Merged Ideomotor Effect and the Subconscious / Beyond the Ideomotor Effect

[Navigator]

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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?

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.

At this point, you are not engaging with the core argument but instead trying to create an endless loop of questioning to avoid conceding any ground. You have not provided a clear counterargument, nor have you addressed the core issue: why my outputs, which are randomly selected, consistently produce structured and coherent messages. Instead, you are focused on finding ways to make me 'prove' things that are already evident.

If you have an actual critique of my position, make it. If you have a clear argument against my outputs exhibiting structure and coherence, present it. Otherwise, I see no reason to continue entertaining endless diversions.

You dismiss Myriad’s reply as ‘opinion,’ yet he actually engaged with the structure of my outputs in detail. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, he at least analyzed the selections instead of avoiding the topic. On what objective basis are you dismissing his observations? Or is any acknowledgment of structure in my outputs automatically invalid to you?

 

[arthwollipot]

It's not a diversion. @theprestige is asking important and pertinent questions. That you have no answer to them should tell you something profound.

 

[Navigator]

It's not a diversion. @theprestige is asking important and pertinent questions. That you have no answer to them should tell you something profound.

If you too have an actual critique of my position, make it. If you have a clear argument against my outputs exhibiting structure and coherence, present it. Otherwise, I see no reason to continue entertaining endless diversions.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Navigator is in love with his own word games that are structured to let him win.

He'll debate you for a while if you write a similarly wordy response that he can twist into a game he wins.

But if you make any succinct statements you're not playing his game and he won't play with you any more.

 

[junkshop]

Navigator, you've been flogging this horse for at least a decade and you've still barely convinced anyone to accept your interpretation of what constitutes a message.

It's not that it's dead, it's not even that it was never alive. Rather, there was never a horse there in the first place. You're beating the ◊◊◊◊ out of shadows.

 

[Navigator]

The Core Issue: The Messages Are Already Recognizable as Messages​

The fact that a message is structured and coherent does not require mathematical verification.
People don’t run text analysis to determine if an email, a sentence, or a book passage is a message—it’s obvious.
If actual skeptics genuinely doubted that my outputs are structured, they would have explained why.

"Hominid
Disrupt
Stay Present."

 

[junkshop]

...I am just selecting them and pasting them in the order they are selected...

When you say you are 'selecting' them, what do you mean by that?

Is your system producing other results that you are rejecting? If so, what are the criteria by which you select or reject a result?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Anyone else notice similarities with Navigator's system and the New Age BS generator?

 

[Myriad]

You dismiss Myriad’s reply as ‘opinion,’ yet he actually engaged with the structure of my outputs in detail.

When I did so, I pointed out the lack of any coherent structure apart from the structure already present in some of the inputs.

A photocopier can output structured text but it doesn't create structured text.

 

[Navigator]

When I did so, I pointed out the lack of any coherent structure apart from the structure already present in some of the inputs.

A photocopier can output structured text but it doesn't create structured text.

If that is all you have Myriad, I overestimated you.

 

[arthwollipot]

If that is all you have Myriad, I overestimated you.

Yup. When you don't have a response, insult your detractors. Predictable.

 

[Navigator]

I will continue to express intellectual honesty, as part of the fundamental function of actual skepticism and hope my fellow skeptics will do the same as we move forward.

Earlier theprestige asked for a demonstrate of my system in action and I promised to provide it in the form of a screen-capture video. It is short (less than 4 minutes) but adequately shows the basics of how messages are generated.

 

[Navigator]

Yup. When you don't have a response, insult your detractors. Predictable.

Your interpretation of my message to Myriad is incorrect. I respect Myriads intellect and my comment was one of disappointment.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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."

Your system generates structure and syntax because you have set it up so that is all it can do. You yourself have determined the sources of these messages, and all of them have structure built in to them. Production of an unstructured message is not possible, because you have made it impossible.

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)

Again, you have set up your system so that all generated messages are grammatically correct. There is no possibility of anything else happening, because you have established perameters that will not allow it.

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

No. Language follows rules of grammar, which are not at all "intuitive", but which are, within the bounds of that language, universally agreed upon. These rules may differ from language to language, making an "intuitive" understanding of any statement difficult: anyone who has ever used Google Translate will know what I'm talking about. Moreover, language is based on culture, and vice versa: any interpretation of text is inevitably influenced by cultural mores, biases and assumptions.

 

[Navigator]

Your system generates structure and syntax because you have set it up so that is all it can do. You yourself have determined the sources of these messages, and all of them have structure built in to them. Production of an unstructured message is not possible, because you have made it impossible.


