Science cannot solve the final mystery

[gnostic]

"Heka" is in reality the source of the "gods" because "gods" were in point of fact specific theory.

There you go, cladking. You are playing word game again.

The translation in the Pyramid Texts that I quote make sense that “Great of Magic”, not your “Great of Metaphysics”. It is a matter of context, and your claim that heka is “metaphysics” doesn’t make sense in all verses that contain the word heka in PT.

Here you are now trying to twist into heka to mean something else. You are making excuses.

If anyone is twisting meaning to words is you.

And you are still missing the points.

There are no other older references to heka in the 3rd millennium BCE texts, other than those found in the Pyramid Texts. And the translations of every verses in PT, containing this word heka, is contextually linked to magic, not to metaphysics.

Now unless you can find and cite another 3rd millennium source with the word heka that actually mean metaphysics, than your claim is nothing more than anachronistic.

You do understand the word word anachronism, don’t you?

Metaphysics didn’t exist in the 3rd millennium BCE, and even less so in earlier millennia.

Egyptian hieroglyphs originated in very late 4th millennium BCE, but there were so little writings existing at this stage in history, and writing only really became more voluminous in the 5th and 6th dynasties (eg the Royal Annals (which include the fragment Palermo Stone) and the Pyramid Texts).

Heka doesn’t appear in any of the fragments of the Royal Annals, which leave the Pyramid Texts mentioning heka.

Your claim that metaphysics exist earlier than heka in the Pyramid Texts, but I found no other references from other sources.

So I either you are mistaken or you are making them up.

 

[Cooky]

Just because today science lacks the answers doesn't mean tomorrow it will as well.

Of course, science, as it is, is incapable of answering many of the questions of the universe.

Chaos theory - Wikipedia

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of course, science, as it is, is incapable of answering many of the questions of the universe.

I know the answer to many things that once I didn't. It's not a matter of being incapable, but lacking a crucial and new view of things that helps us learn more about the universe we live in.
Claiming "as it is" is also problematic, because science is useless in a static state. It must change, it needs to change. It's changed since the days of copernicus and Newton, and may continue to do so if we are to get those answers. Making "as it is" a condition is to handicap science, so it course under that condition science will fail.

 

[Cooky]

I know the answer to many things that once I didn't. It's not a matter of being incapable, but lacking a crucial and new view of things that helps us learn more about the universe we live in.
Claiming "as it is" is also problematic, because science is useless in a static state. It must change, it needs to change. It's changed since the days of copernicus and Newton, and may continue to do so if we are to get those answers. Making "as it is" a condition is to handicap science, so it course under that condition science will fail.

Speaking of learning, I just learned about all this over the weekend, and was fascinated by it. I got it from a Stanford professor... For FREE..!

If you have the time, you might find it interesting as well.

Part 22 is Emergence and Complexity. I haven't gotten that far yet.

 

[ecco]

Oh goody. Let's all use any words in any way we want to. That means I can call someone an idiot when it is my objective to show how intelligent he really is.

Well, feel free to call me an idiot.

In your convoluted way of thinking I would call you an intelligent man.

Older dictionaries used "metaphysics" to mean exactly how I use it.

I guess you haven't noticed that languages evolve. If I referred to you as a cockalorum no one would know what I meant. And that's relatively recent. Do you use art, dost, and doth?

Your views are hard enough to understand with you resurrecting words from the graveyard.

But that is irrelevant because every word means exactly what the user believes it means and because there is NO OTHER WORD THAT MEANS THE BASIS OF SCIENCE.

Nonsense. I'll post the definition of "nonsense" if you are unclear as to its meaning.

EVEN IF THERE WERE NO WORD TO MEAN THE "BASIS OF SCIENCE" IF I WAS THE FIRST THEN I GET TO MAKE UP MY OWN WORD.

Nonsense. Even shouting doesn't stop it from being nonsense. Your knowledge of language and language usage is right up down there with the rest of your knowledge.

This is the type of semantical argument I encounter everywhere.
How ironic most of them are much more idiot than I.

If one encounters the same arguments everywhere, perhaps one should begin to recognize that the problem may be on him.

 

[ecco]

All dogs bark.
Sycamores have bark.
Tulips are sycamores.
Dogs are tulips.

