The Voynich Ninja

Hello,
I state that the language of VM is mostly old Slavonic with some exceptions, which are not Turkish. I have asked you to answer me a simple question- who is the author of the Manuscript  and you deleted me. Why?
To everybody who states to have a truthful translation I always ask the same question. Who is the author. Nobody can answer it. Therefore nobody keeps the truth.
BR

(07-06-2024, 02:04 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, those who do not understand the scientific significance of the findings I mentioned above should stop writing comments to me because you are completely wasting my time. I do not possess the information to make you smarter.

Whatever our theories, our diplomas, our grades and other signs of intelligence, this does not exempt us from courtesy.

Ahmet, please be polite. This kind of rhetoric (and your insistence on involving AI) is having the opposite effect of what you are trying to reach.

[I state that the language of VM is mostly old Slavonic with some exceptions, which are not Turkish. I have asked you to answer me a simple question- who is the author of the Manuscript  and you deleted me. Why?]

Dear BessAgritianin,
I don't understand exactly what you're talking about. I don't know who the author is yet. However, in my articles on the previous pages, I wrote some information about the author based on my readings. Read them if you're curious. Also, I didn't delete your comments and I'm not an admin, and even if I could delete other people's comments, I wouldn't. As I said, I don't understand what you're talking about and it doesn't interest me either. Please don't share with me your ideas about who the author is. I don't want to read your comments about the author, either so I like to prefer the identity of the author remains a surprise and an unknown for me.
Thanks,

Dear Novacna,
The detail I wrote has nothing to do with politeness. Not wanting to hear some meaningless points is something I need to maintain my own sanity. Because it is pointless and unnecessary for us to write similar comments and answers to each other over and over again, which creates the feeling of going back and forth in the same place without progressing. Don't take it personally, but if you are in the group I described, I would appreciate it if you follow my suggestion on this page.
Thanks.

Dear Koen,

In fact, there has been a discourtesy towards me for a long time. My simple questions have not been answered, and of course, you are not obligated to answer them. However, at the same time, the evidence and ideas that I write about some VM study points are often distorted and presented as though I wrote things that I did not.  For this reason, I invite everyone who enters my page and reads what I write to be fair and respectful towards me. Anyone who would distort what I have written here or the subject should not engage in dialogue with me under this heading, because they will create a situation that is a complete waste of time. My time is valuable and I invite everyone to respect it. Nonsense comments or articles that will waste my time are completely unnecessary here. The topic is VM and what I wrote is about pieces of evidence.

On this page, I write that scientific evidence sweeps away some possibilities. Artificial intelligence does its job incompletely but well. I do not want to enter into a mutual dialogue with people here, one by one, because this is not my purpose. However, not being able to get answers to the questions I ask in VM details, and not being able to get criticism, support, or contribution within the framework of linguistics is quite tiring. We don't need to be exhausted with each other.

Do you know why the machine understands the very clear evidence about the Voynich content? Because machines do not have prejudices, stereotypes, nationalism, and racism. They analyze the data they have. The result we declared is very clear and obvious. I presented two basic and linguistically clear/concrete proofs along with their documents and similar examples. This evidence eliminated the possibility that the VM texts were in Indo-European and Semitic languages. You should be happy about this situation. Because we have narrowed down and demonstrated the area that needs to be looked at with these findings.

Putting the insults to one side...

SScientific rigour is about having doubt.  Looking for weaknesses in your methodology.  Identifying and logging all the assumptions or adjustments you have made and being open with yourself about whether they distort and over-inflate the significance of your results.  It's about scrutinizing new evidence not just to see how well it fits your theory but whether your confirmation bias could be making it fit your theory.  It's about being your own skeptic and genuinely seeking to find alternative explanations and reasons why you may be wrong.  This is one of the big divides between pseudoscience and science; pseudolinguistics and linguistics; and the kind of theories Graham Hancock indulges in versus real archaeology. 

I have not seen any such doubt in the entire fifty page history of this thread, and from how you have reacted when others play the skeptic role and challenge your methodology and assertions, I struggle to imagine you ever posed the same questions to yourself in the earlier days before you went public.

(That doesn't make you any better or worse than most other solvers, but they are not going around claiming their approach is scientific, and that we are scientifically/mathematically illiterate for not accepting your theory.)

I now repeat the questions about how the evidence should be evaluated.

We have shown that repeated words written side by side can extend to triplet, quadruplet, and quintuplet structures in Turkish and that this phenomenon is present in the VM texts as well (by referring to Turkish manuscripts outside of VM).

We have proven with evidence that words in Turkish never start with certain sounds/syllables and never end with certain syllables. We have shown that the same applies to VM texts for the same syllables/sounds.

We explained that the two findings above are structural matches in the languages being compared, and we wrote that these features, being identical, are not found in any other known language in the world.

This means that these findings are unique to the Turkish language. So, These are Turkish-specific overlaps only.

You should have understood the existence of these findings just by looking at the photographic/draw-structural patterns of the texts' word structures, even without knowing which language the texts are in (and without needing to know Turkish).

When artificial intelligence sees such a Turkish-specific finding, what do you expect it to say to explain it?

What scientific conclusions can you draw from these findings, and what conclusions can you never draw?

As you can understand, due to the existence of these two structural findings, all options other than Turkish are completely invalid in terms of being candidates for VM texts.

In this case, how would you expect the artificial intelligence to respond when it reads these findings in our article and looks at the sources, references, and evidence we show?

The opposite of the words "artificial intelligence" are the word "natural stupidity". The machine is not natural but artificial. We cannot say that the machine is stupid. I ask the questions here to scientists and especially linguists. Do these two basic findings indicate the area that needs to be looked at in Vm studies or not? Anyone who wants to answer can answer without making comments or answers that are not scientifically approachable. At this stage, I do not expect you to write anything unscientific and other than the question asked. I expect you to be considerate and respectful of the researchers' work time.

Thank you for your understanding.

[attachment=8657]

[attachment=8658]

Here is a new answer from the machine;
[attachment=8659]
The AI wrote that "in the history of written Indo-European and Semitic languages, there were no quadruplets or quintuplets of words." Do you think a person could scan millions of written materials in a few minutes to make such an inference? Machines can do in seconds the work that would take us perhaps a hundred years to do. And this is, of course, a very valuable capability. I'm trying to improve myself on how to ask questions to AI without underestimating this.
[attachment=8660]

Do these answers give you a clue as to the area you should be looking at and the area you shouldn't waste time looking at?

I asked a similar question to another version of AI called Copilot. 
You can see the question and answer in the image below.
[attachment=8661]
Do these answers give you a clue as to the area you should be looking at and the area you shouldn't waste time looking at?