Merged Ideomotor Effect and the Subconscious / Beyond the Ideomotor Effect

[Navigator]

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

Do you believe there is a way to distinguish encrypted messages from nonsense? Or are you avoiding the question?

If the inputs are structured, then the outputs will also contain structure, even if selected randomly. That does not contradict anything I have said.

Do you think otherwise? If so, please explain your thoughts.

My comment re Myriads injection of Borges’ infinite library wasn't for the purpose of going off on that tangent. Regardless of how the selections are made, the fact remains that the examples I gave meet the dictionary definition of a message. Are you disputing that?

 

[Myriad]

If dictionary definitions are too vague, what standard do you propose we use to determine what qualifies as a message?

I don't care. If you want to define a message as any sequence of symbols capable of conveying information (whether or not they actually convey information or not) that's fine with me. But note that in that case, "This procedure generates messages!" becomes just another way of saying "this procedure outputs text."

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

I have not used the word message in this discussion without modifiers, such as "coherent messages" or "messages that reflect the input," that clarify the meaning in context. The dictionary meaning(s) of the unmodified word are of no interest to me.

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?

I was not involved in any such discussion.

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.

That is correct.

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.

Yet when I echoed it in my own post it suddenly became an abstract metaphor according to you. Interesting.

My selections were coherent statements, not isolated abstract metaphors.

Yet when I echoed them in my own post they suddenly became abstract metaphors according to you. Interesting.

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?

Neither following grammatical rules nor containing identifiable themes makes an utterance any less an abstract metaphor. "Love is a rose" is grammatically correct and contains the identifiable themes of love and roses. It's abstract because any meaning it has is entirely up to the interpreter to decide.

 

[Navigator]

I don't care. If you want to define a message as any sequence of symbols capable of conveying information (whether or not they actually convey information or not) that's fine with me. But note that in that case, "This procedure generates messages!" becomes just another way of saying "this procedure outputs text."



I have not used the word message in this discussion without modifiers, such as "coherent messages" or "messages that reflect the input," that clarify the meaning in context. The dictionary meaning(s) of the unmodified word are of no interest to me.



I was not involved in any such discussion.



That is correct.



Yet when I echoed it in my own post it suddenly became an abstract metaphor according to you. Interesting.



Yet when I echoed them in my own post they suddenly became abstract metaphors according to you. Interesting.



Neither following grammatical rules nor containing identifiable themes makes an utterance any less an abstract metaphor. "Love is a rose" is grammatically correct and contains the identifiable themes of love and roses. It's abstract because any meaning it has is entirely up to the interpreter to decide.

At this point, it seems Myriad that you have no real counterargument and are just trying to avoid conceding outright.

Rather, you appear to be dismissing dictionary definitions outright, attempting to shift the debate to a different framework (information theory), and trying to muddy the waters by invoking abstraction and interpretation.

You attempted to blur the distinction between structured messages and abstract metaphors. I correctly pointed out that my selections were structured statements with identifiable themes. Your counter—arguing that "Love is a rose" is a grammatically correct statement with themes but is still abstract—does not actually address my selections. It instead conflates all metaphorical language with lack of structure.

 

[theprestige]

Do you believe there is a way to distinguish encrypted messages from nonsense? Or are you avoiding the question?

That question does not interest me.

If the inputs are structured, then the outputs will also contain structure, even if selected randomly. That does not contradict anything I have said.

Do you think otherwise? If so, please explain your thoughts.

I think exactly the same as you: Your method finds structured outputs from structured inputs. The cause of "structured intelligence" in the outputs is therefore no mystery at all: It's you.

My comment re Myriads injection of Borges’ infinite library wasn't for the purpose of going off on that tangent. Regardless of how the selections are made, the fact remains that the examples I gave meet the dictionary definition of a message. Are you disputing that?

I couldn't care less about the "message" question. Call it whatever you like, if it allows you to move on to the "meaning" questions.

 

[Myriad]

At this point, it seems Myriad that you have no real counterargument and are just trying to avoid conceding outright.

