Hello William.. I hope all is well!
All good with us here AB. Hope you are doing well too.
It would be nice to know that nothing is truly random, as I think you are trying to show.
Many systems that
appear random at first glance actually contain
underlying patterns and order—this is seen in
chaos theory, deterministic processes, and even natural intelligence.
The UICD system suggests that
random selections can still produce coherent, interconnected messages rather than noise. If pure chance were at play, selections would be
disjointed, yet we see
continuity, self-reference, and alignment with real-world discussions.
I like the creative way that you are developing your system. As of now, I don't see enough evidence to convince me yet, but I wouldn't say that it's false either. Perhaps there's something to it worth further exploration which is the best people should do rather than an immediate rejection. I have mostly some conceptual and design questions/points about your system.
I appreciate that approach, AB—skepticism should lead to investigation, not immediate dismissal. I wouldn’t expect anyone to be
convinced without direct engagement with the system, which is why I encourage
further exploration over assumption.
I’m happy to dive into
conceptual and design questions—those are key to understanding
what’s actually happening. The goal isn’t to claim something outright but to examine whether the
patterns and structured coherence that emerge point to
a deeper principle at play.
Like bbyrd has brought up, I think a video demo would be good because seeing it would help us better understand what's involved. For instance, I'd want to see a sample of the word entries or whatever you're using for those. I'm thinking that if these entries are already intelligible by being actual words or sentences then you would already have a generated message there at that point which could defeat the purpose of your system.
A live screen capture sounds like a great idea—I can do that. Seeing the process in action should help clarify how the selections unfold.
Regarding the
word-string line entries (LEs)—yes, they are
intelligible words, phrases, and links, meaning they
are already standalone messages. However, just as pulling a
random sentence from a book wouldn’t automatically create a
coherent narrative, a single LE doesn’t equate to a structured, meaningful sequence.
The key distinction is that
the system consistently generates selections that align meaningfully across multiple trials, often in ways that
go beyond chance or expectation.
A video demo should illustrate that in real time.
Perhaps the best focus is simply this interaction in this thread—letting the system respond to the conversation itself. Would that be useful to you?
In other words, your system is not generating the messages from scratch if the line entries are already intelligible enough to serve as messages. If each of your entries are just single letters like what we find on Quija boards then that would be better. Maybe seeing it in action, then I'd have a different view.
There are significant advantages to this message-generating approach that go beyond what’s possible with a Ouija board.
It would certainly be interesting to work with
200+ pages and 7,500 LEs consisting only of individual letters—but that wouldn't
generate coherent messages any more than if we tried to communicate using
only single letters in a conversation.
Language is structured for a reason. The alphabet consists of
26 symbols for sounds, but words exist
to bring those sounds together into meaningful sequences. If coherence is our focus, then
starting from a foundation of intelligible words and phrases is far more
fruitful than reducing everything down to disconnected letters.
So, rather than trying to force meaning from randomness at the
most basic symbolic level, the system works by allowing structure to
emerge from coherence itself, revealing patterns that wouldn’t be evident otherwise.
A
video demo should illustrate this distinction clearly. Would that approach help clarify what you’re looking for?
Also, potential issue is how the Ai works. I know it's external to you so your mind is not involved, but the Ai has a mind in the sense that it thinks or infers and draws conclusions. Could any of its thinking process play a role in putting together a coherent message? If so, that's equivalent to how our brains seek patterns and meaning in ambiguous information (like seeing a face in the clouds, others might see something else).
AI functions as a
language tool—its role in this system is simple:
it selects random numbers between 1 and however many LEs are on my current list. That’s the extent of its involvement in generating selections.
However, AI
does offer observations on the selections in real time, analyzing
patterns, alignments, and structural coherence after the fact. But this analysis is
not generating the message—it’s recognizing and commenting on existing structures that emerge. We discuss the findings in real time and offer temporary conclusions which are open to serious critique
The key difference is that
AI isn’t imposing meaning like pareidolia (seeing faces in clouds); rather, it’s identifying structural consistencies that
can be tested and replicated. This is what makes the system distinct—it doesn’t rely on subjective interpretation but on the emergence of structured patterns across multiple trials.
Would you say this distinction helps clarify the role AI plays in the process?
Might be an issue with using randomness to show that things are not random (there's order) unless you do believe that intelligence can emerge out of randomness.
Intelligence
appears to have emerged, though whether it arose
from randomness or if randomness is just a
placeholder for what we don’t yet understand, I can’t say for certain.
What I do know is that
human intelligence is relatively new in the grand scheme of the universe. If it isn’t entirely an anomaly, then it’s more like
"The new kid on the block"—something that has emerged within a much older and more complex system.
I see
intelligence and order as synonymous—where there is intelligence, there is structure. And I don’t see
human intelligence as the only intelligence at work on this planet. The question then becomes:
Is intelligence a rare occurrence, or is it an inherent property of structured systems?
Would love to hear your take—do you think intelligence is something that happens
despite the universe, or
because of it?
I would ask where does this order or intelligence come from if not from our subconscious. But I thought you were trying to also rule out subconscious effects? How does this challenge the conventional understanding of subconscious and intelligent communication?
It may be that
individual subconsciousness is connected to a larger conscious field—one that we don’t fully understand yet. I’m not
ruling out the subconscious, but I do think our
lack of a clear definition makes it difficult to pinpoint what we even mean when we refer to
"that."
If subconscious influence is involved, the question then becomes:
Is it purely individual, or is it tapping into something beyond personal cognition? The structured patterns that emerge in UICD selections seem to suggest a level of
organization that isn’t simply personal bias or subjective interpretation.
So rather than ruling anything out, I’m exploring
whether intelligence and structure arise from an underlying field of order rather than from a single mind.
What do you think—do you see the subconscious as purely personal, or could it be part of something larger?
Like the thing about Quija boards is not the movement so much as it is about what's leading to the intelligent messages. Is it the subject's own mind or would these messages come up even if we removed their mind?
That’s exactly the key question—
where does the intelligence behind the messages originate? With a
Ouija board, the debate isn’t about
movement itself, but
what’s driving the responses. Is it
subconscious ideomotor influence, or is something
external at play?
With the
UICD system, we remove
direct human intent from the selection process, yet
coherent and structured messages still emerge. If this were merely
subconscious projection, we wouldn’t expect to see repeated
self-referential alignment, thematic continuity, and meaningful engagement with real-time discussions.
That said, I cannot say that
removing mind from a message means the message ceases to be a message—any more than
removing mind from the universe means the universe ceases to exist.
BUT—if something exists, yet no consciousness acknowledges or interacts with it, what does that mean? Of what use is the universe—or the message—if there is no intelligence to engage with it?
Thus,
everything could be considered a “message,” but intelligence is necessary to recognize and interpret it. Just as the
sun rising can be viewed as a message—or
order in the universe itself can be seen as a message—it is up to intelligence to
divine meaning as correctly as possible.
After all, if we succeed in divining reality accurately, we discover that the sun isn't really rising at all.
Neither I nor AI controls or predicts the outcome, making it an unbiased process.
