Ancient Reality

[Polymath257]

I am using the definition of "metaphysics" that is nearly synonymous with "epistemology" and related to "ontology". I am using the definition of "the basis of science" because no other word means "basis of science". (Funk and Wagnalls 1952). "Science" here means "the study of reality".

Some users of the word mean it more or less broadly such as the book "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" uses the term more broadly than I and includes such concepts as where ideas originated and how they arose. I believe most of this more accurately falls under the heading (definition) of "history" but to each his own.

Obviously you are using the term differently than I am because without understanding things like definitions and experiment design we don't really know experimental results.

That is very different than metaphysics, which is a philosophical discipline. Epistemology is one *part* of metaphysics, but so is ontology. The 'basis of science' depends on which of several different metaphysical philosophies you adopt. it isn't a single topic, nor does everyone agree on the conclusions.

 

[cladking]

We each can pick any definition of a word we choose in order to convey an idea and we each can choose any definition we want to deconstruct a sentence. When I use the word I mean "basis of science" and not "philosophy" in the meaning of ideas about life, reality, or God. I've used the word once in my life in another of its meanings but I'm sure the listener was aware of the intended meaning because of its context.

I am a nexialist and not a philosopher. "Philosophy" is very important to me but I'm rarely really talking about philosophy. I'm talking about the nature of reality itself compared to the nature of reality of ancient people and the reality of pyramid building as devined from the words of the builders themselves. I am talking about the flaws in Egyptological methodology that allowed them to be wrong on a biblical scale. I am talking about reality as can be deduced from two "bases of science" and shown to be accurate by reverse engineering the pyramids and making accurate predictions.

It doesn't really matter what you call the basis of Egyptology, it is wrong. They translate and interpret a "book of incantation" using a book that was written a thousand years later. Without ever performing the most basic tests on the pyramid they simply said the only way it could have been built was with ramps. Instead of reading the literal meaning of the words that survive which clearly state the pyramids were not tombs they jumped to this conclusion anyway. Across the board they engaged in "Reality by Committee". They are wrong and they used wrong methodology no matter what words you choose to say it or what anyone hears when I say it. They are wrong. The cultural context and physical evidence exclude modern beliefs as an explanation for any reality at all.

 

[cladking]

What kind of engineer are you?

In light of what you quoted this is a relevant question.

I am not an expert or specialist in anything at all related to any kind of science. I am a generalist who has some understanding of two different sciences. Some things are quite apparent to a generalist that aren't so apparent to even the best educated and most experienced specialist. Perspective is everything. In all things perspective is everything and all ancient people knew it. "Perspective" virtually defines consciousness and consciousness/ free will are life itself.

I have some knack for engineering but since I think intuitively reverse engineering is in my wheelhouse. Since "reverse engineering" is the use of subtle clues to determine the nature of how something came to be and Egyptologists have never measured the properties of the great pyramids it's only logical that someone who is intuitive and with a penchant for reverse engineering would make this discovery.

Being in Egypt is irrelevant since I can get most visible data by other means.

 

[cladking]

How did you prove there was no Egyptian religion without ever setting foot in Egypt?

I'm sorry I ignore so many of your posts but we are on completely different wavelengths so dialog is very difficult.

A great philosopher once said "you can't step in the same river twice". The fact is it's not only the river always changing its course and nature but you as well. A lot of water has gone under the dam in Egypt over the last 4750 years since the pyramids were built and the river is miles away from where it once was and has moved up and down at various locations as well. Indeed it was once a mile and a half below Giza and adjacent to it while now it's a few miles away and 25' higher than it was. Nothing is static and without understanding all these facts you can't understand how the pyramids were built. ALL things are related. Visiting Egypt today is irrelevant. Yes, it's true that these ruins are changing, evolving, and being destroyed as fast as ever but that just means modern people are destroying the clues needed to reverse engineer them faster than ever. They are drilling holes in everything and filling ancient artefacts with concrete for the safety of tourists.

I use a lot of old pictures to see the natural state of the ruins. Of course, digging them out of the sand reveals things that otherwise couldn't be seen at all.

