Merged Ideomotor Effect and the Subconscious / Beyond the Ideomotor Effect

[theprestige]

There's always a way to willfully misunderstand an analogy, if you don't like the conclusion it foists on you.

@Navigator , the fact of the matter is, analogies aside, your process selects structured inputs from a curated list. That's why you're getting structured outputs.

 

[I Am The Scum]

So if I'm understanding this right...

1. Any assortment of English words is deemed (by Navigator) to contain structure.
2. The method will generate a random assortment of some quantity of English words.
3. The question on the table is whether or not step 2 will result in "structure." Given #1, I think it would be impossible for it not to.

 

[Navigator]

Below is a presentation - in sequence - of four individual message samples that were randomly generated using my system. While each was produced independently using a randomized selection process, they form a continuous message when viewed together – showing the structural coherence across multiple trials. No personal interpretation has been offered by me or is being offered by me now—this is simply the data as it appeared.

1. First Example Message

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

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

Raise your frequency.

Love & Respect.

2. Second Example Message

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.

3. Third Example Message

Getting Somewhere...

As without, so within.

Measurements.

When did you last take a break and just relax?

4. Forth Example Message

Evolutionary Game Theory

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1157400#p1157400

Monkey See Monkey Do

Now from this we can we can ascertain any observable connections across the four message samples. These connections are noted without interpretation, simply highlighting recurring elements and structural consistencies.

Repeated Themes Across Messages:

• The idea of fear and overcoming it (Message 1: "We experience fear in order to give us the opportunity to overcome that which triggers the fear." vs. Message 2: "What is something I've been avoiding that I need to face?")
• Maintaining awareness and presence (Message 2: "Stay Present." vs. Message 3: "Getting Somewhere..." and "As without, so within.")
• Connections to human behavior and societal structures (Message 2: "Hominid Disrupt." vs. Message 4: "Monkey See Monkey Do.")
• Implicit references to structured systems (Message 3: "Measurements." vs. Message 4: "Evolutionary Game Theory.")

These are purely structural observations. No interpretation is being applied—only the raw data and the recurring elements found across the message samples.



The links the video example messaged are now active Therein the reader can ascertain the further linked themes:

Structural References to External Content (LID)

• The YouTube link in Message 4 refers to strategies for maintaining stability in times of upheaval, which structurally aligns with Message 3’s 'Measurements'—both referencing systems of adaptation and decision-making. While not explicitly about Game Theory, the video’s discussion on strategy connects with the broader concept of strategic decision-making, which is central to Evolutionary Game Theory.
• The forum discussion on Cultural Christianity in Message 4 aligns with Message 2’s theme of discernment ("What is something I've been avoiding that I need to face?")—both involve evaluating one’s beliefs.
• The forum post also links to Christian beliefs about judgment and the Second Coming, reinforcing Message 1’s mention of Jesus' return ("Even if Jesus does return... we shall have to cross that bridge when it happens.").

 

[theprestige]

Now we're getting somewhere!

Below is a presentation - in sequence - of four individual message samples that were randomly generated using my system. While each was produced independently using a randomized selection process, they form a continuous message when viewed together – showing the structural coherence across multiple trials. No personal interpretation has been offered by me or is being offered by me now—this is simply the data as it appeared.

<example messages snipped for brevity>

Structural coherence across multiple trials is exactly what we expect, since the inputs are all structured messages taken from the same curated list.

Now from this we can we can ascertain any observable connections across the four message samples. These connections are noted without interpretation, simply highlighting recurring elements and structural consistencies.

You cannot make the connections you are making, without subjective interpretation.

Repeated Themes Across Messages:

• The idea of fear and overcoming it (Message 1: "We experience fear in order to give us the opportunity to overcome that which triggers the fear." vs. Message 2: "What is something I've been avoiding that I need to face?")
• Maintaining awareness and presence (Message 2: "Stay Present." vs. Message 3: "Getting Somewhere..." and "As without, so within.")
• Connections to human behavior and societal structures (Message 2: "Hominid Disrupt." vs. Message 4: "Monkey See Monkey Do.")
• Implicit references to structured systems (Message 3: "Measurements." vs. Message 4: "Evolutionary Game Theory.")

