Science cannot solve the final mystery

[Dan From Smithville]

This is what I'm up against. The term "ancient science" doesn't even appear in the post you quote.

I can't elaborate on, defend, or explain something I never said.

Perhaps you are referring to my claim (in other posts) that ancient science exists and language is its metaphysics. How am I supposed to know? If this is it you'll need a specific question or argument. How about them Bears?

Baylor Bears, Chicago Bears or that song by Zebra?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just more conspiracy theory, strawman argument and things about Egyptology which have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Plus Egyptology was never “science”, and you debunking ramps have nothing to do with science.

All you are doing is changing the subject, and making the topic about you and your new age woo.

He really doesn't like Egyptology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Except, apparently the only person on Earth who knows what going on with this Ancient Science conspiracy theory, is cladking.

It would seem so.

I used to talk to another person on a different forum and this person would continually talk about something referred to as SCPID theory in intelligent design. S=Systems, C=Cycles, P=Patterns and ID was intelligent design. This person would discuss it like there were volumes of material written on the subject and it was some view held by a large number of proponents. I searched using that term and variations of it and they all lead back to the same poster. I just finished another quick check with Google and found some postings on a blog from 2013, but reading through those, I am certain it is the same poster I talked to on the other forum. It would not surprise me that similar searches would reveal that cladking is the primary and perhaps only source of his claims on the web as well.

 

[cladking]

You must have missed it, because here it is.

See. Right there in bold.

Jeesh. You're right.

I merely meant that with a metaphysical scientific language where words are representative rather than symbolic that related words will share the same roots. For instance the word we translate as "heaven" was actually the height of the water pressure that built the pyramids; 81' 3". It was the word "3b3w". By adding a ".t" to the word it became feminine and the origin of the power (sekhmet) required to lift stones straight up the side; "3b3w.t". Here's where it gets interesting. The feminine concept of 81' 3" is the depth of the water at this height of "heaven". Since this is a natural process rather than merely a measurement "3b3w.t" becomes a God and since it's feminine the "Goddess"; we mistakenly believe is "Kebehwet". This makes what Egyptology calls a "god" to in fact be "the pressure of water at 81' 3" expressed in cubits of water".

The confusion is quite extreme but the words that were taken from Ancient Language still can have numerous similarities. This happens in most if not all modern languages I believe.

Egyptology has left me hanging all these years. I have given them numerous means to falsify my theories and the one time they tried it there was total support for my theory but they refuse to release the results and they refuse to allow Egyptological peers to consider it! It's hard to fathom why the general public and scientific establishment allow one man (Zahi Hawass) to ride rough shod over the truth. It's hard to fathom why the Egyptian government allows Egyptology sole discretion in the engineering questions related to these structures and artefacts. It's hard to imagine why there is no outcry that Egyptology refuses to do basic testing. I have lots of respect for Egyptologists but I no longer have much for the field.

 

[gnostic]

He really doesn't like Egyptology.

No he doesn’t.

The problem here, is that he is identifying Egyptology with science.

Egyptology don’t require science, to become Egyptologists.

EGYPTOLOGY noun

the study of the language, history and culture of ancient Egypt.

You don’t need a science or engineering degree to become an Egyptologist.

But cladking doesn’t understand that, largely because he refused to agree upon common definitions for the term science. He like to redefine every words he used in his own way, which only causes confusion.

The very confusion he is ranting against. And yet he is the one causing the confusion with his bloody word game.

This topic isn’t about ancient Egypt and Egyptology, yet he keep hijacking this thread, and trying to turn it into anti-Egyptology and about him.

 

[charlie sc]

Most people have no clue what I'm on about.

Oh, yeah, who does have a clue what you're on about?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Jeesh. You're right.

