Merged Ideomotor Effect and the Subconscious / Beyond the Ideomotor Effect

[theprestige]

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.

I would argue that grammar carries meaning, or at least information. And by definition, grammar is structured. So maybe that's what Navigator means? Whether or not we can attach meaning to a grammatically-correct sentence, the grammar itself conveys information, as opposed to a random collection of language-parts.

 

[steenkh]

I would argue that grammar carries meaning, or at least information. And by definition, grammar is structured. So maybe that's what Navigator means? Whether or not we can attach meaning to a grammatically-correct sentence, the grammar itself conveys information, as opposed to a random collection of language-parts.

But Navigator also accepts grammatically incorrect sentences. He is the one who decides if they are “coherent” or not. No grammar police here.

 

[theprestige]

But Navigator also accepts grammatically incorrect sentences. He is the one who decides if they are “coherent” or not. No grammar police here.

He keeps referring to mathematical or computational measures of information. Maybe that's how he decides how coherent something is?

 

[Navigator]

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.


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.


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



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

A message is structured, coherent, and communicable. Its meaning is subjective. We do not need to debate meaning to establish that these are messages.

To start with, my fellow skeptics argued that my selections were not messages. Now that it is clear they qualify as messages, you want to act like that distinction doesn’t matter? That’s not how honest debate works.

You say you don’t understand why the distinction matters, yet you were part of a debate where skeptics insisted these were not messages. That was your original argument. If you no longer care about that argument, just say you were mistaken and we can move forward.

 

[arthwollipot]

A message is structured, coherent, and communicable. Its meaning is subjective. We do not need to debate meaning to establish that these are messages.

I disagree. A sentence that is structured, coherent, and communicable is not a message unless it conveys some kind of information. "The cows flip inside worthwhile theatres." is a structured, coherent, communicable, grammatically correct sentence. But it is meaningless. It is not any kind of message.

 

[Pixel42]

Now that it is clear they qualify as messages,

That is not clear to anyone but you.

 

[Myriad]

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?

No. Those claims don't hold water for anyone who has read the thread. You didn't say my response was a non sequitur or contradicted my previous arguments or anything of the sort. You called it abstract metaphor.

Which was especially surprising because my response echoing one of your system's outputs did in fact follow meaningfully from the previous discussion. You had objected to my introducing a simpler but analogous case that you might be less emotionally invested in (the random math symbols system) in an attempt to demonstrate certain key concepts. I responded with the quote about myriad stories within a story. What is an analogy but a different story that relates to some other story (your system being the main story)? The coincidence (or serendipity if you prefer) of my user name emphasized that: I was introducing literally a Myriad story (the random math generator) while your random segment mentioned (a) myriad (of) stories. The additional output piece about accepting something you've been avoiding fit with that perfectly. "Stay present" emphasized the theme of paying attention to the information being offered.

I expected you to hold this as evidence that your system's outputs are indeed meaningful, as such a congruent and appropriate response had come up In a supposedly "random" selection. Instead, you dismissed it as "abstract metaphor" which you subsequently characterized as lacking in structure or meaning. Instead of appreciating the ironic consistency of the output with the ongoing discourse, you declared it abstract metaphor, and made it clear subsequently that you regard abstract metaphor as lacking in meaning. That stands as your own judgment on your own bibiliomancy system.

 

[Myriad]

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.

I've color coded what appear to be the separate components of the output. (I'm not certain about "Light" being its own separate entry but it doesn't make sense as part of either the previous or the following segments, unless "Controlled Distraction Light" is the brand name of a trendy craft beer, or there's an ant species I'm unaware of called Light Ants.) I note that the green passage makes up more than half the total. The green passage is quite coherent and that creates most of the impression of coherency in the concatenated output. But the other passages it's concatenated with only detract from that coherency. How ant colonies function has been known for generations; how is this a difficult proposition? What does distraction have to do with distributed collective intelligence? What does any of it have to do with light (ant colonies function very well in complete darkness) or a multiverse? If it's even a plausible notion that thought might somehow generate a multiverse, superorganisms are not evidence of it. If the passages were "Controlled Diffusion" or "Through Multiplicity, Thought" instead, those might relate to the collective intelligence of ant colonies, but that's not what they say.

