Hi, Noah. Alas, I knew this day might come. When or paths would cross on this site, and I would feel compelled to reply to one of your posts (upon your reply to one of mine). You’re ability to confuse, obfuscate, and muddle is almost fascinating, (and second to none I have ever met). So let’s get to it. (To everyone else…this is a very long reply to Noah, and (in my opinion) has very little to do with the actual topic that was being discussed in this thread. So, you were warned, proceed at your own risk) Noah, you started with: “You're writing about helping a person misbelieve that part of her mental function is both closed to her and communicating with her and further that its knowledge is epistemologically adequate in a way that her conscious knowledge is not.” Okay…I’m really not sure that that’s what I was writing about, (although I do think I was being pretty clear about it). The reason I’m not sure about your attempted paraphrase is that I’m not confident I even understand your sentence, and I’d rather not guess at it’s meaning. Can you please be more clear. From my perspective, at no point did I mention a “her”, “beliefs”, “misbeliefs” (a compliment set perhaps?), “mental function”, or anything being “epistemologically adequate”. So I think I’m really missing your mapping from my post to your reply. You’ve also got some nice scope ambiguity working there so as to really mix up the reference indexes. (both…and…and). Let’s move along to your next comment: “Suppose you ask someone a yes/no question.” Got it. and… You continue with: “Then you ask the same question of that person, but you also ask that his unconscious communicate an answer using a finger or leg twitch, or other hypnotized communication channel.” “But I also ask”?…Did you mean “and I also ask”? Again, I’m confused. I think you are meaning “in addition to asking his conscious, I also ask that his unconscious communicate an answer (etc)” is that right? Also, you refer to a “hypnotized communication channel”. That is a term I have not used don’t know specifically what you are referring to. Can we simply agree to use the term “unconscious signal” to refer to a signal that comes from outside the conscious awareness and can not be duplicated consciously? Or are you talking about something else? You go on: “The two answers disagree.” I think in this case you’re referring to a person’s conscious response vs. a person’s unconscious response to the same question. This is not something I had covered yet but something I was getting to. I disagree that two answers “disagree”, I would suggest that they are different. (one a “yes” and one a “no”). They are different answers to different questions being posed at different logical levels. This is the same logical level distinction as someone saying they “can’t go into a dark room”, when they are actually physically able to do so, but don’t “believe” that they can. You go on to say: “If your hypnosis method or procedure presumes that the unconscious response is accurate, then in this situation you believe that the muscle twitch method of answering a yes/no question provides better information than a person's conscious thought processes.” I have not presumed this. Nor do I believe anything about this. And . . . “response is accurate”? (Again something I haven’t talked about in my posts yet). How specifically would we know if it was accurate or not (compared to what target)? We are simply asking the unconscious for a response and it provides one. It isn’t “all knowing” it’s just giving us it’s opinion, based on it’s understanding of what it’s been asked. It may have access to more information (i.e. the comprehensive reference work known as our personal history), but that doesn’t necessarily make it’s answers any “better”, just different from the ones that the conscious may provide. They are using different parts of our neurology to generate these answers. You then said: “And your presumptions will happen to be right or wrong, on a case-by-case basis.” Again…IF we were proceeding from your claim that I’ve made presumptions, I am totally missing your point here. Will “happen” to be right or wrong? (In my model) being “right” or “wrong” about anything is a “judgment” that is (read: has to be) made by some person, at some time, (which may or may not be the shared opinion of others), and not a thing that just “happens”. If you are saying that making these types of judgments is a context specific activity, then I probably agree, but so what? Isn’t that (almost) a given? What isn’t “case-by-case” (when relating to things being “right” or “wrong”)? <- Meant as rhetorical and not pursuant to this topic. (Classic derailment fodder) You go on to state: “Your client can appreciate what bounds the epistemological value of a conscious response compared to a muscle twitch response, but you'd have to know what connections exist between the range of a person's responses, and the knowledge that person uses and has available, at the time you help the person answer your question by some method, by speaking it, or unconsciously twitching a muscle, or by some other means.” I think a simple “WTF” will suffice here. WTF? Seriously Noah, do you, yourself, have any idea what you are saying here? Some days I’m not sure what grammatical version of English you are using, (but I am fairly sure I’m not using it). Cripes man! (now I’m presuming…(you’re a man)). I honestly spent 15 minutes of my life trying to comprehend your last sentence so that I could form a reasonable response. So far . . . nothing (I’m confident about). I have some vague hunches, some general notions, (as I individually recognize the words you are using), but nothing firm enough (conceptually) to attempt a reply. I’m nearly certain that I would mis-guess what you might actually be trying to say. Please clarify. Maybe shorter sentences are the answer. I don’t know. Again your scope ambiguity, use (perhaps over-use) of conjunctions, and your undefined noun/verb phrases are fascinatingly unclear (at least to me). There are almost as many meta-model challenges that jump out at me (while reading your sentence) as the number of words you used. And yet, interestingly (so far) I can’t seem to model your posting style myself. I will make this single comment in relation to your last sentence. In my posts I have been (generally) referring to a person communicating with their own unconscious, (and it seems to me that) you are making reference to “a client”. This seems to be a significant (and fairly consistent) difference between your post and mine. You continue with: “Maybe twitch signals can perform speech acts that the conscious mind won't.  For example, many times I haven't had an answer to a question put to me, but I did know how I little I wanted to accept the results of one of the possible answers for my internal experience.  