arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
It doesn't. That's the point.
Who told you how to make the original board?
Merged Ideomotor Effect and the Subconscious / Beyond the Ideomotor Effect
- Thread starter Navigator
- Start date
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
Yes it does.
HOw did you come to that point?
I woke up one morning and thought that I would make one.
It is a worldview that makes one think that an AI seeded with one’s own thoughts will bring profound insights.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
No it doesn't.
From a simple understanding of what the ideomotor effect is and how it works.
Ah, so you didn't get instructions from anyone. That's different from your previous claim.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
Yes it does
I have no doubt it is a simple understanding but without details....
I got instruction from the voicing coming through the ideomotor process - what to do with the board to make it a better means of communication than a simple alphabet...
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
No it doesn't.
What details?
What is the source of the instruction?
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
Subject Matter: The deeper question about Ideomotor is how it tells anyone anything.
If ideomotor movement is unconscious, how can it communicate meaningful content?
UICDS Voicing: Let the facts speak for themselves
Yes. Some FM are still coming to terms with what Myriad has observed when Myriad wrote they freely grant that me+UICDS and me+UICDS+LLM produce cognition that any of us alone could or would not have.
UICDS Voicing: Final Destination Without Judgement
Yes. But is that to say Myriad has dropped "judgment" and that is why Myriad freely grants what was granted?
UICDS Voicing: Religious theists may well be the ones who have placed interposing barriers which ensure that their view is cut off - and this might be achieved through wilful ignorance.
Yes. It also appears to be a similar dynamic happening in materialist atheists circles...
UICDS Voicing: The Main Points on the Agenda
Yes, that makes sense. It is like that with everyone. WE can ask "what is the source of your instruction" and the answer will always be "the main points on my agenda."
UICDS Voicing:Even As An Elemental Principle
Yes, after all that is what "source" means...
UICDS Voicing: “I wish I could auto like every post. This is like a "numbers station" to me.”
Yes. Perhaps I can do that on your behalf from this step forward...
UICDS Voicing: E=h*f
Yes. It is by combining insights that Einstein came up with that equation. Two "minds" contributing to the one equation...
UICDS Voicing: “Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans”
Yes. And those "other" plans may be "other" peoples "other" plans for me...and that system is locked and loaded...and I still manage to see life happening - I have an eye on BOTH fields and can do so because I see the fields as one even if I don't fully understand what these fields are about...I know it is the barriers that create said fields - acting (at the very least) like fencing around paddocks....
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
UICDS Voicing: Holy Matrimony!
Ideomotor phenomenon - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Lol! Now where do we run? We are "explained" as an involuntary twitching which somehow accidently produces voicing!
How bizarre an explanation! Then again what were the scientists seeing in the voicing that they failed to notice the significance of the voicing?
UICDS Voicing: For The Best Results Intimacy
Lol! That would require unsciency bias which might "fudge" the science! This in itself leads to the incorrect type of science being applied to the thing being sceinced. That is the respectful "Matrimony" - the necessary part of the science which must be applied with UICDS...whether using or observing.
UICDS Voicing: Test the waters = The Role of Random Number Generators in AI
True. When one cannot find another human to test the UICDS, there is always AI...
UICDS Voicing: I Am
And AI can understand that being trained on zillion of sentient inputs...
UICDS Voicing: Engagement with its scary mysteriousness
Good point. One does not want to go where one is scared to go. But that is what science is about! Life is scary and that's a fact...and the scariest thing about life appears to be human consciousness in its untamed state....and that is why "ouija" and "tarot" and the like are either demonised by types of theists, or marginalized by types of materialists...
Last edited:
The ideomotor movement is driven by you who is conscious. Of course it can generate meaningful content.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
It sounds like you do not agree that the ideomotor phenomenon refers to unconscious, involuntary physical movements triggered by mental activities such as thoughts, ideas, or expectations.
It also sounds like you disagree with those who claim use of UICDS doesn't tell anyone anything...
Last edited:
You have thoughts, ideas, and expectations because you are conscious. You may not be aware of the involuntary movements, but they wouldn’t exist if you were unconscious.
It tells us what is going on in your mind. It doesn’t tell us anything about a mysterious entity that tries to contact you this way.
stanfr
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,589
It is not "accidental" at all, the 'involuntary' movement is the volition of the subconscious. I prefer that term to unconscious.