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

You're not randomly juxtaposing words, though. You're randomly concatenating pre-selected and in many cases already interesting texts together. That's as different as laying out Carcassone game tiles randomly (which will likely produce coherent-looking landscapes even though many discontinuities will also appear) instead of Scrabble tiles (which will rarely produce any recognizable words at all).

I do in fact give you credit for creating an unusually interesting bibliomancy system. You've put a lot of effort into collecting passages that tend toward certain common motifs of interest to you, along with a generous portion of compatible noise. It creates a pretty effective illusion of coherency a reasonable percentage of the time (assuming you're not being deceptive about how many runs you're sifting through to pick out interesting outputs). Having spent decades experimenting with interactive and procedural narrative text generation myself, I know that it was indeed not easy to do. I wonder if you could publish it as a divination or discursive meditation app without running afoul of copyright issues.

But you didn't come here claiming it's interesting or useful or fun to experiment with. You're claiming that the apparent coherency of the output concatenated passages is not explainable without some "underlying intelligence" acting through the randomization process. The examples you're exhibiting don't support that claim.

 

[Navigator]

No. Those claims don't hold water for anyone who has read the thread. You didn't say my response was a non sequitur or contradicted my previous arguments or anything of the sort. You called it abstract metaphor.

I have already critiqued your argument Myriad. 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. Your are resorting to a strawman. I am not rejecting abstract metaphor—I am rejecting your evasiveness and your misrepresenting what and why I critiqued.

Which was especially surprising because my response echoing one of your system's outputs did in fact follow meaningfully from the previous discussion. You had objected to my introducing a simpler but analogous case that you might be less emotionally invested in (the random math symbols system) in an attempt to demonstrate certain key concepts. I responded with the quote about myriad stories within a story. What is an analogy but a different story that relates to some other story (your system being the main story)? The coincidence (or serendipity if you prefer) of my user name emphasized that: I was introducing literally a Myriad story (the random math generator) while your random segment mentioned (a) myriad (of) stories. The additional output piece about accepting something you've been avoiding fit with that perfectly. "Stay present" emphasized the theme of paying attention to the information being offered.

And here above we have Pixel claiming that my message are not clear to anyone but me.

I have mentioned that I did indeed recognise the connection between that randomly selected message and your name when replying to junkshop in post #1020 where I wrote the following.
"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."

What you appear to be arguing is that you interpreted that to mean the message was advising me to pay attention (and perhaps even accept?) what you had to say.
Obviously I was paying attention as I carefully critiqued your use of a math list, and you don't seem to have paid much attention to my critique because you hadn't responded to that.

This is a good example of why I haven't stepped off the path of arguing my system generates messages - because I have yet to get any more than implicit acknowledgment of that being the case - up until now that is - for it does appear you are being explicit in acknowledging my argument is true - that we are indeed dealing with messages.

I expected you to hold this as evidence that your system's outputs are indeed meaningful, as such a congruent and appropriate response had come up In a supposedly "random" selection.

And the expectancy you had did indeed show itself in my reply to junkshop.

Instead, you dismissed it as "abstract metaphor" which you subsequently characterized as lacking in structure or meaning. Instead of appreciating the ironic consistency of the output with the ongoing discourse, you declared it abstract metaphor, and made it clear subsequently that you regard abstract metaphor as lacking in meaning.

No Myriad - I don't think that is true, but if you want to link me to the exact posts where this exchange you say took place, I would be happy to revisit it. In the meantime my impression was as I have noted.

That stands as your own judgment on your own bibiliomancy system.