I proved that the literal meaning of the Pyramid Texts is logical and consistent with reality by showing they are consistent with the physical evidence that survives. The builders said they used linear funiculars to build pyramids and this is consistent with the evidence. I solved the Pyramid Texts simultaneously with reverse engineering the pyramids by solving word meanings in their proper context rather than in the context of later religious beliefs.

 

[cladking]

A great philosopher once said "you can't step in the same river twice".

Ironically not only could I not have stepped into the "Nile" 4750 years ago but my species didn't exist at that time. If you define "parent" as being the same species as its off spring then even my many great grandparents couldn't have stepped into the Nile. Modern Egypt and modern beliefs are simply going to confound, obscure, and mask the relevant data to solve these questions. Just as the PT itself is a minor anachronism everything else is a great anachronism. The pyramids themselves are ruined largely by the actions of man. We blow holes in them and destroy evidence without ever first recording it.

Everything was different in 2750 BC and nothing was so different as the way people thought and acted. They weren't in any way like Egyptologists but Egyptologists started with the assumption they were.

 

[sooda]

I'm sorry I ignore so many of your posts but we are on completely different wavelengths so dialog is very difficult.

A great philosopher once said "you can't step in the same river twice". The fact is it's not only the river always changing its course and nature but you as well. A lot of water has gone under the dam in Egypt over the last 4750 years since the pyramids were built and the river is miles away from where it once was and has moved up and down at various locations as well. Indeed it was once a mile and a half below Giza and adjacent to it while now it's a few miles away and 25' higher than it was. Nothing is static and without understanding all these facts you can't understand how the pyramids were built. ALL things are related. Visiting Egypt today is irrelevant. Yes, it's true that these ruins are changing, evolving, and being destroyed as fast as ever but that just means modern people are destroying the clues needed to reverse engineer them faster than ever. They are drilling holes in everything and filling ancient artefacts with concrete for the safety of tourists.

I use a lot of old pictures to see the natural state of the ruins. Of course, digging them out of the sand reveals things that otherwise couldn't be seen at all.

I proved that the literal meaning of the Pyramid Texts is logical and consistent with reality by showing they are consistent with the physical evidence that survives. The builders said they used linear funiculars to build pyramids and this is consistent with the evidence. I solved the Pyramid Texts simultaneously with reverse engineering the pyramids by solving word meanings in their proper context rather than in the context of later religious beliefs.

Everyone knows the river changed course. So what about these geysers?

 

[cladking]

So what about these geysers?

They don't exist any longer but they've left behind plenty of evidence.

Some of the funiculars are extremely well defined (especially the eastern cliff face funicular).

They also appear to have left a mammoth sinkhole just north of the Fayuum.

 

[gnostic]

I proved that the literal meaning of the Pyramid Texts is logical and consistent with reality by showing they are consistent with the physical evidence that survives. The builders said they used linear funiculars to build pyramids and this is consistent with the evidence. I solved the Pyramid Texts simultaneously with reverse engineering the pyramids by solving word meanings in their proper context rather than in the context of later religious beliefs.

I have read the Pyramid Texts (PT), myself - the English translation, of course - and in my previous career as a civil engineer, though admittedly I don’t have any expertise in ancient building, I did not read a single thing about how they would construct the pyramids, nothing to show they would shape stone or how they move stones with ropes and pulleys, by funiculars or by ramps.

The Pyramid Texts are instruction manuals of pyramid building. There are many small parallels and similarities between the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts to showed they are both funerary literature, not technical building literature.

All you are doing is interpreting the Pyramid Texts.

Ironically not only could I not have stepped into the "Nile" 4750 years ago but my species didn't exist at that time. If you define "parent" as being the same species as its off spring then even my many great grandparents couldn't have stepped into the Nile. Modern Egypt and modern beliefs are simply going to confound, obscure, and mask the relevant data to solve these questions. Just as the PT itself is a minor anachronism everything else is a great anachronism. The pyramids themselves are ruined largely by the actions of man. We blow holes in them and destroy evidence without ever first recording it.