I merely meant that with a metaphysical scientific language where words are representative rather than symbolic that related words will share the same roots. For instance the word we translate as "heaven" was actually the height of the water pressure that built the pyramids; 81' 3". It was the word "3b3w". By adding a ".t" to the word it became feminine and the origin of the power (sekhmet) required to lift stones straight up the side; "3b3w.t". Here's where it gets interesting. The feminine concept of 81' 3" is the depth of the water at this height of "heaven". Since this is a natural process rather than merely a measurement "3b3w.t" becomes a God and since it's feminine the "Goddess"; we mistakenly believe is "Kebehwet". This makes what Egyptology calls a "god" to in fact be "the pressure of water at 81' 3" expressed in cubits of water".

Metaphysics is philosophy, not science. Symbolic and representative mean more or less the same thing. Pressure is not expressed as a volume. Pressure is force over surface area. I have no idea what you are talking about regarding most of the rest of this.

The confusion is quite extreme but the words that were taken from Ancient Language still can have numerous similarities. This happens in most if not all modern languages I believe.

Again, I know of no language referred to as "Ancient Language", however there are many ancient languages. What you intend here is beyond my reckoning.

Egyptology has left me hanging all these years. I have given them numerous means to falsify my theories and the one time they tried it there was total support for my theory but they refuse to release the results and they refuse to allow Egyptological peers to consider it! It's hard to fathom why the general public and scientific establishment allow one man (Zahi Hawass) to ride rough shod over the truth. It's hard to fathom why the Egyptian government allows Egyptology sole discretion in the engineering questions related to these structures and artefacts. It's hard to imagine why there is no outcry that Egyptology refuses to do basic testing. I have lots of respect for Egyptologists but I no longer have much for the field.

You have published hypotheses about Egyptian history and tests of them? This all sounds like conspiracy theory fantasizing. I literally have no idea what you are criticizing, supporting or trying to explain in any of this.

 

[cladking]

Oh, yeah, who does have a clue what you're on about?

You might be surprised how many people take the various aspects of the theory seriously.

One of the problems is that most people with two brain cells to rub together is some kind of specialist now days. Most specialist simply don't feel competent to judge anything outside of their own focus.

The only area I get very little support is with the concept of metaphysical language. A few people in neurology or psychology see the logic as well as a few "philosophers" but few have more than a passing interest. You might be interested to know that several Egyptologists find my interpretations of the Pyramid Texts to be of interest. I think it's the concept that the PT has a coherent and literal meaning that says the pyramid is the king and that there is no contradiction in the "cultural context".

There are more individuals than you might think who have a good overall understanding of what I'm saying but to my knowledge no one accepts it. I believe many people are just sitting back waiting for Egyptology to address the facts, logic, arguments, and predictions. Egyptology is trying to ignore me because they have lost each engagement.

But the topic is still how do we get to the answers from here and I still maintain the road leads through the evidence that survives from ancient time. There will be other ways in the future but for now the options are far more limited. Eventually we'll understand much more about consciousness but without a new perspective it might take many centuries where the path through Ancient Language takes decades.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No he doesn’t.

The problem here, is that he is identifying Egyptology with science.

Egyptology don’t require science, to become Egyptologists.



You don’t need a science or engineering degree to become an Egyptologist.

But cladking doesn’t understand that, largely because he refused to agree upon common definitions for the term science. He like to redefine every words he used in his own way, which only causes confusion.

The very confusion he is ranting against. And yet he is the one causing the confusion with his bloody word game.

This topic isn’t about ancient Egypt and Egyptology, yet he keep hijacking this thread, and trying to turn it into anti-Egyptology and about him.

I have regarded Egyptology as a branch of archaeology and I think in the US, that is how it is generally viewed. Though, I understand in Europe the study is viewed more as a branch of history.

He certainly does redefine words outside of their standard usage. Science is some sort of metaphysics. Genetic bottleneck has a meaning to him I do not really understand, but it is not the meaning of genetic bottleneck as it is defined in science. I have not accumulated an extensive list, but I know that he redefined pressure to be a measure of volume in his last post.