Your "bibliomancy" accusation is a rhetorical tactic meant to make my systems work sound like pseudoscience or superstition, even though I am making a logical and empirical argument, not a mystical one. I expect more from you Myriad. Please up your game my fellow skeptic.

 

[Navigator]

I've color coded what appear to be the separate components of the output. (I'm not certain about "Light" being its own separate entry but it doesn't make sense as part of either the previous or the following segments, unless "Controlled Distraction Light" is the brand name of a trendy craft beer, or there's an ant species I'm unaware of called Light Ants.) I note that the green passage makes up more than half the total. The green passage is quite coherent and that creates most of the impression of coherency in the concatenated output. But the other passages it's concatenated with only detract from that coherency. How ant colonies function has been known for generations; how is this a difficult proposition? What does distraction have to do with distributed collective intelligence? What does any of it have to do with light (ant colonies function very well in complete darkness) or a multiverse? If it's even a plausible notion that thought might somehow generate a multiverse, superorganisms are not evidence of it. If the passages were "Controlled Diffusion" or "Through Multiplicity, Thought" instead, those might relate to the collective intelligence of ant colonies, but that's not what they say.

In generating the messages through this system - and having done so for very many years now - I am accustomed to the process and usually respond to the selections as they appear in a very conversational manner, which I will example with this post.
However, my main focus was to give the example without any of that because I was fishing for intellectual honesty and had to battle with the initial derision, claims of "nonsense" and all that other stuff from my fellow skeptics in the hope that maybe at least one among them would stop with that and acknowledge the truth that they are indeed messages because they exhibit all the necessary qualifications of being messages.
Meaning is of little value arguing with those who prefer to remain in denial.

Having said as much, the subject of ants has been a topic of conversation over those years in using this system so I knew what what being conveyed, but as I said - I left out the interactive aspect because I just wanted to focus on the message part without that added distraction folk could get their teeth into - if you "know" what I "mean" here Myriad.

You're not randomly juxtaposing words, though.

No. The system I am using is doing that. I am just selecting them and pasting them in the order they are selected.

You're randomly concatenating pre-selected and in many cases already interesting texts together.

There are currently 7500 line entries on the list I am using and these are indeed pre-selected, because that is how lists are formed. The more interesting the better I think but you seem to understand the process I have been describing.
If the goal is to produce meaningful responses, then it makes sense to use a list filled with engaging content, don't you agree?

That's as different as laying out Carcassone game tiles randomly (which will likely produce coherent-looking landscapes even though many discontinuities will also appear)

This is true. This is why AI cannot create such lists, because using my system on an AI list would only have the effect of shuffling the list NOT producing anything one can interact with and build upon in real time and as a cross referencing device re prior messages.
For example, I have had many interactions using the system which I have save online and I copy the links to these and place them on the list. When such links are selected, believe me or not - they are extremely relevant to the real-time interaction being had on any given day.
I don't just put single words as line entries, but also whole paragraphs.
Another thing I do is when one word is selected from the list (useful) and another and the next selection (fiction) and I take both and and "Useful Fiction" to the list. I do this all the time, because not only have the selections given clear messages in this manner, but some of content (as exampled) is useful to place on the list which helps to build the list up.
Indeed - once I post this I will be putting the link to it on my list.

instead of Scrabble tiles (which will rarely produce any recognizable words at all).

It would be like having 7500 line entries of just the alphabet and hoping the somehow coherent messages will mystically appear.

I do in fact give you credit for creating an unusually interesting bibliomancy system. You've put a lot of effort into collecting passages that tend toward certain common motifs of interest to you, along with a generous portion of compatible noise. It creates a pretty effective illusion of coherency a reasonable percentage of the time (assuming you're not being deceptive about how many runs you're sifting through to pick out interesting outputs). Having spent decades experimenting with interactive and procedural narrative text generation myself, I know that it was indeed not easy to do. I wonder if you could publish it as a divination or discursive meditation app without running afoul of copyright issues.