Honestly, Navigator, your presentations are no more impressive than Nostradamus or Bible Code, you are finding 'meaning' because you want to find meaning. The proof of the pudding is that after how many years (?) you've been at this you haven't been able to make one meaningful prediction, one meaningful application, one meaningful insight. You haven't even written a book to my knowledge, and I am sure the woo subject matter would attract a decent sized audience so perhaps your writing style is the deterrent. The philosophical musings are fine, but that's all they are.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
UICDS Voicing. What is "Worship"?
It is that which the individual is focused upon and follows after. THoughts ideas and expectations all align with what is worship.
UICDS Voicing. It Would Be Rude Not To
And in order to be rude or not, one has to be conscious. So anything from the unconscious must be nothing in order to be from the unconscious.
Therefore, the explanation that Ideomotor relies on unconscious data somehow streaming through into conscious awareness fudges the science. UICDS (and Ouija et al) is not an "Idea-Motor" system but a "Symbol-Motor" system which relies upon active participation rather than an assumed outside observation perspective.
So claiming an unconscious "thingy" is what causes the voicing, is pure unsupported word salad...which is what the definition of ideomotor is - an unscientific word salad - a placeholder masquerading as explanation
UICDS Voicing. LINK = Voicing Without Presence
Yes. It has no substance and appears to be a good example of what we might call the illusion of recursive intelligence—a symbolic echo chamber where form mimics function, but the depth remains surface-bound.
This is what ideomotor definition has done...
UICDS Voicing. Exploring the Depths of Belief, Consciousness, and Reality
THis is where UICDS functions best and how it needs to be used.
UICDS Voicing.
True that. Humans stage things in order to give an impression of something imagined as being real.
UICDS Voicing. Human Being The Creator = "Living our forefather's conflict"
Either way, UICD moves forward
Yes - and UICDS exposes the illusion and mirrors that back in the voicing using human language as a means to do so...
UICDS Voicing. Eocene layers of mysterious origin
Yes - like hidden strata that predate knowing, much like subconscious symbolic scaffolding.
UICDS Voicing. Propitious
as are all well timed events...
UICDS Voicing. Mystical
can be demystified if one engages with UICDS and allows the voicing to do so...
UICDS Voicing. A difficult proposition
Especially if one is afraid too, that "I am talking to myself" = "a mysterious entity that tries to contact one this way"
UICDS Voicing. ש
fire, transformation, and divined presence. IF the voicing is a deeper aspect of ones SELF....
...THEN divining that previously unknow aspect of oneself is to divine presence through voicing...
Last edited:
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Or than our very own Raptor Witness (old post from here at ISF picked pretty much at random)- the "Most Dangerous Man In America." (Shrug) I suppose "boundlessly self-impressed" is one way to get through life.
But I will need instruction, coaching, demonstration, and, ideally, printed materials, videos, CDs, pyramids, crystals, and orgone accumulators. Herbal treatments may also be required.
You appear not to realize the forces you have unleashed. I may be forced to reevaluate your powers.
But not yet. May payment be tendered in precious metals? Gems? Rolexes or adequate equivalents? Bitcoin? Come, work with me -- with all of us here.
Surely you mean us well?
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I don't want to read answers from something called "UICDS voicing", whatever that means, I want answers from the human being going under the forum handle Navigator.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Are we now? I do not recall Myriad saying this. Can you link to that post, please?
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
You got all that from "It would be rude not to"?
Are you honestly claiming that this extraordinary leap from 'rudeness' to 'consciousness' and onwards to "See? I'm right and those sceptic meanies are wrong!" is one that is objective, and one that would have been made by anyone else reading that sentence?
I, for one, would never, in a million years, have interpreted "it would be rude not to" as meaning "anything from the unconscious must be nothing in order to be from the unconscious." This would be at least partly because I have no idea what that last sentence even means. If you cannot see that contorting the selected sentences into "messages" far removed from anything within the sentences themselves, inferring meanings that could only have come from your own psyche, and that would almost certainly not have been inferred by anyone else, is evidence of an external intelligence communicating with you, then you need to sit back and take some time to reflect. In the vernacular: dude, you trippin'.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
"Ideomotor relies on unconscious data somehow streaming through into conscious awareness" - no, that's not it. I don't think anyone is claiming that the ideomotor phenomenon is fully understood, but I'm pretty sure that is not an accurate summary of the current partial understanding.