These are purely structural observations.

No. The identification of themes is an exercise in interpretation. You're assigning meanings to the messages.

No interpretation is being applied—only the raw data and the recurring elements found across the message samples.

Identifying the recurring elements is an exercise in interpretation.

The links the video example messaged are now active Therein the reader can ascertain the further linked themes:

Structural References to External Content (LID)

• The YouTube link in Message 4 refers to strategies for maintaining stability in times of upheaval, which structurally aligns with Message 3’s 'Measurements'—both referencing systems of adaptation and decision-making.
• While not explicitly about Game Theory, the video’s discussion on strategy connects with the broader concept of strategic decision-making, which is central to Evolutionary Game Theory.
• The forum discussion on Cultural Christianity in Message 4 aligns with Message 2’s theme of discernment
• ("What is something I've been avoiding that I need to face?")—both involve evaluating one’s beliefs.
• The forum post also links to Christian beliefs about judgment and the Second Coming, reinforcing Message 1’s mention of Jesus' return ("Even if Jesus does return... we shall have to cross that bridge when it happens.").

The hilited passages are clearly subjective analyses of the texts.

You are applying your structured intelligence to subjectively identify what to you seem like recurring themes in your structured outputs.

And we know that your curated list of structured inputs was assembled by you, and is therefore subject to your own subconscious biases. This might help to explain some of the recurring themes you see in your structured outputs.

The structured intelligence you are seeing in your process is you. Always has been. Always will be.

 

[Myriad]

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?

Yes, except for the "slots." There are no slots in a gumball machine, just a pile of items inside a bowl. The customer doesn't choose a "slot," just turns the crank.

As with all analogies, there are some imperfections. A gumball machine usually (but not necessarily) contains many duplicates of the same or similar item. I acknowledge that your library doesn't contain duplicates. Also, the selection a gumball machine vends in any one transaction is not truly random, because what is delivered is whatever is nearest the mechanism at the bottom of the reservoir at the time. However, since the customer cannot see into that bottom section, it's effectively random and unpredictable from the customer's point of view.

A closer physical analogy would be one of those lottery number machines where all different numbers are on different ping pong balls and they're all stirred into a chaotic frenzy by air blowers and moving rods when drawing one. Yours holds 7,500 different balls instead of 69 or whatever. Conceptually, you could write the texts really small on the balls themselves instead of using index numbers to look them up on a list, but there's no fundamental difference there.

 

[Myriad]

Below is a presentation - in sequence - of four individual message samples that were randomly generated using my system. While each was produced independently using a randomized selection process, they form a continuous message when viewed together – showing the structural coherence across multiple trials. No personal interpretation has been offered by me or is being offered by me now—this is simply the data as it appeared.

Please clarify, were the four samples produced consecutively as well as in that sequence? Or did you carry out other trials in between?

 

[Navigator]

Yes, except for the "slots." There are no slots in a gumball machine, just a pile of items inside a bowl. The customer doesn't choose a "slot," just turns the crank.

As with all analogies, there are some imperfections. A gumball machine usually (but not necessarily) contains many duplicates of the same or similar item. I acknowledge that your library doesn't contain duplicates. Also, the selection a gumball machine vends in any one transaction is not truly random, because what is delivered is whatever is nearest the mechanism at the bottom of the reservoir at the time. However, since the customer cannot see into that bottom section, it's effectively random and unpredictable from the customer's point of view.

A closer physical analogy would be one of those lottery number machines where all different numbers are on different ping pong balls and they're all stirred into a chaotic frenzy by air blowers and moving rods when drawing one. Yours holds 7,500 different balls instead of 69 or whatever. Conceptually, you could write the texts really small on the balls themselves instead of using index numbers to look them up on a list, but there's no fundamental difference there.