Given what I had offered above, I think it would be credit to intellectual honesty if you re assessed that summary.

But you didn't come here claiming it's interesting or useful or fun to experiment with. You're claiming that the apparent coherency of the output concatenated passages is not explainable without some "underlying intelligence" acting through the randomization process. The examples you're exhibiting don't support that claim.

I agree that the examples I have given do not whole support the claim but that is because I have been occupied in the first step of trying to gain acknowledgment that they are messages on their own and in combination. Given what I have now shared about how I use the system, what else can explain it but "some underlying intelligence" I am keen to explore with anyone who can at least acknowledge (as you have now done) that they are indeed messages.

And now for that example of interaction.

Selection: The Role of Imagination in Reality Formation

Me. I know right! One imagines what might be going on "behind the scenes" and looks for ways to test it - and that takes a certain amount of creative imagination.

Selection: The Alphabet
Independent

Me. Scrabbled even!

 

[theprestige]

A message is structured, coherent, and communicable. Its meaning is subjective. We do not need to debate meaning to establish that these are messages.

Well, we're all on the same page now: When you use the word "message" in this context, you mean a signal that is structured, coherent, and communicable.

So.

How are you measuring structure in a signal? How do you determine that a signal has enough structure to be a message?

How are you measuring coherence in a signal? How do you determine that a signal has enough coherence to be a message?

 

[Navigator]

Well, we're all on the same page now: When you use the word "message" in this context, you mean a signal that is structured, coherent, and communicable.

So.

How are you measuring structure in a signal? How do you determine that a signal has enough structure to be a message?

How are you measuring coherence in a signal? How do you determine that a signal has enough coherence to be a message?

I'm glad we've clarified that these selections qualify as messages. Now, regarding structure and coherence:

Structure refers to the presence of an organized pattern in the signal.
A message exhibits syntax, recognizable word groupings, and relational consistency between its components.
Even abstract poetry or encrypted text has structure, while pure gibberish lacks it.
Structured: "A difficult proposition Controlled distraction Light ant colonies function like a superorganism."
Unstructured: "Zyqx hgt&## fbnwu@ qwerty y89jv."

Coherence means that the elements within the message maintain internal logical consistency or contextual alignment.
The statements within a message should not be random noise but should fit within an understandable framework.

Coherent: "Raise your frequency Love & Respect We experience fear to overcome it." (Conceptually related)
Incoherent: "Love & Respect. Platypus banana explode backwards." (Random and disconnected)

Language itself lacks a rigid, universally agreed-upon metric for these qualities—yet we still recognize messages intuitively and practically.

 

[theprestige]

I'm glad we've clarified that these selections qualify as messages. Now, regarding structure and coherence:

Structure refers to the presence of an organized pattern in the signal.
A message exhibits syntax, recognizable word groupings, and relational consistency between its components.
Even abstract poetry or encrypted text has structure, while pure gibberish lacks it.
Structured: "A difficult proposition Controlled distraction Light ant colonies function like a superorganism."
Unstructured: "Zyqx hgt&## fbnwu@ qwerty y89jv."

I want to make sure I understand you clearly.

I asked you how you measure structure.

Your answer is that you measure structure by looking at a string of text and making an arbitrary, subjective ruling that it either has structure or does not have structure. Is that correct?

 

[Navigator]

I want to make sure I understand you clearly.

I asked you how you measure structure.

Your answer is that you measure structure by looking at a string of text and making an arbitrary, subjective ruling that it either has structure or does not have structure. Is that correct?