(see what I did there? I made a semantical argument in that last sentence as a sort of aside)

No, you did not make a semantical argument. What you did is show your ignorance of the English language. If you want to ignore that the word "bark" has more than one meaning, then how do you expect anyone to take seriously your pronouncements about The Ancient Languages?

 

[gnostic]

Of course, science, as it is, is incapable of answering many of the questions of the universe.

Nor do any philosophy or any religion.

 

[cladking]

Your claim that metaphysics exist earlier than heka in the Pyramid Texts, but I found no other references from other sources.

Again you are missing the point.

Ancient Language can't be translated into modern languages because it was digital, metaphysical, and representative rather than analog, confused, and symbolic. It can only be interpreted. When I tell you what a word really "means" it is not a translation and it must be remembered that meaning existed only in context. "Thot" for instance might be translated as "the first derivative of the increase in human knowledge" but it's easier to think of it as "human progress". "Shu" is "upward" but more accurately "normal force". Never forget they defined no words at all so any attempt to define an ancient word is wrong from the start.

While the best "definition" of "heka" is the "basis of science" any definition is wrong so to understand "heka" you must understand the nature of metaphysics and how the nature of ancient metaphysics differs. Our science is "observation > experiment" (everything else is Look and See Science). Their science was "observation > logic" but you can't understand this without understanding our metaphysics and having some concept of how they thought. And this is the sticky part. I'm fond of saying this is all simple but really some of it isn't that simple.

To understand their metaphysics (heca) it is necessary you also understand that their language was metaphysical. Words had power because they were scientific and made predictions and created. In aggregate the words were "thot" itself. Remember though they had no words for "thought". They didn't experience thinking so the fact that language was as logical as mathematics was wholly invisible to them. Women tended to be metaphysicians and the men were scientists but a great deal of overlap existed and everyone was both. They didn't understand why or how their science worked so they never said how it worked other than talking about language and observation. This is what their unthinking minds knew but they didn't know that math plus observation equals a sort of science. They actually said that "thot" had no mother! The "mother" of human progress would be "logic" but they had no word for "logic" either since "illogic" is impossible in a math based language.

1271a. If Thot comes in this his evil coming;
1271b. do not open to him thine arms; that which is said to him is his name of "thou hast no mother."

So long as you try to parse the PT it will make no sense at all, yield no knowledge at all, and be contradictory to itself and nature. When you take it literally and solve terms in context then it makes perfect sense and shows a highly scientific people who used knowledge and theory (gods) to build the pyramids and ALL OF ANCIENT CIVILIZATION.

"Magic" means "observation", it means "science", it is the very basis of thot (human progress). It is the basis of science and language.

Every term in Ancient Language shares a mathematical relationship with every other term. Ankh + djed - shm sceptres = khentinirty. Once you solve the text for the meanings they become quite clear.

We are trying to understand a digital reality in an analog mind that experiences thought when we try. We experience what we expect because we build models of that experience. It's not impossible to do this I'm sure but it can't happen so long as our assumptions are wrong and we have a great number of bad assumptions. We put the cart before the horse and we virtually live in the ditch.

 

[Cooky]

Nor do any philosophy or any religion.

But with philosophy, we can come up with new methods for scientific progress... Just like philosophers had ideas about the scientific Method, Reductionism, etc., and then gave those ideas to science... Maybe philosophy can do it again.

Medical reductionism: lessons from the great philosophers

Medical reductionism: lessons from the great philosophers

 

[cladking]

Nor do any philosophy or any religion.

Why don't you sleep on it and see if you can still stand by this tomorrow?

 

[cladking]

But with philosophy, we can come up with new methods for scientific progress... Just like philosophers had ideas about the scientific Method, Reductionism, etc., and then gave those ideas to science... Maybe philosophy can do it again.

Medical reductionism: lessons from the great philosophers

Medical reductionism: lessons from the great philosophers

Excellent point!

Thank you. It won't go over well with believers in soup of the day science though.

 

[gnostic]

Ancient Language can't be translated into modern languages because it was digital, metaphysical, and representative rather than analog, confused, and symbolic. It can only be interpreted. When I tell you what a word really "means" it is not a translation and it must be remembered that meaning existed only in context.

Excuse me, but how are you supposed to interpret something that cannot be translated?

In other words, you can make up any interpretation you like, without any source.