Everything was different in 2750 BC and nothing was so different as the way people thought and acted. They weren't in any way like Egyptologists but Egyptologists started with the assumption they were.

You talk of anachronism, but what you are doing are nothing more than anachronism.

The Pyramid Texts are only found in the late Old Kingdom period, of the 5th and 6th dynasties - Unas, Teiti, Pepi I & Pepi II, and few other pyramids.

There are no Pyramid Texts in earlier dynasties, 3rd and 4th, and your date “2750 BC”, predated both the 1st pyramid, that of Djoser, the 1st king of the 3rd dynasty. Djoser has no Pyramid Texts.

2750 BCE would put in the reigns of any one of these 3 kings of the 2nd dynasty, Nynetjer, Wadjenes or Senedj. The reason why I can’t determine which king ruled in 2750 BCE, is the different king lists offer different times, adding the confusion to who rule when.

The tomb locations of Wadjenes and Senedj were never found, but Nynetjer has a mastaba tomb located at Saqqara, not a pyramid.

 

[cladking]

All you are doing is interpreting the Pyramid Texts.

Yes. Exactly.

My interpretation is that when they said "bring me the boat that flies up and alights" what they really meant was "literally bring me the literal boat that literally flies up and literally alights". They were absolutely inscrutable which is why you need a doctorate in Egyptology to even understand the English translation.

Either that or you can just read it and see what it says.

The Pyramid Texts are only found in the late Old Kingdom period, of the 5th and 6th dynasties - Unas, Teiti, Pepi I & Pepi II, and few other pyramids.

Yes. Exactly.

And despite this it's the only writing that is nearly concurrent with great pyramid construction.

...and your date “2750 BC”, predated both the 1st pyramid, that of Djoser,...

No.

Egyptologists ignore carbon dating and all scientific testing that doesn't agree with their beliefs. They only consider evidence that fits with their circular arguments. Everything else is a red herring.

 

[cladking]

The Pyramid Texts are heavily redacted writing that probably originated even before the invention of writing. They stretch back in time at least to the construction of Djoser's Pyramid and probably a few centuries earlier. These are actually just silly little rituals that were read at the various kings' ascension ceremonies where he was transformed from a dead king into a living pyramid and a star for a mnemonic. This was a five day festival held every year and kings ascended when they grew too old or faltered. They were running for their lives at the Heb Seds because they would be dispatched for quick mummification and cremation at the w3g-festival if they were too slow.

The problem is nobody reads this just to see what it actually says. Egyptologists got the idea that it's incantation and have been parsing it and comparing it the the "book of the dead" ever since. It says that the king is the pyramid and the king is built by a cool effervescent column of water that off-gasses CO2. There's nothing complex about this. If Egyptologists didn't withhold and ignore so much of the important evidence everyone could see it.

 

[cladking]

I have read the Pyramid Texts (PT), myself - the English translation, of course - and in my previous career as a civil engineer, though admittedly I don’t have any expertise in ancient building, I did not read a single thing about how they would construct the pyramids, nothing to show they would shape stone or how they move stones with ropes and pulleys, by funiculars or by ramps.

There's a simple reason for this; we can't understand Ancient Language because we MUST PARSE WORDS to understand modern language. It's not vocabulary babies learn in order to talk, it's how to parse words. This learning takes place in a part of the brain that was used for something entirely different in ancient people. We each store this learning in a slightly different place because modern languages ARE NOT NATURAL TO THE HUMAN SPECIES OR ANY OTHER.

If you parse the Pyramid Texts it just looks like superstitious gobbledty gook and this is EXACTLY WHAT EGYPTOLOGISTS BELIEVE IT IS; incantation and nonsense.

If you don't parse the PT it says exactly what the pyramids were for and how they were built in PLAIN ENGLISH. The literal meaning of the words are wholly consistent, logical, and reflective of reality as seen through the eyes of primitives who didn't think like Egyptologists.

It can't be any simpler. They MEANT EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID!!!!!!@!!!

