@Rene
Why should I watch a video when I know exactly how much you want to explain again and again why the manuscript is not a fake.
By the way, I should have added: "for people interested in translating the text".
(18-04-2025, 07:26 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why should I watch a video when I know exactly how much you want to explain again and again why the manuscript is not a fake.
I haven't made any videos :-)
And I don't want to explain it again :-)
(16-04-2025, 03:45 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And yes, most forums are exactly like this here, have been in some before. The guy who described this here as "less toxic" is my king of british understatement.
I mean it. There is much less of the "us" vs "them" mentality in VM research than in other fringe/speculative subjects because we are all believers in some aspect or other, having explored many more or less speculative ideas, reached more or less definitive conclusions, so we can relate to other people's struggles with uncertainty, that many can't handle for long, which leads to frequent outbreaks of solveritis™.
Quote:This here is an atmosphere of mutual despise from the very first second of registration, sorry to say that, you all know it. Would have wished it otherwise.
I disagree. You are imagining this, projecting your own feelings. The reaction to new solutions is often indifference, not because the solvers are despised (indifference is not contempt), but because we've seen the same type of solution many times and it is quickly obvious in the way some solutions are presented (uncritically) that arguing against The Truth™ is useless. New (text translation) theories are good for the entertainment value only (mostly boring as bad fiction often is), unless they have something original to offer, which happens rarely.
My favourite thing is when people declare a theory to be decipherable, but don't do anything else and believe that others are now doing their job.
Lots of blaa blaa, but only very few try to explain it. And even fewer get past 2 sentences.
You have to praise people directly if they hold out for several weeks.
(17-05-2025, 11:17 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For example, if I said "the earths flat" I might ask for a photo from space showing it is not.
This is not a bad analogy, because such obvious and straighforward evidence-based arguments still fail to convince flat-Earthers.
I am not aware of the latest status there, but in the past, the counter-argument would be that the curvature in the photo was introduced by the effect of the curved lense (for example).
I've seen "space isn't real" as a counter argument recently.. likely if someone convinces them space is real there will be something else.
I stole the general idea from a physicist, when asked how they deal with people who have "fringe beliefs" they said they ask "what proof do you require to prove otherwise?" If the answer is reasonable, they provide it, and if the person then tries to move the goal posts they no longer participate in the discussion.
I like it because while on the face of it, it just seems like proving "crazys" wrong, however if someone has a reasonable answer which can't be disproven then maybe at least part of what they are saying has some merit. Also theories that (in the theorists eyes) can't be disproved in any reasonable way, they are likely not sound theories to begin with. The trick is getting an answer, I've found most solvers aren't too interested.
The recent rate of new proposed solutions (off-list and on-list) is now more than one per week (!)
Last week I got two by E-mail and I know for a fact that several people did. As they didn't appear here on the forum, I do not wish to discuss details.
My previous suspicion of how to separate purely human made solutions from AI-generated (or AI-supported) solutions is beginning to stand our more clearly.
I have decided not to provide real feedback to these anymore. It will just take up too much time. A first look will tell me if I see something potentially interesting.
I could be wrong in such a quick assessement, but if any of them turns out to be correct after all, we should find out through the news sooner or later.
(19-05-2025, 12:46 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have decided not to provide real feedback to these anymore. It will just take up too much time. A first look will tell me if I see something potentially interesting.
I could be wrong in such a quick assessement, but if any of them turns out to be correct after all, we should find out through the news sooner or later.
I have taken exactly the same approach. Engaging with a theory takes considerable amounts of time and effort. I would try to provide this "service" if the feedback were taken seriously, but it never is. All they want to hear is: "Brilliant of you to talk about this with ChatGPT! I can't believe no-one thought of that before! Congratulations, you solved the Voynich manuscript!"
This has all gotten a lot more perverse still, because building a traditional theory takes more dedication than you'd expect, but making one "together with AI" takes an afternoon.
(19-05-2025, 08:12 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This has all gotten a lot more perverse still, because building a traditional theory takes more dedication than you'd expect, but making one "together with AI" takes an afternoon.
Then checking the AI-generated theory is too much work again, it can be skipped. Some theorists choose to trust the ultra-confident AI more than their own eyes anyway, so there is no need to check.
Depressing: we've witnessed the birth of the fully automated theorist, unable to write anything that isn't copy-pasted from ChatGPT. (Why is it always ChatGPT?)
1. Suggest a half-baked "theory" to AI
2. AI is happy to write confidently about it, expand it to a full-sized article, including hallucinated (made-up) evidence. OMG it's working!!!
3. Publish on Amazon, register a patent...
4. Profit!
---
Also depressing: mass-produced AI slop. Articles and entire books like this one, summarizing existing theories and proposing a "Path Forward", "New Approaches", "Future Directions": You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(19-05-2025, 08:12 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (19-05-2025, 12:46 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have decided not to provide real feedback to these anymore.
I have taken exactly the same approach... I would try to provide this "service" if the feedback were taken seriously, but it never is.
I'd like to understand the authors' reasons for sending you their theories, instead of posting them on the forum. Aren't they aware of your attitude towards "solvers"?