3 ms·

The example of the schizophrenic writer devolves into nonsense. It looks as though the writer took to repeating the cursive letter "M" over and over. The Voyn

The example of the schizophrenic writer devolves into nonsense. It looks as though the writer took to repeating the cursive letter "M" over and over. The Voynich Manuscript is clearly different. That it follows the statistical patterns of language suggests to me that it is not the product of madness. The painter examples don't seem compelling to me either. The Voynich Manuscript is illustrated in a style that is reminiscent (to me) of old texts. There are lots of naked women, but not so many that I'd describe it as pathological. I suspect it is a clever cipher, a constructed language, or a forgotten language.

Clewza313 5y ago
There are more options than "makes sense" and "nonsense" here. To draw a parallel to a work much discussed on HN, TempleOS is both a functioning operating system and a product of madness, and yet a future archaeologist would have a very hard time extracting a meaning or purpose out of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  There is a difference between a work being driven by madness and a work that is madness. A schizophrenic programmer who builds an OS by pressing the "m" key a million times is different than a schizophrenic programmer who produces an OS that actually works driven by schizophrenic motivations. In other words, the future archaeologists might be confused by TempleOS, but they would be wrong to think it is meaningless.
  - Clewza313 5y ago
    It had meaning to its creator, but not to others. That's kind of what madness is, a break from consensus reality, and why some art can veer into the uncomfortable territory between the two.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      It's a program, it will compile and run. Some people can "understand" it, not in the sense that its creator did, but in the sense that a wikipedia article can be written about it and its purpose, and we understand why he wrote in a broad sense (schizophrenia). It's possible the Voynich Manuscript is the ramblings of an insane person but I don't think that is particularly likely. If my guess is right, and the statistical properties of the characters in the book indicate that it is part of a language or language-like system somehow, then we would have no more reason to suspect it was authored by a crazy person than any other random book.
      - Brian_K_White 5y ago
        The fact that the program runs is no more meaningful than the fact that the ink forms distinct lines and figures on the page. In both cases it just means the author started out knowing how to use some tool contemporary to them. It doesn't prove or disprove either meaningfulness or nonsense. And the TempleOS example specifically illustrates that we're not talking a out a binary state.
        ALittleLight 5y ago
        The fact that the program runs, and is an operating system, proves it has meaning. It's not a random collection of scribbles or incoherent scrawls. The computer can run it. We can interact with the program, understand it, and evaluate it. None of that is true with meaningless scribbles on a page. In my view the TempleOS example is an example of sense versus non-sense. This is the difference between someone explaining that they have to take out their own teeth because they think the CIA hid radios in there and someone just making incoherent sound. The former is crazy, sure, but it's crazy made out of words that convey intent. If a schizophrenic told you they needed to remove their teeth to silence the radios in them you'd have a good guess about what the schizophrenic person was about to do. Again, not true for the person making incoherent noises.
        Brian_K_White 5y ago
goodcanadian 5y ago
The example of the schizophrenic writer devolves into nonsense. That process happened over a period of time and many different writings. A single document might well seem consistent.

Clewza313 5y ago

There are more options than "makes sense" and "nonsense" here. To draw a parallel to a work much discussed on HN, TempleOS is both a functioning operating system and a product of madness, and yet a future archaeologist would have a very hard time extracting a meaning or purpose out of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS

ALittleLight 5y ago
There is a difference between a work being driven by madness and a work that is madness. A schizophrenic programmer who builds an OS by pressing the "m" key a million times is different than a schizophrenic programmer who produces an OS that actually works driven by schizophrenic motivations. In other words, the future archaeologists might be confused by TempleOS, but they would be wrong to think it is meaningless.
- Clewza313 5y ago
  It had meaning to its creator, but not to others. That's kind of what madness is, a break from consensus reality, and why some art can veer into the uncomfortable territory between the two.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    It's a program, it will compile and run. Some people can "understand" it, not in the sense that its creator did, but in the sense that a wikipedia article can be written about it and its purpose, and we understand why he wrote in a broad sense (schizophrenia). It's possible the Voynich Manuscript is the ramblings of an insane person but I don't think that is particularly likely. If my guess is right, and the statistical properties of the characters in the book indicate that it is part of a language or language-like system somehow, then we would have no more reason to suspect it was authored by a crazy person than any other random book.
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      The fact that the program runs is no more meaningful than the fact that the ink forms distinct lines and figures on the page. In both cases it just means the author started out knowing how to use some tool contemporary to them. It doesn't prove or disprove either meaningfulness or nonsense. And the TempleOS example specifically illustrates that we're not talking a out a binary state.
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        The fact that the program runs, and is an operating system, proves it has meaning. It's not a random collection of scribbles or incoherent scrawls. The computer can run it. We can interact with the program, understand it, and evaluate it. None of that is true with meaningless scribbles on a page. In my view the TempleOS example is an example of sense versus non-sense. This is the difference between someone explaining that they have to take out their own teeth because they think the CIA hid radios in there and someone just making incoherent sound. The former is crazy, sure, but it's crazy made out of words that convey intent. If a schizophrenic told you they needed to remove their teeth to silence the radios in them you'd have a good guess about what the schizophrenic person was about to do. Again, not true for the person making incoherent noises.
        Brian_K_White 5y ago

goodcanadian 5y ago

The example of the schizophrenic writer devolves into nonsense. That process happened over a period of time and many different writings. A single document might well seem consistent.