"The dead king is the pyramid, he protects"

"The dead king will be rebuilt"

"Then how shall the dead king be built, let the copper be brought, let the boats be brought"

Over and over they said the same thing. They said more than a dozen times that the pyramids were NOT tombs and that they were built with "two boats tied together" that used "balance" created by a column of water to operate.

You will not see this if you start with the assumption that ancient Egyptians were stinky footed bumpkins and you parse what they say.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Cladking

I really thought the direction of your nonsense might have improved by now. Especially since your statements that, Beavers were self-consciously aware that by using their Beaver science to invent dams, they could create their own habitat. And then to double-down by claiming that all species are self-aware and use their own species science to create their own habitat. This ended even the semblance of a rational discourse for me.

It is sad that rational thinkers and skeptics, are being pushed to their emotional breaking point, because of your clear deceptions, and intellectual dishonesty. You never provide any objective evidence, cause and effect analogies, relevant and clear examples, or any logical consistency between premise and conclusion. You only make the claim that objective evidence does exist, that it has been mentioned, or that we can't accept it because of our science biases. You then rephrase, misrepresent, distort, or take out of context any concerns we have about your assertions. You then respond with a new reshaped, misconstrued, and re-edited nonsense version about something that we have never asked, or had any concerns about. This will always lead us down another distraction rabbit-hole. In reality, we are just arguing with ourselves, with you pulling the strings behind the curtain. Still waiting on you explanation of how worms use worm science to invent their own habitat. I guess I shouldn't hold my breath. Especially, since you are incapable of answering anything directly, without first giving it a false-perception of complexity(BS).

At least Deeje admitted why he was being intellectual dishonest and deceptive. He claimed that he was the self-appointed defender of all religious truths. And, that he was on a mission to proselytize, and protect those undecideds from the dangers of all scientific ideologies. What is your rationale for begging the question, creating false causes, nonsensical sentences, straw man, blatant ignorance, ambiguities and errors in equivocation? To keep people ignorant and stupid? Or do you simply troll science threads to exploit the honest and sincere intentions of skeptics and rational thinkers, that unlike you, WILL have an open-mind whenever it is supported by objective evidence. Unlike you, they ARE not emotionally threatened by the possibility that they could be wrong. Maybe you could also point out the methodology that science uses to "look and see"?

For someone who's mantra seems to be language, you should really learn how to distinguish between syntax, pragmatics, and semantics. Also, between linguistics and language. Regarding hieroglyphs, it has been decipher enough to create a fun app, that allows you to write secret messages to each other. Maybe you should have also mentioned the significance of the "Rosetta Stone".
https://discoveringegypt.com/hieroglyphic-message/

https://www.quora.com/How-were-the-Hieroglyphics-deciphered

Unless rational thinkers want to waste their time jumping from one rabbit-hole into the next, trying to convince someone that he is not the real Napoleon Bonaparte(analogy), I would strongly suggest that their intellectuality might be more productive and appreciated by those that truly are opened to reason and the value of science. Not someone with an irrational anti-science agenda. People that see truth onto themselves, are people who are truth onto themselves. These people are not interested in finding objective answers, they are only interested in going the distance by any means necessary.

​

 

[cladking]

Cladking

I really thought the direction of your nonsense might have improved by now. Especially since your statements that, Beavers were self-consciously aware...

​

I haven't even finished this sentence yet.

Beavers and ancient humans were not "self-consciously aware". They don't (and didn't) experience "thought" at all. If you asked one if they existed you'd get a blank stare. Indeed, you couldn't ask an ancient because the question would break the laws of grammar and they lacked the vocabulary.

Ancient Language HAD NO WORDS FOR "THOUGHT" AND NO WORDS FOR "BELIEF". You can't ask the question without such words. That each person and everything he sees exist was axiomatic, just as it is to beavers. They had consciousness but not "thought". They could no more "think" about themselves than abstractions (which is another category of words they didn't have)(even "category" is an entire category of words they didn't have).

Until you understand my contentions you are missing my points. If I say there's no evidence for ramps then asking what shape the ramps were is pretty pointless.