Rather, you appear to be dismissing dictionary definitions outright, attempting to shift the debate to a different framework (information theory), and trying to muddy the waters by invoking abstraction and interpretation.

You attempted to blur the distinction between structured messages and abstract metaphors. I correctly pointed out that my selections were structured statements with identifiable themes. Your counter—arguing that "Love is a rose" is a grammatically correct statement with themes but is still abstract—does not actually address my selections. It instead conflates all metaphorical language with lack of structure.

Are you trying to avoid addressing that you are claiming your passages are not abstract metaphors but when I echoed them in my own post you dismissed them as abstract metaphors (your own phrase)?

As the nature of your passages is central to the process you're making claims about, It's looking increasingly likely that your entire thesis is based on a double standard. "My cryptic utterances are structured messages, yours are abstract metaphors." It's you who have irrevocably blurred any distinction between them and muddied the waters, unless you can explain some basis for your response in #1010.

 

[steenkh]

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?

If your definition of a message can include nonsense that could be an encrypted message, then OK, we’ll go with your definition.

It seems that you only check for coherence (which is just another term for syntactical correctness) and thematic structure (which apparently means that two random sentences have words with approximately the same meaning.

You claim that:

• Flexibility & Evolution → The system is designed to adapt as structured intelligence continues to reveal structured intelligent responses over time.

Your structured intelligence uses sentences that are already messages, so what are you exactly thinking that you can achieve?

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

Correct grammar is not the defining feature of a message. Your sentence is a grammatically correct sentence. That does not mean that it contains a message.

 

[Navigator]

Are you trying to avoid addressing that you are claiming your passages are not abstract metaphors but when I echoed them in my own post you dismissed them as abstract metaphors (your own phrase)?

As the nature of your passages is central to the process you're making claims about, It's looking increasingly likely that your entire thesis is based on a double standard. "My cryptic utterances are structured messages, yours are abstract metaphors." It's you who have irrevocably blurred any distinction between them and muddied the waters, unless you can explain some basis for your response in #1010.

I called your response abstract because it was an evasive metaphor that didn’t engage my argument. That has nothing to do with the structure of my selections.
You’re pretending my objection in #1010 was about structure when it was actually about avoiding the debate. That’s not an honest argument.

There is no double standard because I have not claimed metaphor is invalid nor have I claimed that the list that I draw from is absent of metaphor nor have I claimed that the 2 message examples don't have metaphor embedded in them, but I have claimed that they still retain clear structure and coherence.

Rather than trying to force a contradiction that doesn’t exist, why don’t you actually engage with my argument? Is it because rather than publicly acknowledge those examples I gave fit the dictionary criteria, you want to now get into meaning of messages?

 

[arthwollipot]

Rather than trying to force a contradiction that doesn’t exist, why don’t you actually engage with my argument? Is it because rather than publicly acknowledge those examples I gave fit the dictionary criteria, you want to now get into meaning of messages?

Your entire thesis hinges on the meaning of messages. A sentence cannot be described as "coherent" if it carries no meaning.

"The stars whisper in silent echoes" carries no meaning. Stars don't whisper, and neither whispers nor echoes are silent. If there's a metaphor somewhere in there, that's meaning. But if not, it's meaningless.

If your method produces sentences that are grammatically correct, that's a very low bar. I can show you plenty of methods that randomly produce grammatically correct sentences. It's only significant if those grammatically correct sentences carry meaning.

 

[Navigator]

If your definition of a message can include nonsense that could be an encrypted message, then OK, we’ll go with your definition.

Your reply appears to be a reluctant concession disguised as a critique. An encrypted message does not stop being a message just because its meaning is not immediately accessible - but you try to spin this as a problem rather than explicitly admitting that I am correct.

It seems that you only check for coherence (which is just another term for syntactical correctness)

Your message "coherence is just another term for syntactical correctness" is an attempt to make it sound trivial.

and thematic structure (which apparently means that two random sentences have words with approximately the same meaning.