Again, you have set up your system so that all generated messages are grammatically correct. There is no possibility of anything else happening, because you have established perameters that will not allow it.


No. Language follows rules of grammar, which are not at all "intuitive", but which are, within the bounds of that language, universally agreed upon. These rules may differ from language to language, making an "intuitive" understanding of any statement difficult: anyone who has ever used Google Translate will know what I'm talking about. Moreover, language is based on culture, and vice versa: any interpretation of text is inevitably influenced by cultural mores, biases and assumptions.

It’s unfortunate that I have to keep repeating myself simply because some people refuse to read the full discussion. The fact remains: this system consistently generates grammatically correct and conceptually related statements, which strongly suggests that more than just a rigid pre-filtering mechanism is at play.

You are not the first to conflate grammar with structure and coherence. While grammar consists of agreed-upon syntactic rules, structure and coherence extend beyond grammar to conceptual organization. A message can lack conventional grammar yet still be structured and coherent, as seen in poetry, metaphor, and encrypted texts.

Languages evolve with every generation—new words emerge, phrasing shifts, and syntactic norms adapt. Dictionaries are living documents that evolve over time, unlike static texts, which do not change once published. Despite these changes, humans continue to recognize structure and coherence even in unconventional forms of language.

The argument that cultural biases influence interpretation is true—but interpretation does not determine whether something qualifies as a message. Messages exist regardless of how they are interpreted. (A recent example of this in action is my brief exchange with arthwollipot just above.)

You and others are attempting to argue that coherence is inevitable because the system forces it. However, this assumes that structure and coherence are easier to produce than randomness—an assumption that is demonstrably false. If randomness alone were responsible, structured outputs would be rare anomalies. Instead, structured, meaningful responses emerge consistently, which is precisely the phenomenon the system is highlighting.

The short video in post #1072 provides an example of how one type of random selection is used, generating a message that includes two links. While the links themselves are not inherently informative, the data they lead to adds extra detail relevant to the generated message's subject matter.

 

[junkshop]

The short video in post #1072 provides an example of how one type of random selection is used, generating a message that includes two links. While the links themselves are not inherently informative, the data they lead to adds extra detail relevant to the generated message's subject matter.

What is the subject matter?
How does "this video is unavailable" add relevant detail?

 

[Myriad]

A photocopier can output structured text but it doesn't create structured text.

If that is all you have Myriad, I overestimated you.

That's not all I have, but the photocopier point is a necessary fact that must be noted to have any meaningful discussion of the issues you've raised. I'm not going to insist that you explicitly acknowledge its correctness and significance as a precondition for further discussion, but I am going to insist on emphasizing that point in my own posts.

There's a kind of old fashioned vending machine that's still found in some store lobby or doorway areas around here, where you insert a coin or a few coins and turn a crank to dispense the product, some of which is visible in the glass globe reservoir at the top of the machine. The way the machines operate mechanically require the product to be close to a spherical shape and somewhat rigid. They were originally designed to sell balls of chewing gum or various hard candies.

If you operate such a machine a few times you might then marvel at the intricate structure of the products you receive ("a precise arrangement of concentric spherical shells of hard edible sugar mixture of contrasting but harmonious colors" followed by "a plastic capsule containing a then metal chain bracelet featuring a faceted translucent heart-shaped plastic bead") and wonder how the machine could accomplish such feats of production via the mere turn of a crank. But of course, those structures weren't created by the vending machine, they were already there in the products the vending machine was stocked with.

If one then claims there's some significant structure in the juxtaposition of the jawbreaker and the bracelet or whatever sequences of items the machine dispenses, indicating that such sequence might be due to something other than the chance arrangement or movement of the items near the dispensing mechanism, that remains to be shown. Whatever structure pre-exists in the individual products doesn't contribute to supporting that claim.

When applied to your system, that crucial foundation leaves us with, essentially, poetry criticism as the only way that's been applied so far to assess these claims of coherent structure. (You've mentioned various possible objective measures but haven't applied any of them.) Is a mention of evolution, a mention of monkeys, and a mention of Christianity sufficient to establish a meaningful structure? We know some Christians have a history of attacking evolution using sayings about monkeys. But the output doesn't actually reveal that (it's our own prior knowledge) or say anything about it. Can anyone perceive any coherent meaning about any of those topics (evolution, monkeys, Christian beliefs) or any others, in the juxtaposition, that isn't already present in one of the segments? If you can, please try to state it.