 

[cladking]

You never provide any objective evidence, cause and effect analogies, relevant and clear examples, or any logical consistency between premise and conclusion.

You are not only ignoring my contentions (like ancient people didn't think) but you are ignoring all the evidence to support it (like the logic and the absence of the word "think").

What is your rationale for begging the question, creating false causes, nonsensical sentences, straw man, blatant ignorance, ambiguities and errors in equivocation? To keep people ignorant and stupid? Or do you simply troll science threads to exploit the honest and sincere intentions of skeptics and rational thinkers, that unlike you, WILL have an open-mind whenever it is supported by objective evidence. ​

I'll tell you what. You pick one or a dozen out and I'll address them systematically. I only request you read and try to understand my answer. This is called "discussion" and "discussion" is why I started this thread. Name calling isn't going to get us anywhere.

Unlike you, they ARE not emotionally threatened by the possibility that they could be wrong.

I am not in any way threatened about being wrong. I've been wrong plenty of times before.

Egyptologists aren't afraid of being wrong because they know they are right. Remember homo omnisciencis? Knowing we are right is what our species does best. We create our belief systems and see everything in such terms and soon know we are right.

Egyptologists are wrong.

Not someone with an irrational anti-science agenda.

​

That's what you get from what I say!!!!

I stand four square against quack science and Egyptological methodology that assumes the conclusion and you hear me say I am against real science!!!![/quote]

 

[cladking]

You never provide any objective evidence, cause and effect analogies, relevant and clear examples, or any logical consistency between premise and conclusion.

​

And you just deleted this from your your response just as you delete EVERYTHING I CITE;

"The dead king is the pyramid, he protects"

"The dead king will be rebuilt"

"Then how shall the dead king be built, let the copper be brought, let the boats be brought"

Without actual evidence all we have is opinion. You choose to believe expert opinion. I only believe expert opinion until I form my own. I'm telling you what they got wrong and how and when they got it wrong. I'm telling you when everything went wrong. Back when the meek owned the earth kings were responsible.

 

[cladking]

If I say there's no evidence for ramps then asking what shape the ramps were is pretty pointless.

Speaking of "pointless", look at my avatar.

Unlike a pyramid there is no point and no destination for the "flow". It never really goes up and it never really goes down. Egyptologists contort reality until it makes sense in terms of what they believe just like you and me.

I'm pretty sure your belief that is most interfering with understanding my argument is that you believe human progress is mostly linear and with no discontinuities. You can't imagine another way to think or talk. You are comfortable with the idea that human success is chiefly a product of intelligence and that this intelligence underlies progress. You see history in such terms and don't see massive incongruities like the existence of writing in 3200 BC but history not beginning until 2000 BC. You don't see the explosion of technology in Roman times and the absence of "science" (theory) to explain it. You can't see the unanimity of Egyptological beliefs about the nature and means of pyramids despite both the lack of evidence to support it and the contradictions of the physical evidence and logic. They draw one way ramps going up and wonder why I ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You can't see the great illogic of judging a culture by a book of incantation that is incomprehensible.

The only thing I have is logic and evidence but you simply ignore it. There is water erosion in canals leading to the funiculars downhill from the pyramids yet we can't really get to the physical evidence because you're still hung up on terminology and semantics. The FACT that the word "ramp" is unattested from the great pyramid building age is not semantics. It is evidence that corroborates the lack of the use of use of ramps. That the builders said the pyramids were not tombs corroborates the utter lack of any direct evidence that they were not tombs.

Why don't you address one single point here. I address all of your points and then you say I have no point. Ramps have no point, funiculars did. This last isn't a semantical argument, it is word play. A semantical argument is expecting a something to stand with no foundation and no logical or evidential support but words. Saying ancient people were superstitious because it's shown by a book that must be incantation barely even rises to being a semantical argument, it's not even so much of a non sequitur as it is simple nonsense. This goes a hundred times over when I can show that the book isn't incantation.

 

[gnostic]

Egyptologists aren't afraid of being wrong because they know they are right. Remember homo omnisciencis?

There are disagreements among Egyptologists on how the pyramids were built, but not all Egyptology focused on the engineering of pyramid building.

