Thread for all discussion about "genuine/meaningless/fake" etc

[RenegadeHealer]

proto57, I agree with you: I've seen valuable discussions started by VMs skeptics get prematurely derailed on semantics. When I get involved with these discussions, I try to define exactly what I mean by the terms I use, especially when the thread already has plenty of friction between users who are clearly using the same term to mean different things. I recommend this approach to anyone; it avoids a lot of misunderstanding.

My working definitions for a bunch of terms I use:

• VMs skeptic {noun}: somebody who questions an assumption that the VMs is what it appears to be
  
• fake {noun}: something that is not what it appears to be
  
• forgery {noun}: a fake crafted for the purpose of deceiving a target audience. Synonyms: hoax, ruse, counterfeit, sham
  
• (non-)linguistic {adjective}: (not) created for the direct storage and retrieval of human speech
  
• pseudo-language {adjective}: non-linguistic patterns created for deceiving a target audience into the mistaken perception of language
  
• code {noun}: patterns created for the storage and retrieval of information besides direct human speech. Synonym: symbolic language
  
• meaningful(/-less) {adjective}: (not) created for the storage and retrieval of information
  
• stochastically generated {adjective}: of a pattern, as mathematically complex as meaningful data from a complex system, but in fact generated by a simple loop of mechanistic processes
  
• random {adjective}: not part of a larger pattern, despite any appearances to the contrary
  
• incoherent {adjective}: linguistic but meaningless
  
• gibberish {noun}: pseudo-language made of linguistic syllables, with no meaningful words or grammar. Synonym: vocable(s)
  
• glossolalia {noun}: spontaneous gibberish generation as a mystical practice and/or divination technique
  

What happens all too often in VMs skeptics' threads, is that someone will move the goalposts. A comment is made defending or attacking the stated proposition that the VMs is one of the above bulleted terms (except the first obviously), only for the person who made the proposition to counter that what they really mean is one of the other terms. I've seen a good bit of conflation and equivocating between these different types of VMs skepticism, which have wholly different implications for further research.

Notice how my working definitions make frequent reference to the creator and audience of the patterns. What this implies is that we would really need a lot more hard historical evidence about the VMs's creation and provenance, to be able to rule out any of these categories of "not what it appears to be". Let's not forget that symbols drawn on a surface is, first and foremost, a magic spell by which one human being exerts his will upon the feelings and actions of another (or his future self). The most valuable question for future research in my mind at this juncture is: Who was the VMs's target audience, and what effect did its authors wish to have on them?