This is a misrepresentation. Coherence is more than syntactical correctness. A sentence can be grammatically correct but still meaningless.
selections are not just syntactically correct—they are also coherent, thematically structured statements. Minor syntactical issues do not negate coherence or structure. The key distinction remains: They are not random nonsense—they contain structure, meaning, and thematic continuity.

The examples I gave may not contain some punctuation but clearly one can ascertain that - for example - "Discernment What is something I've been avoiding that I need to face?" has one question mark but the word "Discernment" can be the subject matter re the whole sentence which can be seen as a stylistic factor rather than a syntactical error.

Therefore, this sentence works structurally because
"Discernment" introduces the topic of the question that follows.
The sentence then asks, "What is something I've been avoiding that I need to face?"
This is grammatically understandable and coherent, even if it doesn’t follow a conventional full-sentence structure.

Given that every generation has followed the peculiar habit of changing language structure to suit their own requirements and the English language - perhaps in particular - integrates that into its evolving structure, I see no reason for taking on the unrealistic role of "Grammar Police" as a sensible critiquing tool because it limits language in antiquated outdated structures acting as a device for limitation rather than expansion of ideas and understanding. Imagine that! We would not have the wonderful and wise Yoda if everyone stuck to such rules as if such rule actually mattered.
Language is a living, evolving system.

You claim that:

• Flexibility & Evolution → The system is designed to adapt as structured intelligence continues to reveal structured intelligent responses over time.

Your structured intelligence uses sentences that are already messages, so what are you exactly thinking that you can achieve?

You acknowledge that the system evolves over time, yet you simultaneously attempt to discredit it. By doing so, you're implicitly admitting that my selections qualify as messages, which means you've conceded the original debate. So why are you now shifting the focus to what I ‘hope to achieve’?

Are you asking what my goal is in presenting my system to those here who claim to be skeptics?

Or are you asking how this system might be useful?

My overall claim #896


I think of myself as a skeptical individual, which has been a great asset over the years of examining this system and indeed learning from it. Do I hold any hope that other skeptics will test the system through the process of replication? Not particularly. It is enough to have brought it to the attention of said skeptics and - while not receiving outward acknowledgement re my arguments staying within the rules of good, fair debate and not being debunked, that is more than enough I should think.

 

[Pixel42]

Your entire thesis hinges on the meaning of messages. A sentence cannot be described as "coherent" if it carries no meaning.

"The stars whisper in silent echoes" carries no meaning. Stars don't whisper, and neither whispers nor echoes are silent. If there's a metaphor somewhere in there, that's meaning. But if not, it's meaningless.

If your method produces sentences that are grammatically correct, that's a very low bar. I can show you plenty of methods that randomly produce grammatically correct sentences. It's only significant if those grammatically correct sentences carry meaning.

Messages also contain information. Perhaps that would be an easier way to test Navigator's hypothesis - look for information in the outputs from his process, rather than meaning? Much less subjective judgement required.

 

[arthwollipot]

Messages also contain information. Perhaps that would be an easier way to test Navigator's hypothesis - look for information in the outputs from his process, rather than meaning? Much less subjective judgement required.

It is information that I have been calling "meaning". Yes, "information" is a much better way of describing it. Thanks.

 

[Navigator]

I think exactly the same as you: Your method finds structured outputs from structured inputs. The cause of "structured intelligence" in the outputs is therefore no mystery at all: It's you.

Given the source data I draw from, this would mean that "who I am" is far more expansive than anything I have thought myself to being, since many of the inputs on the list are from other individuals - such as links to videos, podcasts, scientific papers, quotes from wide spectrums of sources, art, poetry and anything else I have found interesting and useful. Some of the data I even had AI input from, making lists of popular well known quotes, lines from movies and other sources. Given that, I don;t think the messages generated through this system are from me, but certainly they have been helpful to/for me.

Thus, what your message is implying - that the coherence in the selections comes only from my own influence (bias, subconscious choices, or personal structure) and there is no external structured intelligence at play—just own mind being reflected back at me.

I couldn't care less about the "message" question. Call it whatever you like, if it allows you to move on to the "meaning" questions.

