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.

 

[William]

The Belief Dilemma and the Practice of Applied Agnosticism

Belief is often seen as necessary for perceiving meaning — but it also shapes and distorts perception.

Atheism and theism both make belief-based commitments (affirmation or denial).

Agnosticism traditionally suspends judgment but often passively defers engagement.

Belief is not needed where knowledge is certain; it fills the void where certainty is absent.

Non-belief is not the same as disbelief — withholding is different from rejecting.

Even extraordinary evidence (e.g., a sky-god) can be reinterpreted within a skeptical frame — showing that frame, not data, governs belief.

Therefore, the core issue is not visibility, but the rules of the field (frame) determining what counts as real.

Seeing is not believing — belief enables or blocks seeing, depending on frame.

A more coherent alternative: Applied Agnosticism — an active, exploratory posture that neither clings to belief nor rejects engagement.

It applies openness without defaulting to faith or proof — a stance of structured uncertainty in motion.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

A more coherent alternative: Applied Agnosticism — an active, exploratory posture that neither clings to belief nor rejects engagement.

It applies openness without defaulting to faith or proof — a stance of structured uncertainty in motion.

Totally agree that agnosticism would be more effective if it got beyond the fence sitting tendency. We have to find ways to engage without getting too caught up with unsupported belief systems. Or if we do engage with a belief system, at least hold it with a proper perspective that it is a belief and never go beyond that until it's justified to do so.