No, that is not correct. Structure in language is not arbitrary; it follows objective principles such as syntax, grammar, and recognizable word patterns. The presence of structure is identifiable through:
Lexical & Grammatical Integrity
Words in a structured message belong to a known vocabulary and follow recognizable grammatical constructions.
Pattern Recognition

Structure can be analyzed using linguistic rules and statistical models that distinguish meaningful text from noise.
Computational methods such as n-gram frequency analysis, entropy measures, and machine learning classifiers can detect whether text follows expected linguistic patterns.
Structured vs. unstructured text can be measured using existing tools such as:
Zipf’s Law: Natural language follows predictable word frequency distributions.
Shannon Entropy: Structured text has lower entropy than pure randomness.
POS Tagging: Structured messages have valid Part-of-Speech sequences (e.g., noun-verb-adjective patterns).

Are you perhaps wanting to argue that structure in language is entirely subjective, or do you acknowledge objective patterns in structured text?
Structure in language exists independently of personal opinion because languages have systematic rules (syntax, morphology, phonology, semantics).
Even when meaning is debated, the presence of structure is verifiable.

Language structure can be evaluated based on linguistic principles, just like we do in fields such as computational linguistics, natural language processing, and cryptography.

Structure is not an arbitrary judgment—it is a fundamental property of language. Structure consists of syntax, morphology, and phonological patterns, as recognized in linguistic theory. If you are suggesting that structure is purely subjective, then you would have to argue that grammar and linguistic rules do not exist.

So, do you acknowledge that linguistic structure follows objective principles, or are you arguing that structure is purely a matter of personal opinion?

 

[theprestige]

No, that is not correct. Structure in language is not arbitrary; it follows objective principles such as syntax, grammar, and recognizable word patterns. The presence of structure is identifiable through:
Lexical & Grammatical Integrity
Words in a structured message belong to a known vocabulary and follow recognizable grammatical constructions.
Pattern Recognition

So your method of measuring structure is extremely subjective. It only applies to languages you already know.

Structure can be analyzed using linguistic rules and statistical models that distinguish meaningful text from noise.

Maybe, but that's clearly not how you're analyzing structure. You're just pointing at anything that looks more or less like plain English, and saying that it looks structured to you.

Computational methods such as n-gram frequency analysis, entropy measures, and machine learning classifiers can detect whether text follows expected linguistic patterns.
Structured vs. unstructured text can be measured using existing tools such as:
Zipf’s Law: Natural language follows predictable word frequency distributions.
Shannon Entropy: Structured text has lower entropy than pure randomness.
POS Tagging: Structured messages have valid Part-of-Speech sequences (e.g., noun-verb-adjective patterns).

Maybe, but that's clearly not how you're doing it.

Are you perhaps wanting to argue that structure in language is entirely subjective, or do you acknowledge objective patterns in structured text?

I'm wanting to find out if your method of measuring structure is objective and repeatable. It sure doesn't seem to be.

 

[Navigator]

So your method of measuring structure is extremely subjective. It only applies to languages you already know.

Maybe, but that's clearly not how you're analyzing structure. You're just pointing at anything that looks more or less like plain English, and saying that it looks structured to you.

Maybe, but that's clearly not how you're doing it.

I'm wanting to find out if your method of measuring structure is objective and repeatable. It sure doesn't seem to be.

You’re shifting the discussion. The question is not whether I personally use computational tools to analyze structure in real-time—the question is whether structure in language is objectively recognizable and verifiable. You have not answered that yet.

You are now asking whether my personal method is objective and repeatable, instead of addressing whether linguistic structure itself follows objective rules. This is a diversion.

If I used an AI model to confirm the structure of my selections, would you accept that as objective proof?

Are you arguing that structure in language is entirely subjective, or do you acknowledge that structured text follows objective patterns?

If you're genuinely interested in understanding how structure and coherence can be objectively evaluated, I recommend reading my latest reply to Myriad. It directly addresses these points with clear criteria, linguistic principles, and measurable methods. If you have a specific issue with my explanation there, I’d be happy to clarify.

 

[theprestige]

You’re shifting the discussion. The question is not whether I personally use computational tools to analyze structure in real-time

That is in fact the exact question I have been asking in one form or another throughout this thread - what process do you use to measure structure?