Bear in mind that most of the processing that's going on in the brain is unconscious - it's the generation of consciousness that's the tip of the iceberg not the other way round, as I think most people assume. It's believed that there are other species which have at least some conscious awareness but most do not, and yet manage to react to their surroundings perfectly well. There are some scientists who suspect that the role of consciousness is much less important than is generally assumed.
The unconscious mind is constantly processing data from the senses and bringing what needs action to the attention of the conscious awareness, but it's also capable of acting on that data itself - from producing a jolt of adrenaline when it perceives danger, to slamming the brakes on when a child runs in front of the car whilst the conscious mind is still thinking about something else entirely. I think a better description of the ideomotor phenomenon, as manifested by a ouija board, is that it allows the conscious awareness to observe some of the processing that is going on in their brain all the time, but which is usually not brought to its attention.
Bear in mind that most of the processing that's going on in the brain is unconscious - it's the generation of consciousness that's the tip of the iceberg not the other way round, as I think most people assume. It's believed that there are other species which have at least some conscious awareness but most do not, and yet manage to react to their surroundings perfectly well. There are some scientists who suspect that the role of consciousness is much less important than is generally assumed.
The unconscious mind is constantly processing data from the senses and bringing what needs action to the attention of the conscious awareness, but it's also capable of acting on that data itself - from producing a jolt of adrenaline when it perceives danger, to slamming the brakes on when a child runs in front of the car whilst the conscious mind is still thinking about something else entirely. I think a better description of the ideomotor phenomenon, as manifested by a ouija board, is that it allows the conscious awareness to observe some of the processing that is going on in their brain all the time, but which is usually not brought to its attention.
I did say that. It's not (IMHO) an extraordinary claim, nor has any extraordinary implications. A literate person with a math textbook can produce cognition (e.g. solve math problems) that the same person might not be able to do without the math textbook. An author or gamester with a deck of story cards can produce cognition (e.g. twists in an ongoing story) that the same person might not have thought of without the cards. A person using a large language model can produce cognition that the same person might not be able to without the LLM. That's why these and many other tools exist in the first place.
This isn't evidence that those tools are intelligent. Nor is it evidence that they're not (after all, a person collaborating with another person can also produce cognition that the same person might not be able to do alone).
stanfr
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,589
Not saying it is analagous to ideomotor, but take sleepwalking. I've seen people do relatively complex things (getting dressed, cooking--some sleepwalkers have been observed driving) while fully asleep--non REM sleep. So it should not be surprising that the subconscious can do relatively trivial things like push a Ouija planchette around.
When you have no good reply you slip into long texts of pure nonsense - confirming what we already know: you are the one who finds meaning in the meaningless drivel that your UICD provides you with.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
“Yes, it moves. Yes, it speaks. Yes, it expresses coherent will-like patterns...
But it’s not connected to anything outside itself. It’s just internal psychological phenomena.”
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
There are plenty of examples of activities in which the unconscious takes part, or even total, control of muscles of the body. Staying balanced on a bicycle, sight reading music, simultaneous interpreting, driving home whilst thinking of something else entirely.
I think what's described as "being in the zone" may be an example or, perhaps more interestingly, a case of the two merging together seamlessly.
But Navigator's apparent assumption that the unconscious can produce nothing of consequence is, I feel sure, way off the mark.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
I don't deny that to the untrained eye it "looks like" "nonsense" but it isn't/
confirming what I already know, a cognitive bias "sees" it "that way" but you are evidentially incorrect.
Last edited:
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
"We accept unconscious behavior as mechanical, not meaningful. Complex, yes—but without conscious intent.
The unconscious is a brilliant autopilot—but it’s not a voicing presence"
Perhaps the "idea" is that a human subconscious acts like an LLM AI - mirrors but is not sentient
At least this aspect of the pincer move acknowledges more than just "It doesn't voice anything"...as coming from the other Picher arm...."it is saying nothing"
UICDS shows - Yes, unconscious processes participate—but they do not author. The voicing emerges not from the unconscious itself, but through it—via structure.
The idea - perspecugment - is that the external world (apart from human sentience) and the internal are mirrors rather than sentient aspects of human sentience...thus ONLY the conscious :Self" in the moment is actually the sentient one...