In such a situation, the same question put to my muscle twitch might serve me, particularly if it altered my internal experience of the results of one of the answers.  Then, hopefully, I could reawaken from trance, and have an easier time reasoning toward an accurate and thoughtful answer to the original question put to my consciousness.” Hmmm…maybe I understand this part. But just barely maybe. After visualizing the sentences (tree structure style) and re-reading them several times, maybe I get it. To start (so far) I have never known a twitch signal to “perform a speech act”. How specifically would it do so? You’re example (from my model) fails to demonstrate such an occurrence. Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by “performing a speech act”. Next (from your “example”), how specifically would know you didn’t have an answer put to you, (while still knowing how little you wanted to accept the results of one of the possible answers from your internal experience)? And are the “results of the possible answers from your internal experience” different from the “answers to the question”? Also (not that I fully understand “such a situation”), it is easy to agree that it “might” serve. It also “might” not. And serve you . . . how specifically btw? Next. . . “Reawaken from trance”? When were we in trance? Anyway, I think that IF you’re saying an unconscious twitch/muscle response (which is unexpected consciously) occurs, it can affect your conscious thinking about the question and/or answer, then I agree with you.     You go on to give another example (which I don’t perceive to be of the same logical type): “For example, if I asked you, "Do you agree with my opinion?" you might answer "yes", in order to avoid me further trying to convince you.” Cause-effect (in order to)? I could and might answer “yes” or “no”. I could answer both consciously and/or unconsciously. Forget about the reason. I could consciously answer “I disagree with your premise/presupposition”. What does convincing have to do with anything? You continue with: “You may not have evaluated my opinion at the time you made your statement.” OR I might have. How would I not evaluate your opinion, (By not hearing it?). Are referring to conscious or unconscious evaluation? You then say: “How you would help someone in a state of trance to be able to answer your questions with less lack of desire for one of the possible answers you put to the person, I don't know.” What and What!? You don’t know? Obviously nor do I, but more because I don’t think I understand, than anything else. Again, I am not working with a client, (in my examples/posts). Furthermore, I have not mentioned putting someone into a state of trance, (where does this come from?) And finally, (holding your premise for only the briefest moment), What would possibly be the intention for wanting “someone in a trance to be able to answer my questions with a less lack of desire for one of the possible answers”? If you were to have an answer to that, maybe you would discover for yourself how you could help them achieve it.  You carry on with: “There are also good reasons why people answer questions consciously, rather than with finger twitches, or other hypnotically trained signals.  Please expand on them during one of your parts.” Of course there are good (epistemological) reasons for how people answer questions consciously, and good intentions behind those responses. These are different from “reasons why”, as I may or may not get to in one of my parts. In the meantime, how about you share your thoughts on the subject instead of merely pointing to it? (Careful what I ask for, I just might get it). You next say: “If a muscle-twitch signal will be given when the yes/no question conveys a false presumption as part of both answers to a question, then the finger signal approach to answering questions will not provide accurate information.” Again, I’m generally muddled by your statement here, but I’ll meta-model the bits that confuse me. Part of both answers? I don’t understand. False Presumption? (which false presumption specifically? of what?) The first part of your sentence (to me is unintelligible, so the second part doesn’t seem to follow from it, but even so. . . “Accurate information”? Compared to what? As judged by whom? You then say: “The unconscious can't answer questions with any veracity if it accepts assumptions included in the question.” Is veracity really what we are going for? (Adherence to truth). Questions illicit responses. These response are simply responses, and not “true”/”not true”. Again, holding your premise for just a moment, why can it not? In any case, don’t all questions includes the (implied) acceptance of assumptions/presuppositions within them. Better questions may lead to better answers, but questions are ultimately chosen by whoever is doing the communicating, and are only a sub-set of possible communication choices (using the membership rule “something to ask”), with any number of possible intentions. You finally arrive at: “Given how hypnosis is reputed to work, that is, given that a person comes out of trance and acts on her finger-twitch answer to your question,” Reputed to work? Hypnosis? “Person comes out of trance”? I have not mentioned hypnosis, or people in trances. But to briefly follow you down this path: Yes, when working with a client (in an altered/hypnotic state) this kind of involuntary signal can be established with a client’s unconscious. However, that hasn’t been what I’ve been posting about. You conclude with: “I think you'd want to know in advance when you can helpfully ask a person to answer with a muscle-twitch.  I do.” Really? You think that is what "I’d" want to know. Well, you’re wrong. I don’t. I guess I just presuppose that everyone has a part of themselves outside of their conscious awareness that can be communicated with. Anyway, if YOU want to “know that in advance”, how would you (know when)? What would be the conditions (for you) to know when you could, and when you could not helpfully ask a person with a muscle-twitch? Good luck with your search Noah. I look forward to your report. To summarize: I have found very little overlap from your post to what I was originally posting about. I have found your post unclear, distracting, and (almost) unintelligible (despite my sincere and best efforts to understand and reply to it). I have spent a long time replying to your post, in an attempt to offer you something useful about whatever you’ve been on about. I will now get back to the remaining parts, and should you want to follow up with me personally, I am glad to take this discussion offline, or if it’s more appropriate, move it to another thread. Thanks Noah. Take care, Mark MacLean