 

[theprestige]

At this point, you are not engaging with the core argument but instead trying to create an endless loop of questioning to avoid conceding any ground.

I haven't gained any ground to concede! The loop exists only because you keep not answering my questions.

You have not provided a clear counterargument, nor have you addressed the core issue: why my outputs, which are randomly selected, consistently produce structured and coherent messages.

I have addressed the core issue repeatedly. I have said, over and over again, that your outputs, being randomly selected from a curated list of structured inputs, must necessarily be structured.

Instead, you are focused on finding ways to make me 'prove' things that are already evident.

All that's evident to me is that your method of measuring structure is arbitrary, subjective, and highly dependent on your own personal context.

Which is another factor in why your outputs consistently produce structured and coherent messages: Because you want them to.

If you have an actual critique of my position, make it. If you have a clear argument against my outputs exhibiting structure and coherence, present it.

I have made an actual critique of your position many times: Your method is subjective. The structured intelligence you see at work in your results is your own.

I have no clear argument AGAINST your outputs exhibiting structure and coherence. I have repeatedly made a clear argument FOR your outputs exhibiting structure and coherence. It's the same argument I make about the outputs of the I Ching and Tarot methods. All three of these methods produce structured outputs for their practitioners, by means of a subjective and biased process.

All three methods consist of three core elements:

1. A curated list of structured inputs.
2. A random selection from the list.
3. A subjectively-created narrative based on the structured outputs.

In all three cases, the structured intelligence at work in the narrative is the practitioner's own. In your case, the structured intelligence is you.

Otherwise, I see no reason to continue entertaining endless diversions.

You dismiss Myriad’s reply as ‘opinion,’ yet he actually engaged with the structure of my outputs in detail. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, he at least analyzed the selections instead of avoiding the topic. On what objective basis are you dismissing his observations? Or is any acknowledgment of structure in my outputs automatically invalid to you?

I'm not dismissing Myriad's observations. I wholeheartedly agree that your outputs contain structure. I've been saying this all along.

What I'm dismissing is your claim that the structure and coherence in your outputs is due to an objective, repeatable, independently-measurable process. It's obvious to me that your process is subjective and personal to you.

That's why you don't see structure in

j wzMLx8uCZ WVHQ01mb gp suu Aeq6vlW wSCKDo QXog SAA3e FPT5v IfUG 8jelKF ciwn0HM xsC yi 1uE2Eome cB6LhU3l LA 3 ZI1gGfAYq

But I do.

As a fact-finding tool, your method is bollocks. Just like I Ching and Tarot.

 

[theprestige]

There's a kind of old fashioned vending machine that's still found in some store lobby or doorway areas around here, where you insert a coin or a few coins and turn a crank to dispense the product, some of which is visible in the glass globe reservoir at the top of the machine. The way the machines operate mechanically require the product to be close to a spherical shape and somewhat rigid. They were originally designed to sell balls of chewing gum or various hard candies.

If you operate such a machine a few times you might then marvel at the intricate structure of the products you receive ("a precise arrangement of concentric spherical shells of hard edible sugar mixture of contrasting but harmonious colors" followed by "a plastic capsule containing a then metal chain bracelet featuring a faceted translucent heart-shaped plastic bead") and wonder how the machine could accomplish such feats of production via the mere turn of a crank. But of course, those structures weren't created by the vending machine, they were already there in the products the vending machine was stocked with.

If one then claims there's some significant structure in the juxtaposition of the jawbreaker and the bracelet or whatever sequences of items the machine dispenses, indicating that such sequence might be due to something other than the chance arrangement or movement of the items near the dispensing mechanism, that remains to be shown. Whatever structure pre-exists in the individual products doesn't contribute to supporting that claim.

I think you just invented gacha-mancy.

 

[Navigator]

If you operate such a machine a few times you might then marvel at the intricate structure of the products you receive ("a precise arrangement of concentric spherical shells of hard edible sugar mixture of contrasting but harmonious colors" followed by "a plastic capsule containing a then metal chain bracelet featuring a faceted translucent heart-shaped plastic bead") and wonder how the machine could accomplish such feats of production via the mere turn of a crank. But of course, those structures weren't created by the vending machine, they were already there in the products the vending machine was stocked with.

So—to be clear—
Your vending machine represents my source list.The 7,500 line entries represent the products the vending machine is loaded with.
The vending machine has 7,500 slots the selected products sit in (because there are no duplicates).

Is this an accurate reflection of your analogy to this point?