As I have consistently pointed out, meaning is subjective to the objective. To provide another random selection to join the 2 examples I have already shared...

"Getting Somewhere... As without, so within. Measurements. When did you last take a break and just relax?"

One can argue that the "meaning" could be the same for anyone who read that, but not necessarily so. This is why replication is important because if the system produces coherent messages regardless of who replicates it, "meaning" will still be subject to the individual and secondary to the fact that coherent messages are able to be generated through an apparently random selection process.

Thus an implicit concession which has one pretending the question of "message" was never important and trying to shift the conversation to "meaning" is a silly debate tactic: When losing on one front, act like one never cared about that point in the first place. We are all grown-ups here, yes? (Intellectual honesty should matter.)

 

[steenkh]

Your reply appears to be a reluctant concession disguised as a critique. An encrypted message does not stop being a message just because its meaning is not immediately accessible - but you try to spin this as a problem rather than explicitly admitting that I am correct.

Within your definition you are correct. Is that good enough for you?

Your message "coherence is just another term for syntactical correctness" is an attempt to make it sound trivial.

This is a misrepresentation. Coherence is more than syntactical correctness. A sentence can be grammatically correct but still meaningless.

What more is there in your coherence than syntactical correctness?

The examples I gave may not contain some punctuation but clearly one can ascertain that - for example - "Discernment What is something I've been avoiding that I need to face?" has one question mark but the word "Discernment" can be the subject matter re the whole sentence which can be seen as a stylistic factor rather than a syntactical error.

Therefore, this sentence works structurally because
"Discernment" introduces the topic of the question that follows.
The sentence then asks, "What is something I've been avoiding that I need to face?"
This is grammatically understandable and coherent, even if it doesn’t follow a conventional full-sentence structure.

In what way should we be impressed by a random juxtaposition of sentences? In this example you already have one sentence that is syntactically correct, and you are now claiming that if the random word “Discernment” is prefixing it, then it is still “coherent”. What is the chance of juxtaposing sentences or words that you would not deem coherent and structured?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Apologies to the other posters who have already made this point, but as Navigator seems to have breezed right past it, I'm going to make it again.
Navigator: What you are doing is using sources that are already coherent and structured (quotes, lines from films, scientific papers etc.), adding another filter to ensure the selected parts are structured in a grammatically correct manner, and then claiming that these "messages" must be from a "higher intelligence" because they contain the structure and coherence you yourself ensured they contained.
That "higher intelligence" is you. That's all.

 

[Navigator]

Within your definition you are correct. Is that good enough for you?

What more is there in your coherence than syntactical correctness?

In what way should we be impressed by a random juxtaposition of sentences? In this example you already have one sentence that is syntactically correct, and you are now claiming that if the random word “Discernment” is prefixing it, then it is still “coherent”. What is the chance of juxtaposing sentences or words that you would not deem coherent and structured?

The discussion is about whether the selections qualify as messages, not whether you personally find them impressive.
The system selections are random. Since this is the case, then why do they maintain structure and coherence consistently?
I offer yet another example...

A difficult proposition Controlled Distraction Light Ant Colonies Function Like a Superorganism – Each individual ant behaves as part of a collective intelligence, mirroring distributed computing systems.Through Thought Multiverse

If you now acknowledge they are coherent, then your previous position—that they are not messages—was incorrect. Instead of moving the goalposts, perhaps it is time to consider what this consistency suggests.

If you think it’s easy to randomly juxtapose words and get coherent messages, try it yourself. See how often it happens.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Is this the point to post all the lyrics from Tales From Topographic Oceans?

Make sense of that lot, 'cos they make Close To The Edge look like Hemingway.

 

[Navigator]

Apologies to the other posters who have already made this point, but as Navigator seems to have breezed right past it, I'm going to make it again.
Navigator: What you are doing is using sources that are already coherent and structured (quotes, lines from films, scientific papers etc.), adding another filter to ensure the selected parts are structured in a grammatically correct manner, and then claiming that these "messages" must be from a "higher intelligence" because they contain the structure and coherence you yourself ensured they contained.
That "higher intelligence" is you. That's all.