So, we just just have to accept your words without evidence.

You keep yapping about evidence, but you really have none, do you.

Where are the older sources, older than the Pyramid Texts, that has the ḥk3w or heka which means “metaphysics”, not “magic”?

Because right now, you are only making excuses for the lack of evidence or lack of source.

This is what I mean by your BS conspiracy theory. You expect everyone to take your words as fact.

But fact require evidence, not your “say-so”.

 

[cladking]

The fact that Ancient Language makes literal sense and yields data and knowledge should be more than sufficient. That I could predict the location and nature of the thermal anomaly based on this understanding is "proof" according to ancient science and "important confirmation" according to our science.

 

[gnostic]

But with philosophy, we can come up with new methods for scientific progress... Just like philosophers had ideas about the scientific Method, Reductionism, etc., and then gave those ideas to science... Maybe philosophy can do it again.

Medical reductionism: lessons from the great philosophers

Medical reductionism: lessons from the great philosophers

Some philosophies used to be worth something, scientifically, because there were really no such thing as science in ancient times, back then, it was just philosophy.

I know and understand that science is indebted to some ancient philosophy, in particular Natural Philosophy, where Ancient Greek philosophers attempted to explain nature without divine beings and superstition.

Natural philosophy is precursor of the modern Natural Science, but Natural Philosophy cannot entire eliminate the introduction of the supernatural or the occult.

For instance, the Greeks didn’t invent maths and astronomy, but they did it to the next levels, going beyond those of Egyptian and Babylonian philosophers. That’s call progress.

But like the Babylonian astronomy before them, the Greeks couldn’t separate astronomy from astrology, because they were heavily entwined.

During the Golden Age of Islam, like the Greeks before them, the Muslim philosophers made advances in previous knowledge, as well as introducing some new discoveries.

Then the Italians brought about the Renaissance, where they rediscovered ancient Greek and Roman knowledge, reworked it and made new progress and made new discoveries.

But in every cases, religions interfered in progress. Galileo and Newton were, are consider giants in the intellectual worlds, but Galileo couldn’t separate astronomy from astrology. And even Newton feared the church reprisal, and despite his contribution to maths, physics and astronomy, he wasn’t immune to the supernatural and occult like his work in alchemy, the philosopher’s stone.

Is philosophy still useful? For me, no, especially when it concern natural science.

 

[cladking]

Speaking of learning, I just learned about all this over the weekend, and was fascinated by it. I got it from a Stanford professor... For FREE..!

If you have the time, you might find it interesting as well.

Part 22 is Emergence and Complexity. I haven't gotten that far yet.

It's a good lecture by the way.

Half way through and I half expect him to start talking Ancient Language. It, too, was a non-reductive system.

Edited to add;

Imagine a chaotic brain that generates a language that reflects that wiring!

"I don't believe it's appropriate for this journal."

This is reality but people can't see it. Everything we believe is wrong. There is no clockwork universe, no "laws of nature", and no correspondence of mathematics to reality.

second edit;

Great lecture but his conclusion is wrong because he is looking at species instead of individuals. Species can't undergo reductionism but individuals can with sufficient knowledge. We can't gain that knowledge until we rethink all of science and IMO the best way to rethink science is to combine it with ancient science. Of course a new scientific language with words that are not deconstructible will need to be developed. I'm sure we'll find computers will be a big help with all this work.

We can start as soon as we have the will and the courage. Just recognizing we're all wrong about everything is a giant leap forward to overcoming these fears.

 

[Cooky]

Some philosophies used to be worth something, scientifically, because there were really no such thing as science in ancient times, back then, it was just philosophy.

I know and understand that science is indebted to some ancient philosophy, in particular Natural Philosophy, where Ancient Greek philosophers attempted to explain nature without divine beings and superstition.

Natural philosophy is precursor of the modern Natural Science, but Natural Philosophy cannot entire eliminate the introduction of the supernatural or the occult.

For instance, the Greeks didn’t invent maths and astronomy, but they did it to the next levels, going beyond those of Egyptian and Babylonian philosophers. That’s call progress.

But like the Babylonian astronomy before them, the Greeks couldn’t separate astronomy from astrology, because they were heavily entwined.

During the Golden Age of Islam, like the Greeks before them, the Muslim philosophers made advances in previous knowledge, as well as introducing some new discoveries.