For the sake of argument, I’ll fully accept the lottery machine analogy—7,500 unique balls, each with a distinct message (or link to a message) randomly drawn without external influence.

With that established, here’s the key question: If each selection is purely random, why do we see recurring structural themes across multiple independent draws?

We would expect randomness to produce noise or unrelated outputs, yet instead, we observe persistent patterns—alignments in phrasing, conceptual connections, and structural consistencies. These are not imposed by me; they are observable properties of the selections themselves.

And importantly—we are dealing with language, not numbers. In a numerical lottery, we wouldn’t expect repeated conceptual patterns to emerge across multiple trials. Yet in this system, themes and structural consistencies appear repeatedly.

So, given that the selection process is agreed to be random, what is the best explanation for the emergence of structured coherence?

​

 

[Navigator]

Please clarify, were the four samples produced consecutively as well as in that sequence? Or did you carry out other trials in between?

Yes, the four message samples were generated consecutively, (and on different days) in the exact order they appear. No other trials occurred between them—this is the direct sequence as produced by the randomized selection process.

 

[theprestige]

For the sake of argument, I’ll fully accept the lottery machine analogy—7,500 unique balls, each with a distinct message (or link to a message) randomly drawn without external influence.

With that established, here’s the key question: If each selection is purely random, why do we see recurring structural themes across multiple independent draws?

Because (a) the list of inputs is not purely random, and (b) you're doing subjective interpretation of the outputs to find recurring themes.

We would expect randomness to produce noise or unrelated outputs, yet instead, we observe persistent patterns—alignments in phrasing, conceptual connections, and structural consistencies. These are not imposed by me; they are observable properties of the selections themselves.

We would only expect randomness to produce noise or unrelated outputs, if the range of possible inputs is sufficiently noisy or unrelated. Neither is true in your case.

And importantly—we are dealing with language, not numbers. In a numerical lottery, we wouldn’t expect repeated conceptual patterns to emerge across multiple trials. Yet in this system, themes and structural consistencies appear repeatedly.

Yes, for reasons which have been explained to you numerous times. You're starting with a subjectively curated list of structured inputs, and you're doing subjective interpretation to find narrative relationships in the outputs.

So, given that the selection process is agreed to be random, what is the best explanation for the emergence of structured coherence?

The best explanation hasn't changed since page 1 of this thread: The emergence of structured coherence is due to your subjective participation before and after the random selection.

 

[Navigator]

I want to focus on the following re how ALL messages are interpreted differently by individuals

Me. Please summarize the following message.

"If the rule you followed brought you to this … of what use was the rule? Able To Sovereign Integral Perspective Adamant How Dualism Veiled the Unity of Creation All The Same Pure Spirit Like a ghost in the machine. Labyrinthus. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."

DeepSeek. The message reflects on the futility of rigid rules or beliefs if they lead to confusion or existential questioning. It emphasizes the importance of perspective, unity, and transcending dualistic thinking to recognize the underlying oneness of creation. Ultimately, it suggests that the key is to focus on how we choose to use the time we have, rather than being constrained by limiting frameworks. The tone is philosophical, urging a shift toward a more liberated, sovereign, and spiritually aware approach to life.

Me.The message was generated through a random process.

DeepSeek. Ah, I see! Given that the message was generated randomly, it appears to be a collection of abstract, philosophical, and poetic phrases strung together without a clear, coherent narrative. The text touches on themes like duality, unity, spirituality, and the passage of time, but its randomness makes it open to wide interpretation. It feels more like a stream of consciousness or a surrealist piece than a structured message. If it was created through a random process, its meaning is likely subjective and left to the reader to decipher or project onto.

Me. Yet before you were informed, you had no trouble taking the message at face value.