His posts are very confusing. He seems to think he has demonstrated something. All I can say is that what he has demonstrated is not what he believes he has demonstrated and clearly not what he feels he intended to demonstrate.

 

[charlie sc]

You might be surprised how many people take the various aspects of the theory seriously.

One of the problems is that most people with two brain cells to rub together is some kind of specialist now days. Most specialist simply don't feel competent to judge anything outside of their own focus.

The only area I get very little support is with the concept of metaphysical language. A few people in neurology or psychology see the logic as well as a few "philosophers" but few have more than a passing interest. You might be interested to know that several Egyptologists find my interpretations of the Pyramid Texts to be of interest. I think it's the concept that the PT has a coherent and literal meaning that says the pyramid is the king and that there is no contradiction in the "cultural context".

There are more individuals than you might think who have a good overall understanding of what I'm saying but to my knowledge no one accepts it. I believe many people are just sitting back waiting for Egyptology to address the facts, logic, arguments, and predictions. Egyptology is trying to ignore me because they have lost each engagement.

But the topic is still how do we get to the answers from here and I still maintain the road leads through the evidence that survives from ancient time. There will be other ways in the future but for now the options are far more limited. Eventually we'll understand much more about consciousness but without a new perspective it might take many centuries where the path through Ancient Language takes decades.

Ahhh, I get it. Egyptologists are the one's being mocked. The metaphysical inclined are the very few who understand what you're saying?

 

[cladking]

Pressure is not expressed as a volume.

No. Cubits of water can be directly converted to inches of mercury which is standard measure for pressure.

Metaphysics is philosophy, not science.

No. We are using the definition "basis of science".

Again, I know of no language referred to as "Ancient Language", however there are many ancient languages.

Prove it. Show evidence to support it.

Are you seriously proposing that a book of incantation is sufficient to prove we understand Egyptian? Is a story that sounds like magic full of lost words sufficient to prove we understand Sumerian?

Are you aware there is a growing chorus of educated people who are saying we wholly misunderstand ALL ancient languages. Surely this suggests they might be the same language just as a few ancient sources say.

This all sounds like conspiracy theory fantasizing.

Utter nonsense. The word "conspiracy" has several definitions but none of them apply to anything I'm saying, thinking, or suggesting. You are merely parroting what another poster has said who won't support his highly vacuous claim.

Symbolic and representative mean more or less the same thing.

Perhaps I used these words for the DIFFERENCES between them rather than the similarities. To us "water" is just a word. It was thrown on Helen Keller to teach her the meaning of the sign (symbol) for water. To ancient people "water" was something cold and wet than made things slippery and served this purpose in a sentence. It made things in the sentence "wet" when it was the subject and made one look for something wet when it was of predicate. The easiest way to learn Ancient Language is to forget deconstructing sentences and look for the literal meaning.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ahhh, I get it. Egyptologists are the one's being mocked. The metaphysical inclined are the very few who understand what you're saying?

You have to be in fight club to understand and talk about fight club.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. Cubits of water can be directly converted to inches of mercury which is standard measure for pressure.

You have me there. Still, where you wondered with all that has no meaning I can discern.

No. We are using the definition "basis of science".

Come again? Historically, philosophy formed the basis of science and science retains aspects of that history, but it has moved to a point that it can survive independently. Metaphysics is philosophy. It is not science.

Prove it. Show evidence to support it.

Prove I know of no language called "Ancient Language"? Easy. I do not know of any language called "Ancient Language". Done.

Now you provide evidence that there is something called "Ancient Language". Don't worry about doing it. I am not interested in going on another ride to no where. I just wanted to remind you that it is your burden of proof. Not mine.

Are you seriously proposing that a book of incantation is sufficient to prove we understand Egyptian? Is a story that sounds like magic full of lost words sufficient to prove we understand Sumerian?

I am not proposing anything. I am saying that I have no idea what it is that you are proposing, explaining, defending, supporting, or concluding. Person after person here says more or less the same thing. Yet, your conclusion is that it is not you, it is us. We are simply too ignorant to understand what you are talking about. This is true whether what you claim has any substance or not.