Then the Italians brought about the Renaissance, where they rediscovered ancient Greek and Roman knowledge, reworked it and made new progress and made new discoveries.

But in every cases, religions interfered in progress. Galileo and Newton were, are consider giants in the intellectual worlds, but Galileo couldn’t separate astronomy from astrology. And even Newton feared the church reprisal, and despite his contribution to maths, physics and astronomy, he wasn’t immune to the supernatural and occult like his work in alchemy, the philosopher’s stone.

Is philosophy still useful? For me, no, especially when it concern natural science.

With philosophy, it's like winning the lottery, a lot of philosophical hypotheses don't make it, but once in a while, you win big. And these wins tend to shape new directions in the advancement of sciences - medicine, psychology, physics, neurobiology... Everything.

...That's why philosophy covers such a wide range to begin with. But no, on it's own, there is a lot of "noise". And that makes some people unhappy. But if you can sift through the noise, without being distracted, then philosophy becomes a great tool.

 

[gnostic]

With philosophy, it's like winning the lottery, a lot of philosophical hypotheses don't make it, but once in a while, you win big. And these wins tend to shape new directions in the advancement of sciences - medicine, psychology, physics, neurobiology... Everything.

...That's why philosophy covers such a wide range to begin with. But no, on it's own, there is a lot of "noise". And that makes some people unhappy. But if you can sift through the noise, without being distracted, then philosophy becomes a great tool.

You have stated that science don’t answer every questions.

And I am well aware that science there are limitations to what scientists will investigate and what it won’t, and there are areas not covered by it, since in Natural Science, it is the study of the physical. But that’s not really the problem.

No scientists i know, make claims that science have answers to everything.

The problem is thinking that if that science, then either philosophy or religion will answer to everything.

But here too, there are limits that either of these (religion or philosophy) can do, and they don’t have answer to everything.

Can you name a single philosophy that have ALL the answers?

What about religion? Do you know of one religion that have ALL the answers?

If you were honest about it, you would say “No” to both of them.

You stated that with philosophy, people can gain to learn more. But also apply to science. You can learn far more from science, more so than any philosophy.

Don’t get me wrong. Philosophies through the centuries and millennia have help push with scientific inquiry, but philosophies have achieved much in recent times (modern or contemporary philosophies), because they are all talk with no substances.

The differences between science and philosophy, is that science have rules, and that’s to test whatever explanation presented, with observation/evidence/experiment. These evidence provide indication what is true and what isn’t, far more objectively than any man’s abstract reasoning or logic.

It is science that have provided the recent advancements in medicine, technology and engineering, in communication and so on, not philosophy.

You cannot use metaphysics to design and build bridges or buildings or vehicles or computers.

 

[tas8831]

snip gibberish

As I informed you that I am taking a break responding to your farcical assertions and attempts at revisionism, this will be my standard reply until such time as I feel like wasting time on you again.
A sampling of your ‘greatest hits’ – things you biffed, ignored, re-asserted despite never supporting, etc.

cladking:
Your assumptions are riddled with errors and half facts.

Really?

And you know this because of your extensive self-education?

Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.

Otherwise this will just be chalked up as Cladking Unsupported Fantasy Assertion (aka lie) #261,

cladking:

The fixed speech center is natural to humans (all animals) and the Broca's area is unique to Homo Omnisciencis because we need a translator between the analog brain and the digital speech center.

Broca's area AND Wernicke's area are "fixed" (though they generally switch hemispheres in left-handed people). The anatomical landmarks of Broca's area are even seen in non-human primates.
There is no such thing as "Homo Omnisciencis" but in your and Graham Hancock's dopey fantasies. Nobody will accept your fantasies as having merit until you present EVIDENCE of the sort that sane, educated, experienced people accept as such. This does NOT include your confident reiterations of unsupported assertions, I am happy to say.

cladking:

Show evidence of a speech center in a newborn.

Right after you show evidence that Homo Omnisciencis occurs outside of your fantasy world. Show evidence that here is a "bifurcated speech center in the middle of the brain." Show evidence that an infant decides to grow a Broca's area.


And lastly, here you are claiming that you never wrote what you had written repeatedly, all in a failed attempt at saving face once you realized you have no actual evidence for your counterfactual assertions:


You wrote, foolishly:


"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see."


