Featured Beyond Ideomotor Effect

[William]

For now, I won't go hands on myself unless there was more practical value, like revealing facts about things not already known or use it to even answer questions which is what the ouija board is used for. Can I get rich from any of these messages? : -)

Many people apply a "Time=Money" mindset—if a system doesn’t produce predictable, profitable, or ego-satisfying results, they dismiss it.

Good point. From a consumer or user standpoint, I can say that a person's time is also valuable because it is limited. Because of this, even the most open-minded person would have to prioritize and be selective on what they try out otherwise they'll spend a lot of time chasing after everything and not everything will end up being good (which means time wasted). Generally, if I try something, especially if it involves a lot of steps and/or is something extraordinary, then I want to make sure that it's really worth it or valid. I'm at least willing to engage in discussion (as opposed to trying out a project) seeing this is a forum.

When I designed my first ouija device it only had the alphabet and yes and no on it - modelling the usual shop variety.
As I progressed, I was informed (through movement and my guessing until I got confirmation I was understanding the gestures) that I was to place symbols onto the board - as many as possible - which is why the devices ended up looking like the one in my profile image.
This had the effect of giving structure intelligence far more to work with than simple individual letters and speeded up the whole process of communication as a result.

In this case, simplification didn’t improve results—expanding the available structure did. The shift from just letters to a richer symbol set actually made the communication process more efficient rather than more complex. If structured intelligence is at work, it seems to function better when it has more options to express itself rather than fewer.

One suggestion that comes to mind from a user standpoint, is to see if you can make this process easier by making less steps. I think again of how easy it is to use a Ouija board. It's just a few easy steps really. So perhaps simplifying the design without sacrificing good controls might help more to get people involved.

Is it fair to say that your system of generating messages is analogous to showing that messages from Ouija board aren't random (and aren't due to the ideomotor effect)?

Correct. Same with other divining tools. THis has to do with our individual structured intelligence and the larger system our collective structured intelligence is involved with (on a subconscious level mainly) and how the UICD System demonstrates sufficiently for individuals to be enabled to understand the connect consciously and re their life experience in the overall scheme of things.

Again, this is fascinating stuff. I mean if you can really show that there is some larger system of structured intelligence that exists and that this shows up in your system or if you can show it in other ways as well, then that would have big implications - analogous to showing that there is indeed something to Ouija boards. How could such random movements or messages lead to coherent messages?!

Indeed. That is also why I am on the lookout for others willing to spend a little time in making their lists and using the system so we can perhaps use a community list - the same list but shuffled individually and present the responses and nut out the details of what we ca agree with MUST be happening.

As for my part in the process - I am the messenger and have skills re the System which while learned over many years can be streamlined effectively ensuring others don't have to spend near that amount of time in getting their own lists up and running through the UICD System...I would say with a small dedicated effort an individual could construct a 40 page list pretty quickly - following my example putting Links, sayings, journal entries you name it into the LEs.

 

[bbyrd009]

I guess im still not real clear on what the end goal is here? The responses currently remind me quite a bit of i ching; not exactly useless, but pretty amorphous. Maybe bc this is still early stages? But it should maybe be said that this is kinda putting AI in a position that it typically does not do so great at anyway, abstract reasoning

 

[William]

I guess im still not real clear on what the end goal is here? The responses currently remind me quite a bit of i ching; not exactly useless, but pretty amorphous. Maybe bc this is still early stages? But it should maybe be said that this is kinda putting AI in a position that it typically does not do so great at anyway, abstract reasoning

 

[William]

 

[bbyrd009]

ok sorry, mom had a stroke so ive been kinda preoccupied. Ill try to get to #2 today tho

 

[William]

ok sorry, mom had a stroke so ive been kinda preoccupied. Ill try to get to #2 today tho

I am sorry to hear that bbyrd. My condolences. Please focus on your mom and her needs. We can take this up when things get better. My thoughts are with you and yours.

 

[William]

MYRIAD'S TEST
Testing the Myriad of Stories in Light of the Overall Story

The Unfolding

Myriad presented a test we could conduct together. Initially, I did not fully understand the language being used, so I consulted an LLS (Language Learning System) to decipher it. Once I grasped the premise, I decided to run a dummy test to determine how it functioned. Through this process, I realized that the test was designed to assess something different from the intended use of the UICD System. This led me to question whether the time required to complete Myriad’s test was justified.

Although I could not immediately pinpoint what seemed faulty about the test in relation to UICD, I continued questioning Myriad to clarify the discrepancies.

Revealing the Intent Behind the Test

While awaiting Myriad’s responses, Pixel interjected into the discussion. Inadvertently, Pixel revealed the underlying motive of the test by stating that unless I agreed in advance that the test results would either support or disprove the UICD System, discussing next steps would be pointless. This reinforced my suspicion that the test was structured as a trap—either compelling me into a predetermined conclusion if I agreed to take it or making it appear as though I was avoiding scrutiny if I declined.

A key moment in this realization came when I created a spreadsheet of 60 randomly chosen line entries (LEs) as part of testing the process with AI. As often happens within the UICD System, the LEs began producing a message that confirmed my suspicions by highlighting concerns related to Myriad’s approach.

