Are you talking about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_learning. Is that what you mean by implicit information?
This is probably a better overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_memory
Also, Max_B linked previously to an experiment which demonstrated the difference between tasks which draw upon explicit (asking for an answer) and implicit (using a Ouija board) knowledge.
http://hct.ece.ubc.ca/publications/pdf/gauchou-rensink-cac2012.pdf
What a silly idea I had that you could draw on the numinous by using faith, belief, devotion and ritual! What an idiot I must be! Where do I get these ideas?!
Don't beat yourself up about it. Most people think of it this way, and the idea of indirect inquiry is counter-intuitive.
Right. You have nothing to learn about faith by becoming someone who actually experiences faith, or about belief by becoming someone who actually believes or about devotion by becoming someone who is actually devoted! You understand all those things with your brain already!
This is different from what we were talking about, though. If I want to learn about faith and devotion through the process of becoming faithful and devoted, this is something that I can do in real life. And in that case, the process is likely to be useful and enlightening and unexpectedly revealing than it would be if I were imagine myself as faithful and devoted within a lucid dream (where I will be limited by what I imagine may happen).
Nobody has given much thought about what it takes to invoke the numinous yet.
As far as I can tell, a great deal of thought has been given to this, and there is a lot we have found out about the process. I think it would be helpful to make use of that information, rather than ignoring it.
Maybe you could design a computer program to do that in your spare time! :)
That's an interesting suggestion. My point was that I wouldn't start the process by writing a program to "invoke the numinous", but rather, write iterative programs which do something else to see whether something like "invoking the numinous" emerges, maybe something like assigning agency to movement.
Yes. I display such a paucity of imagination that I actually believe that these deities exist.
I'm not sure that belief in creatures of the mind relates to imagination (I think they are separate).
ETA: I thought about this a bit and I think I am wrong about that. I suspect that belief is probably related to an ability to generate plausible alternate examples, so there may be a relationship between belief and (lack of) imagination.
What would show a paucity of imagination is limiting creative suggestions only to fairly literal or concrete suggestions (for examples, see the Captain Bob thread, where any but the most literal interpretations are derided).
My imagination is barren since I consider it entirely possible to experience these gods in their full splendor in the nonphysical spaces of the dream realm.
It wasn't that your imagination is barren because you consider this possible, but rather, your imagination didn't bring up other less obvious or intuitive options. Nor did you seem to understand the idea of indirect inquiry.
How dry my imagination is. It is like a dry husk. You may want to check the bottom of your heel. Is there a sticker there that says "Intel Inside?"
Interesting that my ability to come up with novel or less intuitive options makes me computer-like. :)
Linda