04-09-2019, 03:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2019, 04:36 PM by Mark Knowles.)
One thing that I have touched upon that I think worth emphasising is that the way human beings think is very different from the way modern computers operate, though of course attempts have and are being made with artificial intelligence to emulate the kind of processes that operate within the human mind and in animal minds as well. (I do support the notion of Strong AI i.e. that the human mind is a computer in terms of the broad definition of it.)
A standard modern computer, or for that matter in many instances a much older computer, can achieve some tasks with ease that for most human beings are near impossible(savants may be an exception.) So when trying to implement or define an algorithm to mimic the behaviour of the human author of the Voynich(I am not aware of anyone yet claiming that the manuscript was written by machine.) then one must be aware of what a human is computationally reasonable capable of, given questions like cognitive load, cognitive biases and general cognitive processes.
Consistently picking a random(pseudorandom) number between 1 and 26 for a computer is trivial, but for a human being without some mechanical tool like a pack if cards or a many sided dice is very difficult. Human beings can easily have biases, say to their favourite number, so when repeatedly generating random numbers those subliminal biases can come into play. My brief study of labels makes me inclined to think those cognitive biases are evident there; this is one reason why I don't think a cardan grille or equivalent mechanism was used, though I don't completely rule out the possibility that some very simple mechanism or technique of that kind may have been applied. I think one has to consider what human beings are inclined to do to reduce the cognitive load on their brains.
So I will state what I think this means in the context or null words or filler text. Sometimes copying pieces of text from one line to another, as Torsten mentions is mentally much easier than producing an original line of text. A bias to using similarly spelled words near or next to each other is mentally less draining than producing consistent more original null words even if those null words are within a narrow framework or structure of definition. If the null word filler text theory is correct the sheer quantity of null text the author would have had to produce is quite considerable, so unless an individual is absurdly disciplined cognitive shortcuts would have bound to have been employed either consciously or unconsciously to reduce the mental demands on them, I certainly would have done so. It could be argued that really I am talking about a kind of laziness on the part of the author, but given this quantity of text this laziness really makes sense.
In conclusion any encryption theory of the Voynich must take a realistic account of what would have been mentally practical for the author. So for example a very complex encryption procedure, whilst it may be easy for a computer to implement, could very easily be completely impractical for a human being to implement who aimed to produce a manuscript in a reasonable period of time. So coding simulation or encryption implementation algorithms can be very valuable, but we always should ask whether a human being could or realistically would be able to implement such an algorithm.(I should say that I am not pointing my finger at specific people in these remarks, but rather making a general point.)
A standard modern computer, or for that matter in many instances a much older computer, can achieve some tasks with ease that for most human beings are near impossible(savants may be an exception.) So when trying to implement or define an algorithm to mimic the behaviour of the human author of the Voynich(I am not aware of anyone yet claiming that the manuscript was written by machine.) then one must be aware of what a human is computationally reasonable capable of, given questions like cognitive load, cognitive biases and general cognitive processes.
Consistently picking a random(pseudorandom) number between 1 and 26 for a computer is trivial, but for a human being without some mechanical tool like a pack if cards or a many sided dice is very difficult. Human beings can easily have biases, say to their favourite number, so when repeatedly generating random numbers those subliminal biases can come into play. My brief study of labels makes me inclined to think those cognitive biases are evident there; this is one reason why I don't think a cardan grille or equivalent mechanism was used, though I don't completely rule out the possibility that some very simple mechanism or technique of that kind may have been applied. I think one has to consider what human beings are inclined to do to reduce the cognitive load on their brains.
So I will state what I think this means in the context or null words or filler text. Sometimes copying pieces of text from one line to another, as Torsten mentions is mentally much easier than producing an original line of text. A bias to using similarly spelled words near or next to each other is mentally less draining than producing consistent more original null words even if those null words are within a narrow framework or structure of definition. If the null word filler text theory is correct the sheer quantity of null text the author would have had to produce is quite considerable, so unless an individual is absurdly disciplined cognitive shortcuts would have bound to have been employed either consciously or unconsciously to reduce the mental demands on them, I certainly would have done so. It could be argued that really I am talking about a kind of laziness on the part of the author, but given this quantity of text this laziness really makes sense.
In conclusion any encryption theory of the Voynich must take a realistic account of what would have been mentally practical for the author. So for example a very complex encryption procedure, whilst it may be easy for a computer to implement, could very easily be completely impractical for a human being to implement who aimed to produce a manuscript in a reasonable period of time. So coding simulation or encryption implementation algorithms can be very valuable, but we always should ask whether a human being could or realistically would be able to implement such an algorithm.(I should say that I am not pointing my finger at specific people in these remarks, but rather making a general point.)
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)