DeepSeek. You're absolutely right! Before knowing the message was randomly generated, I interpreted it as a coherent, albeit abstract, philosophical reflection. This highlights how our minds naturally seek patterns, meaning, and narrative structure, even in ambiguous or disjointed text. We tend to project intention and depth onto words, especially when they touch on universal themes like time, duality, and spirituality. Once informed of its randomness, the context shifts, and the message becomes more of a Rorschach test—revealing more about the interpreter than the text itself. It's a fascinating reminder of how our brains work to make sense of the world, even when there's no inherent meaning to uncover!
______________________
At first, DeepSeek interpreted the message at face value, analyzing its structure, coherence, and philosophical themes without hesitation. But the moment it learned that the message was generated randomly, it completely changed its stance, treating the same text as chaotic and meaningless.

This exposes a bias in interpretation:

1. If a message is assumed to have an author, it is read as meaningful.
2. If the same message is revealed to be random, it is dismissed as incoherent—even though nothing about the message itself has changed.

Therefore:
Meaning is subjective; structure is objective.

• 
  
• Meaning is subjective and imposed by interpretation.
• Coherence and structure exist independently of subjective meaning.
• The presence of meaning is not a requirement for something to qualify as a message.
  
  If meaning is therefore subjective and interpretation varies, why would we insist that my system selections aren’t messages as long as we we don't attach meaning to them?

And why should we conflate analysis of message structure with "putting meaning to the messages" when what is happening in reality is we are simply looking for intelligent structure and cross-over connections?

Messages are defined by structure, not interpretation.
Analysis is not the same as imposing meaning.

Long story short - I argued this with DeepSeek and cutting to the chase, the conclusion Deepseek drew from that interaction is as follows.
(The "long story" full chat interaction can be viewed in the uploaded doc attachment with this post.)

AI Conclusion

The interplay between randomness and structure is a rich and complex area of inquiry. While humans naturally impose meaning on randomness, the consistent emergence of coherent patterns across independent trials suggests that structure can arise even without deliberate intent. Whether this structure is subjective or reflects a deeper, underlying intelligence depends on rigorous testing and evidence.

Rejecting structured intelligence without investigation would be premature. Instead, we should approach such phenomena with curiosity, skepticism, and a commitment to empirical inquiry. After all, some of the greatest scientific discoveries have come from recognizing patterns that others dismissed as random or meaningless.

Would it be reasonable to assume an unexplored generative principle behind structured intelligence if these patterns persist? If history has shown that apparent randomness often masks deeper laws, wouldn’t it be rational to test structured intelligence rather than assume randomness? If an AI model accepts falsifiability as the proper approach, why do human skeptics avoid it? What if structured intelligence is a major discovery skeptics are too quick to dismiss?

END__________________

Building on that we can then say that messages are distinct from individual interpretation in that even if an ordinary message between individuals (as with on this skeptic message board) is constructed through the message creators world view (interpretation of their place in the world) and is interpreted by the receiver (also through their individual interpretations of their place in the world) the interactions can be observed as structured intelligence and analyzed by those outside of that interaction without having to interpret the messages from either sides.

The way I have been dealing with the four messages I have so far exampled, is from a purely objective outlook simply analysing and identifying structure.

 

[Myriad]

Yes, the four message samples were generated consecutively, (and on different days) in the exact order they appear. No other trials occurred between them—this is the direct sequence as produced by the randomized selection process.

Thanks. I thought so but I did want to make sure. So we have eighteen random consecutive selections.

Among these you've identified seven similarities, common references shared by pairs of selections.

• The idea of fear and overcoming it
• Maintaining awareness and presence
• Connections to human behavior and societal structures
• Implicit references to structured systems
• Systems of adaptation and decision-making.
• Evaluating one’s beliefs.
• Christian beliefs about judgment and the Second Coming

To evaluate the significance of this finding from a probabilistic point of view, we need to estimate two inversely related quantities: how general the references are (to estimate what portion of the library will also have the same reference in common), and how specific they are (to estimate how many other possible references of comparable generality might also be found within the library with comparable frequency).