Are you aware there is a growing chorus of educated people who are saying we wholly misunderstand ALL ancient languages. Surely this suggests they might be the same language just as a few ancient sources say.

Misunderstanding ancient languages is not inventing one that does not exist and then building an entire narrative around it as if it does exist. This smacks of equivocation. If there is a change in attitude about the understanding of language all the things you claim are then true. This does not follow and nothing you have presented would take us there.

Utter nonsense. The word "conspiracy" has several definitions but none of them apply to anything I'm saying, thinking, or suggesting. You are merely parroting what another poster has said who won't support his highly vacuous claim.

I think it is spot on. I may be saying what someone else has said, but I arrived at it independently.

Perhaps I used these words for the DIFFERENCES between them rather than the similarities. To us "water" is just a word. It was thrown on Helen Keller to teach her the meaning of the sign (symbol) for water. To ancient people "water" was something cold and wet than made things slippery and served this purpose in a sentence. It made things in the sentence "wet" when it was the subject and made one look for something wet when it was of predicate. The easiest way to learn Ancient Language is to forget deconstructing sentences and look for the literal meaning.

Water is a word that describes something that I know to be wet, of different temperatures, but often it feels cold to my touch, has substance and I can feel it, is clear, but can be cloudy and contain both suspended and dissolved matter and is a medium in which chemistry can take place. I doubt that the ancients had as expansive a vision of that word, but it would depend on which ancients and how ancient they were.

So now you are claiming that words have properties that are related to the object to which they represent. I know that words have connotations as well as definitions. The former seems to be what you mean.

Since I know of no language called "Ancient Language" and no one has provided any evidence that such a language exists, I see no way for me to learn it.

 

[cladking]

Yet, your conclusion is that it is not you, it is us. We are simply too ignorant to understand what you are talking about. This is true whether what you claim has any substance or not.

No. If I can understand something then most other people can as well.

People have a lot of preconceptions that make it difficult.

Misunderstanding ancient languages is not inventing one that does not exist and then building an entire narrative around it as if it does exist.

Whether we understand the ancient writing or not it still had meaning to the individual who wrote it. It is this, author intent, that is supposed to be the goal of all translation.

I think it is spot on. I may be saying what someone else has said, but I arrived at it independently.

Then you should be able to state in exactly what "conspiracy" I believe. I wager you can't and you can't because I believe in NO CONSPIRACY.

So now you are claiming that words have properties that are related to the object to which they represent.

When words arise naturally such as in animals then "naturally" they have properties of what they represent. The monkey word for "tiger" might well be an approximation of the sound a monkey makes when caught by a tiger. I DON'T KNOW! Perhaps the word for "mother" is so similar in so many languages because of something natural like it being one of the first vocalizations of infants. If they thought like us mebbe we'd call babies "mims" instead of babies.

Since I know of no language called "Ancient Language" and no one has provided any evidence that such a language exists, I see no way for me to learn it.

That's very convenient for you. Understanding a language that says "bring me the boat that flies up and alights" when they really mean "literally bring me the literal boat that literally flies up and literally alights" might be too complex anyway so why bother trying?

 

[ecco]

You might be surprised how many people take the various aspects of the theory seriously.

I would be surprised if there were more than five. Can you name six?

There are more individuals than you might think who have a good overall understanding of what I'm saying but to my knowledge no one accepts it.

You really need to think about what you just stated.

IOW

• Some people understand what you are saying.
• The people who do understand what you are saying think your ideas are nonsense.

 

[cladking]

I would be surprised if there were more than five. Can you name six?



You really need to think about what you just stated.

IOW

• Some people understand what you are saying.
• The people who do understand what you are saying think your ideas are nonsense.

I didn't say that those (few) who understand it best believe it is nonsense. I said they don't accept it in its entirety.