Nowhere in my opening post (#865) or subsequent posts do I claim this is a ‘higher intelligence.’ (whatever it is you are meaning by that exactly).
If that is what you are arguing against, you are not arguing against my actual position. (Strawman fallacy.)
What I am discussing is the consistency of structured, coherent responses—something that my fellow skeptics have yet to adequately explain.
If you want to dispute my actual claim, start by accurately representing it.
My argument is about emergent structure and coherence within the system itself.

As to your view that I am using structured and coherent input data so this would naturally produce structured and coherent input data, this would seem logical on the face of it but a fairly simple test - get AI to create a large list of any of those things, and try random selection and see if the result show what you are claiming they should show. I have done this and the results show that I simply get a recording of listed entries much like one would expect from shuffling results.

That is why (one of the reasons why) AI is not a great tool for testing the process and tests have to be done by humans - which also explains why I continue to point out that this system can be replicated by others and the results tested without bias.

What you critique fails to explain is why in using coherent and structured inputs which span 7500 line entries should produce what the opening post (#865) claims they produce and what my samples attest to.

 

[theprestige]

Given the source data I draw from, this would mean that "who I am" is far more expansive than anything I have thought myself to being, since many of the inputs on the list are from other individuals - such as links to videos, podcasts, scientific papers, quotes from wide spectrums of sources, art, poetry and anything else I have found interesting and useful. Some of the data I even had AI input from, making lists of popular well known quotes, lines from movies and other sources. Given that, I don;t think the messages generated through this system are from me, but certainly they have been helpful to/for me.

Yeah, that's how bibliomancy works: You randomly select entries from a curated list, and make your own sense out of the results. The entire operation is one of your own structured intelligence.

Thus, what your message is implying - that the coherence in the selections comes only from my own influence (bias, subconscious choices, or personal structure) and there is no external structured intelligence at play—just own mind being reflected back at me.

I apologize for being unclear. My message is not meant to imply anything. It's meant to make explicitly clear: The structured intelligence at play in the process you have described is your own.

As I have consistently pointed out, meaning is subjective to the objective. To provide another random selection to join the 2 examples I have already shared...

"Getting Somewhere... As without, so within. Measurements. When did you last take a break and just relax?"

One can argue that the "meaning" could be the same for anyone who read that, but not necessarily so. This is why replication is important because if the system produces coherent messages regardless of who replicates it, "meaning" will still be subject to the individual and secondary to the fact that coherent messages are able to be generated through an apparently random selection process.

Again I ask: How are you measuring coherence in the messages that are produced?

Thus an implicit concession which has one pretending the question of "message" was never important and trying to shift the conversation to "meaning" is a silly debate tactic: When losing on one front, act like one never cared about that point in the first place. We are all grown-ups here, yes? (Intellectual honesty should matter.)

I honestly don't understand why your distinction between "message" and "meaning" matters to your claim.

 

[steenkh]

The discussion is about whether the selections qualify as messages, not whether you personally find them impressive.

No, that discussion is over: within your framework they are messages. Actually, I don’t care if you call them messages or snorkles.

The system selections are random. Since this is the case, then why do they maintain structure and coherence consistently?
I offer yet another example...

A difficult proposition Controlled Distraction Light Ant Colonies Function Like a Superorganism – Each individual ant behaves as part of a collective intelligence, mirroring distributed computing systems.Through Thought Multiverse

Yes, more of the same. Since you are not playing grammar police, you can call it coherent, and I am sure you can find a structure in it somewhere.

If you now acknowledge they are coherent, then your previous position—that they are not messages—was incorrect.

No, I don’t find them coherent.

If you think it’s easy to randomly juxtapose words and get coherent messages, try it yourself. See how often it happens.

I am more interested in knowing how you determine coherence.

You start with something that already is coherent, and is structured. I expect that juxtaposing such sentences will more often than not still show signs of coherence and structure, especially if you have no objective means of determining it.

In other words, I find your method biased.