Now, you've been liberal with the generality. For example, Christian beliefs about judgment don't overlap all that well with Christian beliefs about the Second Coming. (The most common present day Christian belief about judgment, at least in the West, relates to the individual afterlife, going to heaven or hell, not to eschatology. That's not doctrinal or Biblical, but there it is.) You've equated them to make them one larger category, which is fine, but it makes it a larger category. Evaluating ones beliefs; systems of adaptation and decision-making; also very general, the latter also a combination (not all adaptation involves decision-making, and vice versa). Remember what I said about the categories used in other divination systems? Those are oriented toward typical life experiences (loss, gain, love, endings, struggles, unexpected changes, etc.) These categories are like that, but instead of ordinary life experiences they're topics that will frequently come up in the context of relgion, spirituality, and philosophy.

I'm not going to do the work, but I'd estimate offhand that if I took a few days going over your list, I could find at least forty total references (including your seven as a starting point) of comparable generality. And that each of those references on average would apply to about 1 in 30 (a bit more than 3.3%) of the list entries. That's an oversimplification of course, some would apply more widely and other less, but I'm just ball parking it here. Let's see what happens.

The chance of any two specific entries sharing any one specific reference in common is then .033 * .033 = .00111 (1 in 900). With forty possible references, the overall chance of any two specific references sharing some one of the forty references in common would then be close to 40 * .00111, which is 1 in 22. This is not a precise probability calculation but it's close enough.

Take eighteen entries, there are 18 * 17 / 2 possible pairs, or (let's round to) 150.

We'd then expect to find 150 * (1/22) = 6.8 matches among the eighteen entries.

What did you find? Seven.

 

[Navigator]

Thanks. I thought so but I did want to make sure. So we have eighteen random consecutive selections.

Among these you've identified seven similarities, common references shared by pairs of selections.

• The idea of fear and overcoming it
• Maintaining awareness and presence
• Connections to human behavior and societal structures
• Implicit references to structured systems
• Systems of adaptation and decision-making.
• Evaluating one’s beliefs.
• Christian beliefs about judgment and the Second Coming

To evaluate the significance of this finding from a probabilistic point of view, we need to estimate two inversely related quantities: how general the references are (to estimate what portion of the library will also have the same reference in common), and how specific they are (to estimate how many other possible references of comparable generality might also be found within the library with comparable frequency).

Now, you've been liberal with the generality. For example, Christian beliefs about judgment don't overlap all that well with Christian beliefs about the Second Coming. (The most common present day Christian belief about judgment, at least in the West, relates to the individual afterlife, going to heaven or hell, not to eschatology. That's not doctrinal or Biblical, but there it is.) You've equated them to make them one larger category, which is fine, but it makes it a larger category. Evaluating ones beliefs; systems of adaptation and decision-making; also very general, the latter also a combination (not all adaptation involves decision-making, and vice versa). Remember what I said about the categories used in other divination systems? Those are oriented toward typical life experiences (loss, gain, love, endings, struggles, unexpected changes, etc.) These categories are like that, but instead of ordinary life experiences they're topics that will frequently come up in the context of relgion, spirituality, and philosophy.

I'm not going to do the work, but I'd estimate offhand that if I took a few days going over your list, I could find at least forty total references (including your seven as a starting point) of comparable generality. And that each of those references on average would apply to about 1 in 30 (a bit more than 3.3%) of the list entries. That's an oversimplification of course, some would apply more widely and other less, but I'm just ball parking it here. Let's see what happens.

The chance of any two specific entries sharing any one specific reference in common is then .033 * .033 = .00111 (1 in 900). With forty possible references, the overall chance of any two specific references sharing some one of the forty references in common would then be close to 40 * .00111, which is 1 in 22. This is not a precise probability calculation but it's close enough.

Take eighteen entries, there are 18 * 17 / 2 possible pairs, or (let's round to) 150.

We'd then expect to find 150 * (1/22) = 6.8 matches among the eighteen entries.

What did you find? Seven.