And as to “homo omnisciencis”, there are no such thing. It doesn’t exist as biological species, and your continued demonstration of using lower case “h” instead of capitalised “H” in Homo, clearly indicated you are not biologist.

So this “homo omnisciencis” must have cultural or societal historical significance, and yet I could find no one using “homo omnisciencis” except you. So there is no history definition for the word.

Why is why I think you are nothing more than a New Age quack, spinning some homemade conspiracy theory.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with the translations Pyramid Texts, but only you consistently say that no one can read or understand the “Ancient Language” Old Kingdom hieroglyphs.

But you are such a hypocrite, cladking. You, yourself, cannot read Egyptian hieroglyphs, let alone translate them, and yet you have quoted some English translations of PT in your posts.

If you seriously think NO-ONE can understand the “Ancient Language”, then why is it, that even bother quoting the translation in the first place?

You say no one can translate hieroglyphs into English, and yet you use a translation, to make your points that meet your agenda.

Do you not see the double standard here?

 

[cladking]

If you seriously think NO-ONE can understand the “Ancient Language”, then why is it, that even bother quoting the translation in the first place?

It's not that no one knows how to translate it, it's that it's IMPOSSIBLE TO TRANSLATE and no one will ever translate it.

[isthisthingon]Until someone actually uses author intent to interpret it into a modern language all we can do is interpret the translations. This isn't hard because when they said "bring me the boat that flies up and alights" what they really meant was "literally bring me the literal boat that literally flies up and literally alights". This pattern of speaking literally is literally maintained throughout the PT so you don't really need to know how to translate or interpret. It doesn't matter it can't and never will be translated because ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS READ IT. [/isthisthingon]

It's just like Egyptologists never bothered to read their own translations or that they have very poor reading comprehension. I think I've said all this a few times (to you) in this very thread.

These are not difficult concepts. Please address them. I am trying to show the literal meaning is internally consistent and consistent with reality but we aren't making it far.

 

[cladking]

There are disagreements among Egyptologists on how the pyramids were built, but not all Egyptology focused on the engineering of pyramid building.

Egyptologists are linguists, not scientists. They don't care how the pyramids were built (with ramps). If they were scientists or engineers would they have waited a century to do infrared testing and then refused to release the results just because the results put the lie to Egyptology?

 

[gnostic]

Ancient Language HAD NO WORDS FOR "THOUGHT" AND NO WORDS FOR "BELIEF".

If the Ancient Language you are talking about is the Egyptian language, then I am afraid that you are being utterly ignorant.

The words “thought” or “belief” don’t have to appear in the Old Kingdom Pyramid Texts, to have “thought” or “belief”, or to have a religion.

If you read the Epic of Gilgamesh or Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, not once any of these texts contained the word “belief” or “religion”, and yet they clearly did have a religion and they did believe in their gods.

You are being ridiculous, especially when you consider that many of the gods do appear in the Pyramid Texts, as well as in the Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts and New Kingdom Book of the Dead, as well as many extant papyri of non-funerary nature.

The brief creation story that appeared in Pyramid Texts with Atum, Ra and others, also appeared in the Coffin Texts and in the New Kingdom papyrus 10,188, which is kept at the British Museum, Book of Overthrowing Apep, the Enemy of Ra, The Enemy of Un-Nefer”.

In this 19th or 20th dynasty papyrus, the first part contained similar creation as that of OK PT, except Ra is Atum in the later text, both were worshipped as sun god and creator god from Iunu (Heliopolis), since the 3rd dynasty.

The rest of the papyrus contained Ra manning his Night Barque to battle Apophis (Apep) each night, before emerging victorious at the end, then start on his new journey onboard the Solar Barque, as the sun.

For the Heliopolitian creation story to exist in this papyrus, and in earlier sources such as the Coffin Texts and even older in the Pyramid Texts, does evidently that the Old Kingdom Egyptians did have a religion, regardless if they don’t use the words “belief” and “religion”.

To say there were no religion and no belief, is just you, trying to rewrite history in your conspiracy theory way.