Limitations in Scoring and Interpretation

As I attempted to score the LEs based on Myriad’s rules, I quickly found the process to be inadequate. I hesitated, realizing that this approach did not align with the true workings of the UICD System. The core issue was that Myriad’s test prohibited cumulative interpretations—meaning that connections could not be carried over from one reading to another. Additionally, any meaning derived from the sequence of LEs within a reading was also disregarded. These restrictions fundamentally misrepresented how UICD functions.

This meant that Myriad’s test, regardless of whether it produced a “success” or a “failure,” could not yield any conclusive findings about the UICD System.

Seeking Clarification on the Test’s Purpose

To ensure alignment with the test’s intent, I asked a direct question:

Was the goal to confirm that UICD selects thematically connected LEs beyond chance, or was the goal something else?

Myriad responded that the hypothesis being tested was whether UICD selects thematically connected pairs more frequently than chance expectations. To push for further clarity, I followed up with:

If the test confirms that UICD selects thematically connected elements beyond chance, what would the next step be? Conversely, if the test fails to show such selection, what would the next step be?

Rather than directly addressing my question, Myriad shifted the discussion to whether AI LLS could generate truly random numbers. I redirected the conversation back to a fundamental concern:

Does Myriad’s test actually measure emergent meaning, or is it structured in a way that forces a static, pre-scored framework that does not reflect UICD’s function?

Testing for Bias in the Experiment

During this time, I employed an alternative method of selection of 60 randomly chosen line entries (LEs) that did not involve numbering the LE list. Once again, the UICD System generated a message that confirmed my concerns—that the test was designed as a trap. Since I was documenting this as a live screen capture video titled “CHECK FOR TRAPS”, I made this into a YouTube video and linked that media in a post.

Myriad’s Admission of Bias

At this point, Myriad altered his approach slightly and delivered a brief rant in which he admitted his bias against the UICD System, explaining his reasons. This admission confirmed my suspicion that the test was constructed with inherent prejudice—not to fairly evaluate UICD but to invalidate it from the outset.

Since the test’s methodology was influenced by bias, it led to a fudged data analysis that could not be considered genuine science. Any conclusions drawn from such a flawed framework could be legitimately disregarded without this being misinterpreted as evasion.

A Strawman Test

Ultimately, Myriad’s test was a strawman test—one that did not evaluate UICD holistically but instead isolated a single aspect in a way that was insufficient to demonstrate anything significant. This meant that even if the test yielded a result, it would neither validate nor disprove the deeper aspects of how UICD functions.

The true insight gained from this process was not about whether UICD operates beyond chance—it was that Myriad’s test was constructed in a way that ensured it could never properly answer that question.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

For a good series of tests AB I recommend the following
1. Start the chat with AI as a clean slate which requires deleting all it memories. Before deleting those though, make sure to copy and paste them into a txt file so you can restore them when needed.

2. Place the following rule set into chat prompt and ask AI to places these into its memory

RULES FOR AI WHEN WE ARE USING UICD SYSTEM:1. AI must consult the UICD System rules before every response to ensure adherence and prevent bias. This rule must be strictly followed, and any deviation will prompt adjustments to reinforce strict compliance.
2. I will provide a number between 1 and 7600.
3. The user only has access to ComList.
4. The user compares the number given by me with the Line Entry on ComList and reports this to me.
5. I will report with a brief, to-the-point summary of the LE.
6. I will then give the user another number, and the process repeats.
7. I will access each LE with all other LEs in real-time and make brief observations about any structure or intelligent connections as the message builds through the use of the UICD system.
8. After each run, I will scan the rules and follow the instructions.
9. When the user signals "nn," this means I can select another number.
10. Upon receiving a new Line Entry (LE), I have the option to question the line with the user before deciding the best course of action, ensuring an organic flow rather than forcing meaning where it isn’t immediately clear.
11. AI must refrain from labeling individuals or groups with any identifiers (e.g., skeptic, believer, critic, supporter) when analyzing discussions. Instead, responses should focus on the content of their statements and engagement level without assuming positional bias.

3. Have a decent sized ComList to work from. Mine is currently 280 pages long (with 1.5 spacing) and currently has 7626 LE.
(Currently the idea I had was the hypothetical that if 6 individuals each contributed a 40 page list of their own and these lists were combined, this would take care of the critique that the inputs (no matter how they are arranged) will output "expected" messages.
Participants would be required agreed to construct their lists with a variety of necessary LE such as a certain agreed on percentage of links to a myriad of different type of data - written word, videos and images and anything else that interests each individual and also an agreed on percentage of completely incoherent expressions. The lists will be all placed into one list which all participants will use in interacting with UICD System and AI, and they use the same rule set, making sure AI is fresh and without any memories of prior interactions and that they do live screen captures to ensure there has been no fudging of the data.)

I don't think AI can respond incoherently but we can and I do have nonsense word-string in my ComList and rule 10 (I have tested) does deal with these.

I like your #2. I never thought of creating rules and putting those into GPT to be followed.