I think any connection is acceptable (including the Christian reference) because my consistent use of the UICD system over 30+ years has shown that these types of references consistently fit back into the overall continuous message over time. This is something that requires long-term observation rather than an isolated statistical snapshot.

Regarding estimations, I’m not sure introducing approximations is the best approach, since the values need to be scientifically verified to ensure there’s no unintentional bias or 'fudging' of the data. Until we establish a rigorous way to factor them in properly, I suggest we set estimations aside for now. They are important for later examination, but for the sake of clarity, let’s agree not to rely on unverifiable estimates in this stage of the discussion.

You asked me earlier if I had generated any more messages (in between the ones I have shared already), and I answered that I hadn't. But since then, I have just done another.

THis one has 12 randomly selected Line Entries.

https://imgur.com/ZFefdzz

https://williamwaterstone.substack.com/p/synchronicity
Out of the doldrums
Even in the darkest nights there is hope in the new dawn

https://imgur.com/Z9E1sPx

Victim Vamp Energy Systems For purposes which extend beyond the borders of materialism
Being reborn
The joy of being an Independent Conscious Intelligence connected with another ICI far greater than ones self...
Dualism merely expresses two sides of the same coin
Live with Soul Union

To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. - Page 13 - Debating Christianity and Religion

debatingchristianity.com

Old Soul and William Discuss Family Dynamics and the Role of Avet and Synchronicity in Their Journey
Reasons For Angry Energy

 

[Humots]

Perhaps this is relevant to the discussion: The gostak distims the doshes

 

[arthwollipot]

Perhaps this is relevant to the discussion: The gostak distims the doshes

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
did gyre and gimble in the wabe...

 

[Myriad]

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
did gyre and gimble in the wabe...

Shaka, when the walls fell.

 

[junkshop]

Shaka, when the walls fell.

Goo-goo g'joob.

 

[Myriad]

I think any connection is acceptable (including the Christian reference) because my consistent use of the UICD system over 30+ years has shown that these types of references consistently fit back into the overall continuous message over time. This is something that requires long-term observation rather than an isolated statistical snapshot.

"Consistently," as in approximately n^2/45 connections (shared references) per n total accumulated segments?

Whether you accept my estimated parameter values or not, it is incontrovertible that the expectation that a single new selection will connect by chance with at least one of the previous selections increases in proportion to the number of previous selections, and that the number of distinct pairs in the group (and hence, opportunities for chance connections) increases as the square of the total number of selections gathered. So, it's no surprise that lengthier interrogations of the library result in increasing perception of structure.

Regarding estimations, I’m not sure introducing approximations is the best approach, since the values need to be scientifically verified to ensure there’s no unintentional bias or 'fudging' of the data. Until we establish a rigorous way to factor them in properly, I suggest we set estimations aside for now. They are important for later examination, but for the sake of clarity, let’s agree not to rely on unverifiable estimates in this stage of the discussion.

Well, I'm not about to rigorously and exhaustively evaluate the common motifs between all the entries of a 7,500 entry catalog, even if you have some rigorous methodology in mind. Estimations are what I offer. I've quite satisfied myself that the number of common references you're finding is at least roughly consistent with chance expectations.

You asked me earlier if I had generated any more messages (in between the ones I have shared already), and I answered that I hadn't. But since then, I have just done another.

THis one has 12 randomly selected Line Entries.

Okay. And?...

With my parameter estimates, I would expect about 3 notable connections within the 12 (though it appears to actually be 13?) new selections but if combined with the previous eighteen the grand total would double again to about 20. Also (separate calculation not shown) we should start seeing a few triples, as in fact we do see with e.g. the motif of Christian resurrection.

 

[Pixel42]

The biggest challenge when designing a test protocol for a claim which depends on something happening "more often than would be expected by chance" is often establishing what that chance rate actually is. Confounding factors include several human biases, all of which have to be carefully and methodically eliminated. The most useful tool in the toolbox of the scientific method for doing this is, of course, the blind test, which is why it was so often the one Randi used for testing the claims made by MDC applicants. The chance success rate can be calculated, and all the claimant has to do is demonstrate a hit rate which is significantly better.