You may not understand this but I don't believe I'm right across the board. There are very few things of which I am necessarily correct and the rest merely have confidence levels. Many of the things I "believe" I don't so much believe as merely believe they are probable. For instance I am 99.9% sure I am wrong about some of these things and only 70% sure I am generally correct. I'm not peddling religion here but rather trying to show a means by which we can (with a lot of work) find answers to a broader spectrum of more relevant questions.

Modern people have to unlearn natural language when we are babies in order to acquire modern language. We must convert a portion of our brain to translating for the speech center and learn how to build models of our beliefs and think in analog. To do all this we still use the ancient vocabulary because it never went away. We see "dumb" animals and the wonders we have created and it seems only natural that what appears to be true (that we are intelligent and superior) is true. Meanwhile even describing the nature of metaphysical language to people who are not experts is exceedingly complex. I certainly had never thought of even the concept of "metaphysical language" before the surprising discovery that this actually exists but only in the past and only in other life forms as their means for survival.

This was all far easier for me because I didn't share many of the beliefs of other people. I never believed science worked by magic or that religion was wrong about everything because it was believed in by many people. I never believed humans were distinctly different than other life forms in any way other than the complexity of our language. I never believed in "trial and error" as the basis of complex knowledge. If I'm right that these things don't exist it's not because I'm smarter, it's only that I believe in other things and constructed different models for understanding my world.

Animals don't think like us so we just got in the habit of believing they don't think at all. We simply assume they are not "conscious" at least in the human sense. Indeed, we are correct they aren't conscious in the human sense because we are what we believe and they are what they know. But this applies to ancient man equally; they were what they knew so they had no words that meant "thought" or "belief" or any of their synonyms. Egyptologists must know this by now and their lack of comment is just a form of "whistling past the graveyard" of their Look and See Science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't say that those (few) who understand it best believe it is nonsense. I said they don't accept it in its entirety.

You may not understand this but I don't believe I'm right across the board. There are very few things of which I am necessarily correct and the rest merely have confidence levels. Many of the things I "believe" I don't so much believe as merely believe they are probable. For instance I am 99.9% sure I am wrong about some of these things and only 70% sure I am generally correct. I'm not peddling religion here but rather trying to show a means by which we can (with a lot of work) find answers to a broader spectrum of more relevant questions.

Modern people have to unlearn natural language when we are babies in order to acquire modern language. We must convert a portion of our brain to translating for the speech center and learn how to build models of our beliefs and think in analog. To do all this we still use the ancient vocabulary because it never went away. We see "dumb" animals and the wonders we have created and it seems only natural that what appears to be true (that we are intelligent and superior) is true. Meanwhile even describing the nature of metaphysical language to people who are not experts is exceedingly complex. I certainly had never thought of even the concept of "metaphysical language" before the surprising discovery that this actually exists but only in the past and only in other life forms as their means for survival.

This was all far easier for me because I didn't share many of the beliefs of other people. I never believed science worked by magic or that religion was wrong about everything because it was believed in by many people. I never believed humans were distinctly different than other life forms in any way other than the complexity of our language. I never believed in "trial and error" as the basis of complex knowledge. If I'm right that these things don't exist it's not because I'm smarter, it's only that I believe in other things and constructed different models for understanding my world.

Animals don't think like us so we just got in the habit of believing they don't think at all. We simply assume they are not "conscious" at least in the human sense. Indeed, we are correct they aren't conscious in the human sense because we are what we believe and they are what they know. But this applies to ancient man equally; they were what they knew so they had no words that meant "thought" or "belief" or any of their synonyms. Egyptologists must know this by now and their lack of comment is just a form of "whistling past the graveyard" of their Look and See Science.

I get what you are saying, but there is a problem. It is subjective, not that it makes it wrong, but rather because I and other humans can do it differently than you, you run into the following problem. It is a fact that your understanding exist, but so do mine and you only find yours better, because it is better for you.
The problem is that you talk of a "we" that is not there. There is no universal, absolute, objective "we" in humanity and thus you overlook the subjectivity in your POW.

