+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Analysis of the text (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-41.html)
+--- Thread: [split] Verbose cipher? (/thread-3356.html)
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - geoffreycaveney - 20-09-2020
One more brief comment about my efforts on VCI, whatever one thinks of the results:
My hope is that it gives those of us who are not computer programmers or coders a way to visualize at least some of the things that Koen, Marco, Rene, Nick, Emma, and others are analyzing. It's one thing to say, "Here are the results of a program where [ok], [ot], [od], etc., are treated as single units." It's another thing to present a visual expression of that analysis with a transcription, alphabet, interpretation, or whatever you want to call it, where the reader can see [ok] as an actual single different letter, [ot] as an actual single different letter, [od] as an actual single different letter, and so on. That was one of my aims in developing the VCI thing, whatever label you want to give it.
I'm sure VCI can be amended and improved. As I admitted, the treatment of EVA [ar] was inconsistent. Perhaps [qo] and [qok] need to be distinguished again somehow. I discussed other more minor possible changes in my previous post. But the point is, at least this approach gives us a visual alphabetical way to see some of the results and effects of all of these very interesting statistical analyses that Koen, Marco, Rene, Nick, Emma, and others are performing (sorry if I left out anyone important). For some of you computer programmers and coders, just saying "This set of regular adjustments made the h2 conditional entropy 3.01 and kept the h1 entropy at 4.12!" may be all you need to grasp the significance of the analysis and its result. But for many of us, seeing what an alphabetical rendition of such a transformation will look like in a natural visual way, in reading some lines of the actual ms text where each of Koen's single units looks like an actual single letter, or in reading the 12 labels of a circle in the actual text in that way -- that is what shows the rest of us the actual impact and significance of "3.01 h2 / 4.12 h1" entropy statistics.
Perhaps we can find a better way to accomplish this aim, one that is more rigorously consistent with Koen's and Marco's analysis, but which still allows all of us to read the actual ms text in this new way, where the new single units look like actual single letters, and the whole thing looks like the letters of a natural language text just as much as we would expect a text with 3.01 h2 conditional entropy and 4.12 h1 entropy to actually appear.
Geoffrey
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - geoffreycaveney - 20-09-2020
I have one more thing to say: I need to apologize to Emma for the negative comment I made in passing in my long reply to RenegadeHealer in this thread yesterday, as well as for the similar sarcastic comment in my reply to Emma in the Arabic thread. We all have our own opinions and approaches and methods that we do or don't think are productive ways to analyze the Voynich ms text. No one is obligated to be interested in approaches or methods that they don't think are productive. I should not presume that others should find any of my observations or ideas interesting. That is up to each of us to decide as individuals. I apologize to Emma for presuming otherwise and for singling her out for it.
Geoffrey
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - Emma May Smith - 20-09-2020
(20-09-2020, 03:22 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have one more thing to say: I need to apologize to Emma for the negative comment I made in passing in my long reply to RenegadeHealer in this thread yesterday, as well as for the similar sarcastic comment in my reply to Emma in the Arabic thread. We all have our own opinions and approaches and methods that we do or don't think are productive ways to analyze the Voynich ms text. No one is obligated to be interested in approaches or methods that they don't think are productive. I should not presume that others should find any of my observations or ideas interesting. That is up to each of us to decide as individuals. I apologize to Emma for presuming otherwise and for singling her out for it.
Geoffrey
Hi Geoffrey. It's fine. I know I can sometimes be abrasive too. No harm meant either way.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - RenegadeHealer - 20-09-2020
Hi Geoffrey. I think I understand better what you're trying to do, and who your audience is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your intention is largely Promethian: you'd like to take a body of specialized knowledge, by and for specialists, and create something that allows laypeople to use and apply that knowledge. On the one hand, I can't not respect that, because this is basically what I do for a living. People who've hired me present me their problems, I translate these into technical terms, manipulate these terms logically to determine a course of action, and then translate these available courses of action back into plain English for the client. During all of this, I have to be unfailingly reassuring to this layperson who has hired me as an expert. I have to reassure him that I understand why this problem is important enough to motivate him hiring me. (In other words, I have to validate his concerns.) I have to reassure him that I have the expertise to understand and solve his problem. And finally, I have to reassure him that I understand what his end goal is, that is, what sort of outcome he would consider an acceptable solution. Falter at any of these steps, and I run the risk of the client being profoundly dissatisfied with my services.
I've found this a very transferrable skill; in my free time, I like to keep up with the work of the heavyweights in Voynich Studies, and I like to try to see if I can interpret their scientific findings in layman's terms. This is to make sure that I understand what they're saying, as well as helping other laypeople understand.