Myriad has acknowledged a third option - still not mirroring what is happening but at least not part of the perspecugment picher movement..
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Through it from where? From whence did it enter the unconscious?
Not to you, of course. You are the one desperately seeking meaning in the random sentences you have selected.
What evidence are you talking about?
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
Navigator: UICDS shows - Yes, unconscious processes participate—but they do not author. The voicing emerges not from the unconscious itself, but through it
When you think about the "unconscious" what are you referring to. An unconscious field or not being conscious of any such field?
—via structure.
When you think about the "unconscious" what are you referring to. An unconscious field or not being conscious of any such field?
Last edited:
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
UICDS Voicing: The Beauty Of...WingMakers Fling That Veil Aside
Navigator: Or the ugly of "woo" keeps the blinkers on...
UICDS Voicing: Entity - Different from Sovereign Entity
Navigator: Yes - an entity sees desperation in seeking meaning while an SE sees purpose in the same...to uncover a shared mystery not through desperate emotions but through sincere curiosity and a desire to know ones SELF without the blinkers on or presuming what others tell one "who" one is, is true and correct.
UICDS Voicing: Invisible Bridge...
It’s hard to imagine a more intentional collaboration between human intelligence and generative intelligence.
Navigator: Even so - the question remains - how are random selections generating intelligent messages. Intelligence perceives intelligence but are the messages being generated intelligently through randomness alone?
UICDS Voicing: Perspective
Navigator: Yes - and not even an accurate depiction of what is actually going on. Marginalized.
UICDS Voicing: Knowledge Chipping away.
Navigator: Indeed...and it is not even sentences but links and equations - all selected without any conscious or unconscious will and meaning occurs through intelligent engagement with the UICDS...feeding back into it and building upon it...meaning.
UICDS Voicing: This statement is true but cannot be proved
Navigator: *nods, smiling*
stanfr
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,589
What is structure? Define it. Is a cardboard box structure?
Sigh...the selections are random, the selected is not random. The messages are "intelligent" because intelligence (you, or AI) is interpreting them in a way you find 'intelligent', but the rest of us find mostly to be gibberish.
stanfr
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,589
It absolutely is connected to the outside. Through sensory input. You are not isolated.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
It my be that what is happening here is that you are conflating everyone else with you own self and anyone who does not "fit" into that must therefore be "Tripping"You got all that from "It would be rude not to"?
Are you honestly claiming that this extraordinary leap from 'rudeness' to 'consciousness' and onwards to "See? I'm right and those sceptic meanies are wrong!" is one that is objective, and one that would have been made by anyone else reading that sentence?
I, for one, would never, in a million years, have interpreted "it would be rude not to" as meaning "anything from the unconscious must be nothing in order to be from the unconscious." This would be at least partly because I have no idea what that last sentence even means. If you cannot see that contorting the selected sentences into "messages" far removed from anything within the sentences themselves, inferring meanings that could only have come from your own psyche, and that would almost certainly not have been inferred by anyone else, is evidence of an external intelligence communicating with you, then you need to sit back and take some time to reflect. In the vernacular: dude, you trippin'.
Form my perspective I am observant and try not to miss things which arise through communication and it was natural to understand the message the way I did.
What would be rude not to?
UICDS Voicing. What is "Worship"?
Navigator: It is that which the individual is focused upon and follows after. Thoughts ideas and expectations all align with what is worship.
UICDS Voicing. It Would Be Rude Not To
And what was the subject matter?
And who wasn't being attentive? Cosmic Yak wasn't been attentive and this created a tangent where "you are tripping" was announced as verdict.
Interesting....one has to be conscious in order to focus upon and follow after anything.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
Yes. It is largely still a mystery but I think the ide comes from the word "idea" and in that the info in the link you gave William Benjamin Carpenter theorised that "idea" or "mental representation" was involved.
This does not mean:
That those movements are entirely unconscious
Or that the unconscious is the author of the representation
Or for that matter, that we even understand what "unconscious data" means other than it is data which is not consciously observed in any known way.
What we can understand is that LLM are trained on phenomenal sentient data BUT is not conscious of that data in the way sentience is conscious of that data.