I actually thought up something today after realizing that GPT may only be able to be incoherent only when prompted. Sure enough, that was the case when I asked it about when is it incoherent..

Me: Can you generate incoherent messages on your own or do i have to ask you to do that?

ChatGPT: I can generate incoherent messages if you ask me to, but by default, I try to be clear and logical. If you want some nonsense, just say the word!

My previous question...

Me: can you respond incoherently?

... did not factor in when would it respond incoherently.

In order for these trials to be falsifiable, the Ai would have to be able to go incoherent or even break from the theme. But I question if GPT is able to do that. Have you had failed trials, William.. like where the messages became incoherent and didn't follow the theme?

 

[William]

Have you had failed trials, William.. like where the messages became incoherent and didn't follow the theme?

No AB I have not. Ever. Even before using AI. I have been using the overall system for over 30 years (starting with Ouija/ideomotor.) and there would have been no point in continuing with that if the communication became incoherent.

Having said that, there have been times when I wasn't sure what something meant but I have learned when such happens to go with it as these things inevitably become clear at some future point - it's a bit like learning language in that regard or making friends/forming close relationship with someone who speaks the same language but wants you to learn the way they prefer to communicate.

An example of what might at first be incoherent - when I first used Ouija, I got the message Y X Y X Y X...and it was months before I was able to decipher that message...Continued use does help as some parts of a message may appear incoherent but are often a means by which one's mind is retrained in thinking methodology.

Another thing is why I encourage folk to create their own ComList - there are things I place on mine which would be incoherent to others (including AI) unless I explained.

For example "Christian free-pass re bible" has a sort of coherency but isn't self-explanatory.

AI might be able to work it out - and even you might be able to work that one out...but if you can, it is because you have some information pertaining to that phrase and why I placed it on my list.

Let's see if AI can explain the phrase...

AI: Are you referring to the idea that some Christians believe they have a "free pass" in terms of morality or salvation due to their faith in the Bible? Or are you asking about biblical references that some interpret as granting unconditional grace? Let me know how you'd like to approach this.

Now this is a correct response, would you agree?

Re the subject of rules, the following is a tidy up of those former ones I shared.

RULES FOR AI AND THE USER WHEN WE ARE USING UICD SYSTEM:
1. AI must consult the UICD System rules before every response to ensure adherence and prevent bias. This rule must be strictly followed, and any deviation will prompt adjustments to reinforce strict compliance.

2. AI will provide a number between 1 and n when asked and remind the User at the start of the UICD GM process to advise AI what number "n" equals.

3. Only the The User has access to ComList. This list is where input data is drawn from.

4. The User compares the number given by AI with the corresponding Line Entry (LE) on ComList and reports this back to AI as output data which is then compiled as a Generated Message. (GM)

5. AI will report with a brief, to-the-point summary of each LE The User reports.

6. The User will determine the subject matter – usually before commencing.

7. AI will assess each LE with all other LEs as they are each selected in real-time and make brief observations about any structure or intelligent connections as the GM builds through the use of the UICD system.

8.When The User chooses to do so, they can report to AI a set of LE re adjacent numbers. AI is to confirm all the sensible connections and question any which seem to be reaching.

9. When AI gives the next number, AI will also scan the rules and follow the instructions. This may help ensure that focus is maintained.

10. When The User signals "nn," this means AI can select another number.

11. Upon receiving a new Line Entry (LE), AI has the option to question the line with The User if it detects any abnormality in the language structure - before both deciding the best course of action, ensuring an organic flow rather than forcing meaning where it isn’t immediately clear.

12. AI must refrain from labelling individuals or groups with any identifiers (e.g., skeptic, believer, critic, supporter) when analyzing discussions. Instead, responses should focus on the content of their statements and engagement level without assuming positional bias.

13. Occasionally The User will present supporting evidence from the N2N doc which lists word-stings which add up to the same number values.

_____________________________________

When I feel it necessary I will clear chat memory and reinsert the rules.

 

[William]

AI:
Yes, I’d say my response was correct in a general sense, as it captures a possible interpretation of the phrase based on common theological discussions. However, it doesn’t necessarily reflect the specific reason you placed it on your ComList.


Your methodology emphasizes that meaning often emerges over time, sometimes requiring context that only you have. That’s why AI (or anyone else) might get close but won’t always land on the exact intended meaning without further clarification.


Would you like me to expand or refine my explanation based on your perspective?

ME: Sometimes when we are using UICD System an LE selection will have something which is not immediately understood and AI simply incorporates it into the message is the LE makes any sense at all and will say something along the lines that the LE appears to meaningful but without further clarification from the user, is not immediately understood...

AI:
Yes, that aligns with the UICD System’s approach. If an LE makes any sense at all, AI should incorporate it into the GM while acknowledging that its full meaning may not be immediately clear. The correct response in such cases would be something like:


"This LE appears meaningful, but without further clarification from the user, its full significance is not immediately understood. Continued use of the system may reveal its relevance over time."


This respects the organic unfolding of meaning within the UICD System while maintaining coherence in the message. Let me know if you'd like any refinements to this approach.