument directly, I should take that as a concession that my selections do meet the definition of messages.

I'm not at all interested in debating the vague dictionary definitions of common words. If you wish to introduce precision such as by the application of information theory, we can talk not about whether some text generated by some method meets some definition of "message" or not, but how much information it contains. We might then also discover how the result of random selection and concatenation of some number of list entries contains no more total Shannon information than the separate respective entries in the original list, simply by virtue of the random selection process by definition does not reduce the entropy, and also by definition, all possible concatenations of n entries selected at random are equally probable so they each contain the same amount of Shannon information as any of the others.

At this point, though, I'm more interested in the fact that you regard the content of your claimed "messages" as abstract metaphors. Some metaphors ("as massive as an elephant") can convey information with minimal need for interpretation ("about 5,400 kilograms") but abstract ones ("love is a rose") convey whatever meanings the audience chooses to perceive in them. (Does it mean love is hardy and perennial? Short-lived? Soft as petals? Thorny? Expensive? Grows better when nourished with poop and dead bodies?) If that's really what you're claiming your messages are, we don't really have much disagreement.

 

[Myriad]

So how do you recognise that you are encountering an encrypted message, or just meaningless nonsense?

From "The Library of Babel" (by Jorge Luis Borges; translation by Andrew Hurley)

For while the Library contains all verbal structures, all the variations allowed by the twenty-five orthographic symbols, it includes not a single absolute piece of nonsense. It would be pointless to observe that the finest volume of all the many hexagons that I myself administer is titled Combed Thunder, while another is titled The Plaster Cramp, and another, Axaxaxas mlo. Those phrases, at first apparently incoherent, are undoubtedly susceptible to cryptographic or allegorical "reading"; that reading, that justification of the words' order and existence, is itself verbal and, ex hypothesi, already contained somewhere in the Library. There is no combination of characters one can make—dhcmrlchtdj, for example—that the divine Library has not foreseen and that in one or more of its secret tongues does not hide a terrible significance. There is no syllable one can speak that is not filled with tenderness and terror, that is not, in one of those languages, the mighty name of a god. To speak is to commit tautologies.

 

[Myriad]

And here's Borges, in the same story, anticipating this thread:

One blasphemous sect proposed that the searches [for books containing true explanations of fundamental mysteries] be discontinued and that all men shuffle letters and symbols until those canonical books, through some improbable stroke of chance, had been constructed. The authorities were forced to issue strict orders. The sect disappeared, but in my childhood I have seen old men who for long periods would hide in the latrines with metal disks and a forbidden dice cup, feebly mimicking the divine disorder.

 

[Navigator]

So how do you recognise that you are encountering an encrypted message, or just meaningless nonsense?

That’s a separate issue. My argument was never about how to distinguish encrypted messages from nonsense—only that encrypted messages remain messages.

If you want to debate how to recognize encrypted messages, that’s a different discussion. Right now, we are discussing whether my selections qualify as messages. Are you still disputing that?

 

[junkshop]

Previously, you stated: ‘I am not rejecting the definitions that you referenced. I agree with them.’ If that was true, then we did agree that my selections qualify as messages under those definitions. Are you now reversing your position?

No. I agree with the definitions that you referenced. I do not agree that the "messages" your system produces conform to those definitions.

Nice try with the selective quoting Junkshop, but here is the full message you quoted from.

"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."

I was referring to my system’s outputs, not a universal definition of messages.

So this later statement remains untrue:

My argument here has always been that a message can contain meaning, but meaning is not required for something to be classified as a message.

You previously stated you were not rejecting the definitions that I referenced. You agreed with them.
If that is true, then my selections qualify as messages under those definitions. Are you now reversing your position?

No, because your selections do not qualify as messages according to those definitions.

If you are reversing your position, then are you now arguing that you do not agree with the dictionary definitions?

I am not reversing my position. I agree with the dicionary definitions. I disagree with your interpretation of them.

The source of the phrases and selection process is irrelevant to whether they qualify as messages under dictionary definitions.

I disagree. The source and selection process is fundamentally important, given that you are claiming that your process is random. A dishonest actor could game the process by choosing seed phrases that make a particular outcome more likely. A naive actor could do so inadvertently through unconscious bias.

Why are you so unwilling to divulge this information?

 

[Navigator]

I'm not at all interested in debating the vague dictionary definitions of common words.

If dictionary definitions are too vague, what standard do you propose we use to determine what qualifies as a message?
You are using words and expecting others to understand them. How is that possible if dictionary definitions are too vague to rely on?
If you reject dictionary definitions, then you must provide an alternative or explain why they are unacceptable. Simply dismissing them as ‘vague’ without offering a solution is not a valid argument

If you wish to introduce precision such as by the application of information theory, we can talk not about whether some text generated by some method meets some definition of "message" or not, but how much information it contains. We might then also discover how the result of random selection and concatenation of some number of list entries contains no more total Shannon information than the separate respective entries in the original list, simply by virtue of the random selection process by definition does not reduce the entropy, and also by definition, all possible concatenations of n entries selected at random are equally probable so they each contain the same amount of Shannon information as any of the others.