 

[cladking]

I get what you are saying, but there is a problem. It is subjective, not that it makes it wrong, but rather because I and other humans can do it differently than you, you run into the following problem. It is a fact that your understanding exist, but so do mine and you only find yours better, because it is better for you.
The problem is that you talk of a "we" that is not there. There is no universal, absolute, objective "we" in humanity and thus you overlook the subjectivity in your POW.

I believe your "we" doesn't exist exactly like "human beings" and "rabbits" don't exist. "Rabbits" are a product of language, not reality. Instead what exists are individuals which hop, bear live young, and mate with similar individuals with similar genes to reproduce. "Rabbit" is a construct just like your belief in something you call "humanity". Of course, "humans" are all very different and experience reality differently but no experiment has ever shown that more than one reality exists. The only differences are vantage, genetics, and beliefs. We all share a single reality but experience it differently.

I am not talking about our unique experiences. I am talking about reality and the fact that humans used to understand and share that reality through a common metaphysical language. Obviously this shared reality didn't coincide perfectly with the one actual reality but it was quite similar. I believe that understanding this metaphysical language would have very significant applications to our ability to understand modern science but to also formulate hypothesis and experiment that would propel science much faster. I believe that such understanding would lead directly to machine intelligence in relatively short order.

At the very least it will answer many practical questions like how the Egyptians could invent and build pyramids. NOT how they mightta or mustta done it but exactly how they REALLY did it. It would lead to a partial recovery (and in time a full recovery) of human pre-history.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe your "we" doesn't exist exactly like "human beings" and "rabbits" don't exist. "Rabbits" are a product of language, not reality. Instead what exists are individuals which hop, bear live young, and mate with similar individuals with similar genes to reproduce. "Rabbit" is a construct just like your belief in something you call "humanity". Of course, "humans" are all very different and experience reality differently but no experiment has ever shown that more than one reality exists. The only differences are vantage, genetics, and beliefs. We all share a single reality but experience it differently.

I am not talking about our unique experiences. I am talking about reality and the fact that humans used to understand and share that reality through a common metaphysical language. Obviously this shared reality didn't coincide perfectly with the one actual reality but it was quite similar. I believe that understanding this metaphysical language would have very significant applications to our ability to understand modern science but to also formulate hypothesis and experiment that would propel science much faster. I believe that such understanding would lead directly to machine intelligence in relatively short order.

At the very least it will answer many practical questions like how the Egyptians could invent and build pyramids. NOT how they mightta or mustta done it but exactly how they REALLY did it. It would lead to a partial recovery (and in time a full recovery) of human pre-history.

Okay, but if you can't translate that language into the language of today, it doesn't help you. Your problem in part is that you really on this language now to explain it doesn't work. So you have a huge work load in front of you.

 

[cladking]

Okay, but if you can't translate that language into the language of today, it doesn't help you. Your problem in part is that you really on this language now to explain it doesn't work. So you have a huge work load in front of you.

It is impossible to translate Ancient Language and always will be. Think of it this way; we can say anything we want whether it's right or wrong but scientific errors were impossible in Ancient Language. Obviously these languages (Ancient Language Vs all modern languages) are incompatible. It would be possible to make a flow chart or logic chart of Ancient Language in any modern language but it would not facilitate learning the language IMO.

But Ancient Language can be "interpreted" and I've already come to be able to interpret (understand) the majority (85%) of the little that survives.

Most of my work is behind me because most of the remaining 15% I don't understand will require more data to solve. I believe I know exactly where to get enough data to solve the entire PT and much more but Egyptologists literally don't care about data and information. They won't even consider known science (2015) in peer review.

All "translation" is about taking author intent and rendering it in another language. In this case it must be interpreted just like metaphor or other literary devices must be interpreted. For the main part poetry isn't translated because it loses its meaning when translated. AL can't be translated but it can be understood.