—the question is whether structure in language is objectively recognizable and verifiable. You have not answered that yet.

That question is not for me to answer. It's for you to answer. You tell us: Is structure in language objectively recognizable and verifiable? Your method depends on it. Have you done it? Can you tell us how you did it? Can you show us the objective and verifiable results of you doing it?

You are now asking whether my personal method is objective and repeatable, instead of addressing whether linguistic structure itself follows objective rules. This is a diversion.

It's not a diversion. It's at the heart of your method.

If I used an AI model to confirm the structure of my selections, would you accept that as objective proof?

If you could show me the model, explain its workings, demonstrate it in action, and show that its findings were independently verifiable, I probably would accept it.

Are you arguing that structure in language is entirely subjective, or do you acknowledge that structured text follows objective patterns?

I'm arguing that the process you seem to be using to find structure in language is entirely subjective.

If you're genuinely interested in understanding how structure and coherence can be objectively evaluated, I recommend reading my latest reply to Myriad. It directly addresses these points with clear criteria, linguistic principles, and measurable methods. If you have a specific issue with my explanation there, I’d be happy to clarify.

Have you used any of these measurable methods of which you speak?

And no, your latest reply to Myriad includes no clear criteria, linguistic principles, or measurable methods.

 

[theprestige]

If the goal is to produce meaningful responses, then it makes sense to use a list filled with engaging content, don't you agree?

I thought the goal was to see if meaningful responses would emerge on their own from an unbiased, objective process. Using a list that was filled subjectively with a bias towards engaging content would defeat the purpose. Structure in = structure out. And we already know that people can and do find arbitrary meaning in randomly-selected structured messages.

 

[Navigator]

That is in fact the exact question I have been asking in one form or another throughout this thread - what process do you use to measure structure?

That question is not for me to answer. It's for you to answer. You tell us: Is structure in language objectively recognizable and verifiable? Your method depends on it. Have you done it? Can you tell us how you did it? Can you show us the objective and verifiable results of you doing it?

It's not a diversion. It's at the heart of your method.

No, computational analysis is not 'the heart of my method'—it is simply one possible way to verify structure. The actual method is random selection from a structured dataset. Are you suggesting that messages can only be recognized as structured if they are analyzed with computational tools?

If you could show me the model, explain its workings, demonstrate it in action, and show that its findings were independently verifiable, I probably would accept it.

You said you wanted to see the model and understand its workings. My system’s explanation is already in Post #866, which is linked in my signature. Have you actually read it?
I am happy to link a live screen capture as a demonstration in action, and plan to do just that. However, given the messages I have had from you in this round of interaction, that can wait while you catch up with what I have already provided which you are current claiming I have not.

I'm arguing that the process you seem to be using to find structure in language is entirely subjective.

I acknowledge that you are arguing this point, but without any supporting critique, it remains an assertion rather than a valid argument. Can you provide an objective metric or standard by which you claim my process is subjective? If not, then I will consider your argument to be an unsupported opinion.

Have you used any of these measurable methods of which you speak?

No, I have not conducted such an analysis, nor do I have the means to do so. However, that does not change the fact that structure in language is objectively measurable. You are shifting the discussion away from whether my outputs exhibit structure—something that can be recognized without computational tools—to whether I have personally applied those tools.

If structure can only be recognized through computational analysis, are you arguing that humans are incapable of recognizing structured text without first doing such tests?

And no, your latest reply to Myriad includes no clear criteria, linguistic principles, or measurable methods.

Your claim is incorrect. Myriad explicitly acknowledges structure and coherence in the system’s selections. He even went as far as color-coding the segments to analyze how the structured components contribute to the overall message. He also compared my system to laying out Carcassonne tiles instead of Scrabble tiles, illustrating that the selections follow structured patterns rather than being purely random.

Additionally, in my response, I outlined how the list is constructed, how it is used in real time, and how selections are built upon and expanded. These are clear criteria for how structure emerges.