At this point, though, I'm more interested in the fact that you regard the content of your claimed "messages" as abstract metaphors. Some metaphors ("as massive as an elephant") can convey information with minimal need for interpretation ("about 5,400 kilograms") but abstract ones ("love is a rose") convey whatever meanings the audience chooses to perceive in them. (Does it mean love is hardy and perennial? Short-lived? Soft as petals? Thorny? Expensive? Grows better when nourished with poop and dead bodies?) If that's really what you're claiming your messages are, we don't really have much disagreement.

Previously, the discussion was about whether my selections qualify as messages under dictionary definitions. Now that I have demonstrated they do, you are shifting to a discussion about information theory instead. Are you conceding that my selections qualify as messages?

Shannon entropy analysis does not determine whether something qualifies as a message under dictionary definitions. Messages can exist regardless of how much new information they contain.

As to "abstract metaphors" the line in the 2nd message example I gave "Stay present. There are myriad stories happening within the main story" is not an "abstract metaphor" because It is a structured statement that conveys an idea. While "the main story" could be metaphorical, the sentence as a whole is still a coherent message.

My selections were coherent statements, not isolated abstract metaphors. They followed grammatical rules and contained identifiable themes.
So - are you arguing that my selections do not qualify as structured messages, or are you simply trying to reframe them as something else?
If you believe my selections have metaphorical elements, that does not change the fact that they meet the dictionary definition of a message. Are you now disputing that?

 

[Navigator]

And here's Borges, in the same story, anticipating this thread:

That’s an interesting literary reference, but it doesn’t answer the question. Are you suggesting there is no way to distinguish an encrypted message from nonsense?
Unlike Borges’ infinite library, we do not live in a universe where every string of text contains hidden meaning. Nonsense exists. Structured, coherent messages can be identified based on linguistic rules and patterns.
You are using Borges to suggest that any random text might have meaning, but that is not the same as proving that all text does have meaning. In reality, we can recognize structured language versus gibberish.
If you don’t believe there is a way to distinguish encrypted messages from nonsense, just say so. But invoking Borges does not change the fact that we can recognize coherence in language.

 

[theprestige]

That’s an interesting literary reference, but it doesn’t answer the question. Are you suggesting there is no way to distinguish an encrypted message from nonsense?
Unlike Borges’ infinite library, we do not live in a universe where every string of text contains hidden meaning. Nonsense exists. Structured, coherent messages can be identified based on linguistic rules and patterns.
You are using Borges to suggest that any random text might have meaning, but that is not the same as proving that all text does have meaning. In reality, we can recognize structured language versus gibberish.
If you don’t believe there is a way to distinguish encrypted messages from nonsense, just say so. But invoking Borges does not change the fact that we can recognize coherence in language.

So your claim is that you can find structure in a random selection of structured inputs?

 

[Navigator]

No. I agree with the definitions that you referenced. I do not agree that the "messages" your system produces conform to those definitions.

You can keep saying my selections do not conform to the dictionary definitions, but you have not explained why. Simply repeating your position without reasoning does not make it true. It is just an unsupported opinion you are giving.

I am not reversing my position. I agree with the dicionary definitions. I disagree with your interpretation of them.

You can repeat that unsupported opinion all you like, it won't somehow magically transform into fact.
So.
Which specific part of the dictionary definitions do my selections fail to meet? Please provide a direct answer.

I disagree. The source and selection process is fundamentally important, given that you are claiming that your process is random. A dishonest actor could game the process by choosing seed phrases that make a particular outcome more likely. A naive actor could do so inadvertently through unconscious bias.

Why are you so unwilling to divulge this information?

The selection process does not in and of itself determine whether the outputs qualify as messages under dictionary definitions. You're opinion is that they don't but you haven't argued why they don't.

I think what you might be getting at re selection process has to do with HOW this can be verified, since the reader has to take my word that my system does indeed select through what can be regarded as "random" (as random is understood) and that - for example - the coinciding curiosity that one of the phrases contains the word ‘Myriad’ (There Are Myriad Stories Happening Within The Main Story) while one of the participants in this argument is named Myriad...it is an interesting coincidence and it is possible that I purposefully selected it rather than used any random process.

However, I cover that in earlier posts by agreeing with seenkh? that using AI chat to do all the testing wasn't a great idea and have also pointed out that in order for anyone to test the system (peer review) they would have to do so through replication.

So, if you are interested in the process because you want to replicate the system to see if it works, you can get the information from
#865
#866
in this thread.