The difference is, on my day job, the Promethian fire I'm carrying down the mountain is my own specialized knowledge, not someone else's. As I have an expert's level of knowledge in none of the areas immediately relevant to the VMs, I'm not in a position to determine if my interpretations of this information are accurate, helpful, or even welcome. What this means in practical terms is, if an expert here gives me feedback on my interpretation of their work, then as far as I'm concerned, that's the last word. I'm not really in any position to argue with it. And so, when an expert here has given me the gift of replying to a nobody like me at all, I always try to make it very clear that I recognize and defer to their expertise, and am only trying to be playful and helpful, not challenge them.
I'll leave you with one other thought. It may or may not apply to you, so feel free to ignore it if it doesn't. I'm naturally a very emotionally intense — and sensitive — individual. But I'm not naturally good at reading people. Many times I've approached groups of people who are into something I'm into, and my excitement (coupled with my articulate and longwinded verbal style) has been misinterpreted as a lack of appropriate humility. People have been quick to call Dunning-Kruger on me: "He does not know what he does not know." This hurts, because this was not at all what I intended. Things got better when I started asking myself, "What could I do that still feels like 'my style', but is less likely to accidentally give this impression?" All any of us want is to be accepted, and to be effectual and relevant. And as you said, we all bring different things to the table.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - geoffreycaveney - 20-09-2020
(20-09-2020, 04:45 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Geoffrey. I think I understand better what you're trying to do, and who your audience is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your intention is largely Promethian: you'd like to take a body of specialized knowledge, by and for specialists, and create something that allows laypeople to use and apply that knowledge. On the one hand, I can't not respect that, because this is basically what I do for a living. People who've hired me present me their problems, I translate these into technical terms, manipulate these terms logically to determine a course of action, and then translate these available courses of action back into plain English for the client. During all of this, I have to be unfailingly reassuring to this layperson who has hired me as an expert. I have to reassure him that I understand why this problem is important enough to motivate him hiring me. (In other words, I have to validate his concerns.) I have to reassure him that I have the expertise to understand and solve his problem. And finally, I have to reassure him that I understand what his end goal is, that is, what sort of outcome he would consider an acceptable solution. Falter at any of these steps, and I run the risk of the client being profoundly dissatisfied with my services.
I've found this a very transferrable skill; in my free time, I like to keep up with the work of the heavyweights in Voynich Studies, and I like to try to see if I can interpret their scientific findings in layman's terms. This is to make sure that I understand what they're saying, as well as helping other laypeople understand.
The difference is, on my day job, the Promethian fire I'm carrying down the mountain is my own specialized knowledge, not someone else's. As I have an expert's level of knowledge in none of the areas immediately relevant to the VMs, I'm not in a position to determine if my interpretations of this information are accurate, helpful, or even welcome. What this means in practical terms is, if an expert here gives me feedback on my interpretation of their work, then as far as I'm concerned, that's the last word. I'm not really in any position to argue with it. And so, when an expert here has given me the gift of replying to a nobody like me at all, I always try to make it very clear that I recognize and defer to their expertise, and am only trying to be playful and helpful, not challenge them.
I'll leave you with one other thought. It may or may not apply to you, so feel free to ignore it if it doesn't. I'm naturally a very emotionally intense — and sensitive — individual. But I'm not naturally good at reading people. Many times I've approached groups of people who are into something I'm into, and my excitement (coupled with my articulate and longwinded verbal style) has been misinterpreted as a lack of appropriate humility. People have been quick to call Dunning-Kruger on me: "He does not know what he does not know." This hurts, because this was not at all what I intended. Things got better when I started asking myself, "What could I do that still feels like 'my style', but is less likely to accidentally give this impression?" All any of us want is to be accepted, and to be effectual and relevant. And as you said, we all bring different things to the table.
I understand your points, and I appreciate what you're saying. Thank you for expressing these thoughts.
I will note, however, that sometimes different specialists will give me very different feedback on and evaluations of my work. For example, Koen has expressed a lot of interest in my VCI work and the readings of lines and labels with it. Rene seems more dismissive of VCI altogether. As long as there are some serious people -- not necessarily all leading specialists -- who find my work interesting, I will continue to be motivated and encouraged to proceed with it. As in the tale of "The Man, The Boy and The Donkey," no one can please or satisfy all of the people all of the time.
