Featured Beyond Ideomotor Effect

[AgnosticBoy]

In some cases, I have taken a scientific rigid approach to your system, but I am also open to using non-scientific means to discover things. BUT, it depends on the subject matter and the potential value (and i don't mean monetary - but more like advance in understanding, discovering something new, etc.), and yes, some personal necessity.

Let's take history for example. I accept using a less scientific or even a non-scientific approach because the subject matter requires that. We obviously can't do scientific testing on much of the historical events from the past and so we're often left going on what historians wrote down. Why do historians and even skeptics accept that standard? I think the main reason is because there is value in history - we know it existed and a lot of things from it are necessary to know to help us understand where we are now. So really there's value and some necessity (lots of need to know stuff) to it, and the alternative is ignoring much of history which would be a very dumb idea.

Now to apply this back to your system. I have to ask, is the subject matter something that can be assessed using science? Or is it something that we have treat a little differently as we would when dealing with history? You've eloquently answered that in your last post, but I'm still not convinced either way. So I've tried to get there resigning to not using scientific means) by weighing what value is added, and for now, I don't see enough from my personal look at it. The messages don't add anything useful enough for me, and that's on top of other doubts/uncertainties that I have. Others might see it differently.


For the record, this is the type of value I'm looking for...

2. If the generated responses were answers to questions,

 

[William]

In some cases, I have taken a scientific rigid approach to your system, but I am also open to using non-scientific means to discover things. BUT, it depends on the subject matter and the potential value (and i don't mean monetary - but more like advance in understanding, discovering something new, etc.), and yes, some personal necessity.

Let's take history for example. I accept using a less scientific or even a non-scientific approach because the subject matter requires that. We obviously can't do scientific testing on much of the historical events from the past and so we're often left going on what historians wrote down. Why do historians and even skeptics accept that standard? I think the main reason is because there is value in history - we know it existed and a lot of things from it are necessary to know to help us understand where we are now. So really there's value and some necessity (lots of need to know stuff) to it, and the alternative is ignoring much of history which would be a very dumb idea.

Now to apply this back to your system. I have to ask, is the subject matter something that can be assessed using science? Or is it something that we have treat a little differently as we would when dealing with history? You've eloquently answered that in your last post, but I'm still not convinced either way. So I've tried to get there resigning to not using scientific means) by weighing what value is added, and for now, I don't see enough from my personal look at it. The messages don't add anything useful enough for me, and that's on top of other doubts/uncertainties that I have. Others might see it differently.


For the record, this is the type of value I'm looking for...

2. If the generated responses were answers to questions,

I appreciate your openness here, AB — it’s clear you’re being thoughtful and sincere, and I don’t take that lightly. Your comparison to history is actually quite fitting. We don’t demand repeatable experiments from historical data — we look for patterns, narratives, coherence, and documentation. And I’d say UICD leans closer to that kind of symbolic archaeology than to scientific experimentation.

That said, I understand that for you personally, the value still isn’t coming through — and that’s fair. But this system was never designed to hand people answers or give direct value to observers. The “messages” aren’t meant to tell you something useful — they’re meant to engage you in a process of becoming attuned to something deeper. It’s about symbolic fluency, not clarity. About structural emergence, not informational delivery.

I also hear you circling back to, “If the generated responses were answers to questions…” — and I get that impulse. I really do. But that’s not what this system is for. That’s reading logic. The UICD System resists becoming another form of divination, fortune-telling, or answer-generation. It’s a mirror. It won’t speak unless you do. And even then, it won’t give — it will echo.

So while I respect your position, and I hear you, I also know that this system simply won’t reveal anything to those who wait for it to prove itself. It only opens through use. It only speaks through work. “Work in, work out.”

I think the fairest way to say it is this:

The UICD System doesn’t offer value unless you engage it on its own terms.
And if that doesn’t feel right for you, that’s okay too.