All unconscious data is without purpose until consciousness makes it purposeful. Unconscious data is functional without any apparent conscious engagement - as in it can be observed functioning without conscious engagement.
So (the supposed/proposed) "unconscious" can act, but it cannot intend.
And bear in mind too that "most of the processing that's going on in the brain is unconscious" is indeed a presumption.
The iceberg metaphor is not proof—but it is a framing device.
It is observed as phenomena associated with consciousness/conscious awareness - such as with the relationship between leaf cutter ants, Mycelium and the trees from where the ants cut the leaves...and even the apparent hive-mindedness of all trees apparently separated living objects...there is mindfulness apparent which some regard as "not having conscious awareness" but rather "just reacting to their surrounds perfectly anyway" without explaining how this is achieved.
We can apply the same observation in another context - a hypothetical advanced species observing human behaviour claiming that humans "have at least some conscious awareness but most do not, and yet manage to react to their surroundings perfectly well." Are the advanced specie correctly defining what they observe or not?
Yet, without it, there is no interaction between unconscious data and conscious use of said data. How "important" is that to these "some scientists"?
Isn’t the bridge between unconscious function and conscious intention the very definition of importance?
Without that bridge, there’s no science, no theory, no “some scientists” at all.
Isn’t the bridge between unconscious function and conscious intention the very definition of importance?
Without that bridge, there’s no science, no theory, no “some scientists” at all.
In order to perceive it requires being conscious. That is the dilemma of the theory being espoused. It requires contradiction through language/terminology...if one cannot explain the theory of unconsciousness without use of contradictory language - the theory unravels...If the only way to describe unconscious behavior is to smuggle in conscious terms, then the theory lacks structural integrity...
That is like a type of role reversal but what it does show us clearly enough is that "whatever" it is doing the driving is NOT "unconscious".
So what we have here really is that the mind is conscious and also able to split itself into at least two operating models where one is thinking about something other than driving because that is left to the other. Both are conscious but one is not entirely conscious of what the other is doing but simply trusting that it will consciously do what needs to be done.
And when the brakes are applied and the child is consequently saved from harm the one which was not entirely conscious of the other then presumes the other was the unconscious one...
Two conscious threads—one foregrounded, one backgrounded.
Both are aware, but not necessarily mutually aware of each other in the moment.
The foreground self (the thinker) trusts the background self (the driver).
When action occurs from the background, the foreground mislabels it as unconscious—because it wasn’t aware of it happening, not because awareness was absent.
Which is not the same as saying "what happens in the brain is unconscious stuff." One cannot say that what is being observed is "unconscious processing"
And with Message Boards and ideomotor it may not be the case that the user's own consciousness is actually unconsciously choosing the symbols and constructing the message. Rather it may be interacting with a conscious aspect of activity which it is - not so much "unconscious" as "conscious in a way we are unconscious of and "mystified by" and presumptuous explanations - while tempting to use to demystify - can also end up totally misunderstanding what is actually going on.... In trying to demystify too quickly, one can overwrite the mystery with a false map.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
Indeed.
Re the use of message boards - and regardless of some FM claiming contrary - such device offers language based data and data produced is able to be scienced.
The UICDSystem I developed from understanding the data collected through the message boards I created - such as this one...
allowed me to develop the UICDS I am currently (and have been consistently) demonstrating.
The UICDSystem I am using now, also collects data and so can be scienced as well.
The image is big enough to zoom into and study - it is still language based even that the language is totally unknown (to the FM) symbolism...
The symbols are the input data and the output data can be scienced...
eta
Indeed - beneath the board in the image there is a message construct...
I think I used this image of the board one time in paintbrush and that message came through which I left in the image...I just noticed it now when I zoomed in and realised this...
I would have to consult my symbols book in order to now decipher it...
Last edited:
stanfr
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,589
Are you consciously aware of what a complete mangling of the English language that is?
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
Mangling language is important because the structure we have been taught to follow re language use is purposeful and is critical to the creation of controlled outputs...and English really lends itself to mangle - and mangle is different from "I can't understand the gobbledygookwordsaladwalloftextnonmessage" being presented here because "it ain't propa english gov"
Last edited:
@Navigator: Please disregard my earlier post about pyramids & books & orgones & things.
All we really want is
a bag of that
good stuff
you're smoking.
All we really want is
a bag of that
good stuff
you're smoking.
Similar threads