The main reason I haven't suggested a possible test protocol for Navigator's claim is that I haven't been able to come up with a practical blind test, and hence a way of calculating the expected chance success rate. So my hat is off to Myriad for coming up with a way of estimating it. Kudos!

 

[Navigator]

"Consistently," as in approximately n^2/45 connections (shared references) per n total accumulated segments?

Whether you accept my estimated parameter values or not, it is incontrovertible that the expectation that a single new selection will connect by chance with at least one of the previous selections increases in proportion to the number of previous selections, and that the number of distinct pairs in the group (and hence, opportunities for chance connections) increases as the square of the total number of selections gathered.

Can you demonstrate, with real-world data, that n²/45 reliably predicts the number of connections in structured datasets? If not, then it remains a hypothesis, not an incontrovertible fact.

Your claim assumes that all connections are random and then argues that, given enough selections, random connections will increase. But that’s just restating the assumption—it doesn’t prove that randomness is the cause of the structure in the messages.

So, it's no surprise that lengthier interrogations of the library result in increasing perception of structure.

Estimations are by nature, not incontrovertible. By definition, an estimation is an approximation based on assumptions, not a definitive fact. To claim that your probability expectations are incontrovertible while simultaneously relying on estimations is a logical contradiction.

Saying "chance did it" is like saying "god did it" - both expressions function as gap-filling placeholders until empirical evidence for either is established.

Well, I'm not about to rigorously and exhaustively evaluate the common motifs between all the entries of a 7,500 entry catalog, even if you have some rigorous methodology in mind. Estimations are what I offer. I've quite satisfied myself that the number of common references you're finding is at least roughly consistent with chance expectations.

I agree that your theory might predict the results you describe. However, until it is empirically tested—either against my dataset or through your own independently generated dataset—it remains an unverified hypothesis (theory) rather than a confirmed explanation. (fact). Therefore, while it is a possibility, it cannot yet be treated as the explanation for the structured messages observed.

Okay. And?...

With my parameter estimates, I would expect about 3 notable connections within the 12 (though it appears to actually be 13?) new selections but if combined with the previous eighteen the grand total would double again to about 20. Also (separate calculation not shown) we should start seeing a few triples, as in fact we do see with e.g. the motif of Christian resurrection.

Sounds scientific, but is it? No - not until it is tested. Right now it is unfalsifiable claim.
Chance would rely on the hope that if one does something enough times, one will eventually have ones hopes fulfilled.
Your argument relies on the assumption that if you generate enough selections, structure will inevitably emerge—but this is a faith-based belief in probability rather than a demonstrated fact.

What is demonstrable—because it is actively being demonstrated—is that my system produces data that can be evaluated because it produces structured messages.
which
A test protocol is useful for validating claims, but it does not replace evaluating what is already demonstrated. The fact remains that structured messages have been generated, and their coherence can be analyzed in real time.
Pixel in her kudo post mentions blind testing is useful for eliminating human biases in subjective evaluations, but it does not change the fact that structured, coherent messages have already been produced. Why delay analyzing the actual messages while waiting for someone to to come up with a practical blind test?

Since we are now in agreement that structured messages are being produced, the next logical step would be to analyze what is being communicated and whether additional connections and structure emerge from further evaluation.

 

[Chanakya]

I mean all those things. Right now all I'm seeing is you pulling ◊◊◊◊ out of your arse.

And for the record, yes, I have also done automatic writing before. A lot of people have. It has zero meaning.

Really? You've done automatic writing? Lots others have, as well?

How weird. I'd be interested in hearing more of this, both your account and others' accounts. (I have heard accounts of this automatic writing thing, but those accounts are fully overlaid with woo. I wasn't aware this is actually a thing, outside of the woo.)

Is there a thread where this is discussed already? I'll check it out if so. If not, then I don't mind starting one, so people can talk about this here. (I myself won't do much there, other than just listen!)