The other thing to keep in mind is that I don't know of anyone who is a "professional" Voynich ms researcher. Certain people have more knowledge and expertise in certain areas that may be useful in studying and analyzing the text. But as far as I am aware, we are all amateurs in the sense that none of us is paid to analyze the Voynich ms for a living. So it is up to each of us as individuals to determine which other researchers we respect the most. We may each form our own opinion about who else we consider an expert or a heavyweight, and to what extent. There is no pre-ordained or officially established hierarchy or pecking order of authority among Voynich researchers. For example, I do not disregard Koen's interest in my work just because Rene is dismissive of my work. Rene may have better knowledge, insight, and judgment about Voynich ms research in certain ways, and Koen may have better knowledge, insight, and judgment about Voynich research in other ways. Each of us has to form these opinions, evaluations, and judgments of other researchers on our own.
Just my two cents about these matters.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - Koen G - 20-09-2020
I found it interesting that you had turned it into a readable format, but I do not endorse using this as the basis for a theory in the way that you might. If I had decided to add two or three more or fewer transformations, your result would have looked completely different. Moreover, this distracts from the actual problems of statistics we are still facing with the VM.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - RenegadeHealer - 20-09-2020
Absolutely, Geoffrey. I recommend nobody take anything anyone says here personally. The VMs scene is a bit of a Wild West or pirates' cove, where there's no clear set rules, or even objectives. The scene doesn't lend itself to being policed in a top-down fashion, like you'll find in, say, university departments or legislative bodies. In such institutions, it may suffice to ask myself once at the outset, Why are these people here, and what are they here to do? But in a decentralized scene like this that attracts a motley cast of characters, I find it behooves me to ask the question Why is (s)he here, and what is (s)he trying to accomplish? anew with each person I engage with. I've found different VMs fans' answers to this question, implicit or explicit, have varied widely, and can never be assumed. Some people's motivations for exploring the VMs have dovetailed well with mine, others not so much. And that's OK.
"Professional" is an oft-abused word, that I tried to avoid for exactly the reason you mentioned. Indeed, only a small minority of VMs researchers have ever received any remuneration or career advancement as a direct result of their work on the VMs. If there is anyone here whose livelihood hinges on their ability to shed light on the VMs, I couldn't name them, because they're not showy about it. But that said, there are regular participants in VMs discussions who can rightly be called experts. In other words, they have years of formal education, training, or work experience in techniques that are directly applicable to analyzing the VMs and drawing scientific conclusions about it. They may not be professional Voynich scholars, but they are (or have been, or are training to be) professional coders, information scientists, linguists, translators, cryptographers, codicologists, and art historians. And though I'm free to say whatever I want to anyone I want, I've found my interactions with people more likely to be enjoyable and educational for all, when I go into it with the attitude of This person has something to teach me, and I'm grateful for that.
Even if what they've got to teach me is what not to do
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - geoffreycaveney - 20-09-2020
(20-09-2020, 06:13 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I found it interesting that you had turned it into a readable format, but I do not endorse using this as the basis for a theory in the way that you might. If I had decided to add two or three more or fewer transformations, your result would have looked completely different. Moreover, this distracts from the actual problems of statistics we are still facing with the VM.
I haven't proposed a complete theory based on my VCI reading of the ms text, so I certainly couldn't expect anyone to endorse any such theory. I do think that ideas such as [o+glyph] = voiced counterpart of voiceless [glyph] phoneme may potentially be pointing in the right direction. This is just an idea inspired by your analysis, that is all, nothing more.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - Koen G - 20-09-2020
(20-09-2020, 06:51 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The VMs scene is a bit of a Wild West or pirates' cove, where there's no clear set rules, or even objectives.
Nonsense, our objectives are very clear! To solve the Voynich manuscript
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - geoffreycaveney - 20-09-2020
(20-09-2020, 11:01 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(20-09-2020, 06:51 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The VMs scene is a bit of a Wild West or pirates' cove, where there's no clear set rules, or even objectives.
Nonsense, our objectives are very clear! To solve the Voynich manuscript
Not necessarily! Some people may have given up all hope of the Voynich manuscript ever actually being successfully deciphered, and by this point their main satisfaction comes in refuting other people's incorrect theories and claims (: (I once saw a post on a Voynich researcher's blog where he actually complained about how people making incorrect theories and claims were starting to learn more about the legitimate Voynich research to incorporate it into their theories, thus making them harder to refute!
As if it were somehow a bad thing for everyone to learn more about the valid Voynich research. In truly objective scientific investigation one welcomes and wishes for opposing viewpoints to be argued as well as possible, so that as much as possible can be learned from the discussion and debate.) Such people may be disappointed if the Voynich ms is successfully deciphered, because they will no longer have the satisfaction of refuting all the false claims. 