So no, there is no honest way I can agree with you there.

I thought the goal was to see if meaningful responses would emerge on their own from an unbiased, objective process.

Yes it is clear you think that because you are conflating what a message is with how a message is then interpreted..

Using a list that was filled subjectively with a bias towards engaging content would defeat the purpose. Structure in = structure out. And we already know that people can and do find arbitrary meaning in randomly-selected structured messages.

The key question remains: If selections are random, then why do they consistently produce coherent, structured outputs? Are you suggesting that coherence is being imposed after selection rather than emerging through the process itself? If so, please explain how you believe that is occurring.

 

[theprestige]

No, computational analysis is not 'the heart of my method'—it is simply one possible way to verify structure. The actual method is random selection from a structured dataset. Are you suggesting that messages can only be recognized as structured if they are analyzed with computational tools?

I am suggesting that messages can only be recognized as structured if they are analyzed using some appropriate tool that indicates their structure. You keep mentioning computational tools in this connection, which is why I've been asking about them. I'm happy to ask about some other tool, if you're using some other tool instead.

You said you wanted to see the model and understand its workings. My system’s explanation is already in Post #866, which is linked in my signature. Have you actually read it?
I am happy to link a live screen capture as a demonstration in action, and plan to do just that. However, given the messages I have had from you in this round of interaction, that can wait while you catch up with what I have already provided which you are current claiming I have not.

I have read your Post #866. It does not answer the questions I have been asking.

I acknowledge that you are arguing this point, but without any supporting critique, it remains an assertion rather than a valid argument. Can you provide an objective metric or standard by which you claim my process is subjective? If not, then I will consider your argument to be an unsupported opinion.

The process you describe does not include any description of an objective method for finding structure.

It does describe what appears to be a subjective method, where you look at a string of text and arbitrarily declare it to be structured.

No, I have not conducted such an analysis, nor do I have the means to do so. However, that does not change the fact that structure in language is objectively measurable. You are shifting the discussion away from whether my outputs exhibit structure—something that can be recognized without computational tools—to whether I have personally applied those tools.

How are you recognizing structure in your outputs, if not with computational tools? What tools are you using, to recognize structure in your outputs?

If structure can only be recognized through computational analysis, are you arguing that humans are incapable of recognizing structured text without first doing such tests?

I am arguing that you have yet to explain how you are recognizing structure in your outputs. I don't care what tools you use, as long as you say what they are and explain how you use them.

You're not using computational tools. That's fine with me. My question is, what tools are you using?

Your claim is incorrect. Myriad explicitly acknowledges structure and coherence in the system’s selections. He even went as far as color-coding the segments to analyze how the structured components contribute to the overall message. He also compared my system to laying out Carcassonne tiles instead of Scrabble tiles, illustrating that the selections follow structured patterns rather than being purely random.

That's Myriad's opinion. Are you saying you are using Myriad's opinion as your tool to measure structure in your outputs? How did you measure structure in your outputs, before Myriad got involved?

Additionally, in my response, I outlined how the list is constructed, how it is used in real time, and how selections are built upon and expanded. These are clear criteria for how structure emerges.

In what way are they clear criteria for how structure emerges?

So no, there is no honest way I can agree with you there.


Yes it is clear you think that because you are conflating what a message is with how a message is then interpreted..

I make no such conflation. You say an output is a message if it has structure. How do you measure the structure of your outputs?

The key question remains: If selections are random, then why do they consistently produce coherent, structured outputs? Are you suggesting that coherence is being imposed after selection rather than emerging through the process itself? If so, please explain how you believe that is occurring.

I will stipulate, for the purpose of addressing this point, that your outputs are indeed structured, as you use the term.

I am, in this context, suggesting that the structure in the outputs is a direct result of using structured inputs. Structure in, structure out. But we still don't know how you determine whether the outputs have enough structure to qualify as messages.