Using your own claims, I then clearly refuted that... ummm.... 'misrepresentation.'




Actually, I see what you most certainly implied - and I believe this BE CAUSE I see it:


Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."



What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

"Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."


Fascinating!

"Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."


Science cannot solve the final mystery

"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"


Still waiting for THAT ^^^^^ evidence, too...


Also still waiting for you to show that Darwin claimed that populations remain stable in the first edition of his book - remember when I linked to a searchable online version of it for you and you ignored it? Wonder why...


Argumentum ad populum

"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"...As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR."




Weird, I mean, you just deleted all of that from your reply in that thread, as if it never happened - as if you never actually claimed that you never did what I documented you doing 7 times. And keep in mind - there were more, these were just the most obvious ones. I find such refusals to acknowledge and own up to such obvious fibs indicative of far-reaching character flaws. But that is just in my experience dealing with religious fanatics and the like.




You've not once provided evidence, so you are just trying to assert-away your false claims.


You are just boring now. I'll probably take a break from documenting your 'scientific' fraud and egregious, laughable errors. it is pretty tiresome.

 

[tas8831]

Very good. This is actually an argument against my theory.

I'll need to investigate it.

Oh boy! I'll bet your scientific assessment of this will be on par with your scientific take on everything else.

Oh, forgot:

As I informed you that I am taking a break responding to your farcical assertions and attempts at revisionism, this will be my standard reply until such time as I feel like wasting time on you again. A sampling of your ‘greatest hits’ – things you biffed, ignored, re-asserted despite never supporting, etc.

cladking:
Your assumptions are riddled with errors and half facts.

Really?

And you know this because of your extensive self-education?

Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.

Otherwise this will just be chalked up as Cladking Unsupported Fantasy Assertion (aka lie) #261,

cladking:

The fixed speech center is natural to humans (all animals) and the Broca's area is unique to Homo Omnisciencis because we need a translator between the analog brain and the digital speech center.

Broca's area AND Wernicke's area are "fixed" (though they generally switch hemispheres in left-handed people). The anatomical landmarks of Broca's area are even seen in non-human primates.
There is no such thing as "Homo Omnisciencis" but in your and Graham Hancock's dopey fantasies. Nobody will accept your fantasies as having merit until you present EVIDENCE of the sort that sane, educated, experienced people accept as such. This does NOT include your confident reiterations of unsupported assertions, I am happy to say.

cladking:

Show evidence of a speech center in a newborn.

Right after you show evidence that Homo Omnisciencis occurs outside of your fantasy world. Show evidence that here is a "bifurcated speech center in the middle of the brain." Show evidence that an infant decides to grow a Broca's area.


And lastly, here you are claiming that you never wrote what you had written repeatedly, all in a failed attempt at saving face once you realized you have no actual evidence for your counterfactual assertions:


You wrote, foolishly:


"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see."


Using your own claims, I then clearly refuted that... ummm.... 'misrepresentation.'




Actually, I see what you most certainly implied - and I believe this BE CAUSE I see it:


Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."



What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

"Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."


Fascinating!

"Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."


Science cannot solve the final mystery

"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"


Still waiting for THAT ^^^^^ evidence, too...


Also still waiting for you to show that Darwin claimed that populations remain stable in the first edition of his book - remember when I linked to a searchable online version of it for you and you ignored it? Wonder why...


Argumentum ad populum

"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"...As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR."




Weird, I mean, you just deleted all of that from your reply in that thread, as if it never happened - as if you never actually claimed that you never did what I documented you doing 7 times. And keep in mind - there were more, these were just the most obvious ones. I find such refusals to acknowledge and own up to such obvious fibs indicative of far-reaching character flaws. But that is just in my experience dealing with religious fanatics and the like.




You've not once provided evidence, so you are just trying to assert-away your false claims.


You are just boring now. I'll probably take a break from documenting your 'scientific' fraud and egregious, laughable errors. it is pretty tiresome.







Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Speaking of learning, I just learned about all this over the weekend, and was fascinated by it. I got it from a Stanford professor... For FREE..!

If you have the time, you might find it interesting as well.

Part 22 is Emergence and Complexity. I haven't gotten that far yet.

By the way, I would *highly* recommend the other lectures in this series as well as the book, 'Behave' by this professor (Sapolski).