cladking

I agree. But we can't do the latter until we do the former. It merely proves that one species has sufficiently complex language, manual dexterity, and enough understanding to create a new thing of nature; a watch or a rear view mirror. Understanding the read out of any of our watches (since the sun dial) is probably too abstract for any animal to understand. But the cardinal might understand the mirror as well as most 15 year olds.

I would suggest that what we take as "self awareness" is merely a recognition of our own thinking. But all "thinking" is an abstraction based in language which is the means by which we acquire all our knowledge and the ability to think. For some unknown (to me) reason the cardinal appears to either be interested in her reflection or in streaking my car under the mirror with her waste. I seriously doubt she's "thinking" in any terms we would recognize. To understand her consciousness we must either learn the nature of consciousness or quit "thinking" in terms of self awareness or consciousness being something uniquely human. It is to be presumed cardinals have an exceedingly simple language based on their behavior. Yes, they have highly complex and "intelligent" behavior but they don't attend school or read books. They don't understand abstractions or form committees to study their problems. It seems there must be something far more fundamental to consciousness than self awareness; even more fundamental than thought or abstractions. I don't believe there is such a thing as "man made" so it follows that there is nothing in a cardinal's environment that isn't completely natural. If she weren't trying to torture my mirror there are a dozen other cars within less than half a mile. Perhaps she wants me to drive her somewhere but then this is one trick I haven't learned yet.

Until there is a definition for "consciousness" we will not be able to study it or even understand whether it must be "self-aware". Then this begs the question of what is self awareness. A cardinal has been flying into the rear view mirror of my parked car for days now. Does this mean she's self aware? Was the male cardinal conscious when it stabilized a hosta stem loaded with seeds while his mate gorged a few seasons back? Any definition of consciousness that excludes living things will prove a failure to its study. Any definition of "self awareness" that applies only to humans will have no usefulness except to humans and it will provide no knowledge of consciousness.

Yes. Two people engaging in different conversations is rare. The longest I ever heard was about twelve sentences. Usually it's just a very few sentences but neither notices. Hundreds of marines were killed in Normandy when their gear to scale the cliffs was insufficient for overhanging cliffs there was and is no standard means to depict these. Many times when people are supposed to meet at "midnight tuesday" they show up on different days because this is not defined. "Midnight occurs between two days and neither it nor noon is AM or PM. Nobody seems to notice these things until a walkway collapses with dozens of people and then nothing changes. Language is "confused". It works after a fashion for thought but not so well for communication.

This is really remarkably simple but difficult to see. Modern language always has an ephemeral meaning because words are defined. Not only does the specific intended definition have to be parsed from context but connotations can affect how the sentence is parsed. If this isn't problematic enough most people have unique definitions of many words and whether that unique definition belongs to the speaker or the parser is irrelevant and will affect meaning in ways neither the speaker nor listener can possibly predict. But here is where Wittenstein comes in; the way our brains process information and experience is driven by language so even our intended meaning as well As the taken meaning is dependent on language as much as author intent. The long and short of it is that every listener always takes a different meaning of every utterance. We assume these are merely shades of meaning but in actuality they can be polar opposites. But we don't notice this. Two people can actually have two different conversations and walk away thinking they had just communicated with someone where there was actually no communication whatsoever; no exchange of ideas or knowledge. This is all exceedingly important because among the problems of programmed thought is the belief that we are intelligent and that this "intelligence" can be imparted to machines if they merely have a sufficient number of diodes or processors. We can teach language to a machine and it might well mimic intelligence but it will still be susceptible to the same inability to accurately communicate or to consistently come up with a correct answer except in mathematical questions. This is because no modern language is logical and meaning must be relayed as tautologies to have a fair chance at correct interpretation. There are simple steps that can be taken to mitigate or eliminate all these problems but they are not recognized so their is no will to do so. The message to the general should simply have said "attack at day break and I'll follow immediately, do not proceed without me". Generally a better solution is to limit the number of generals.

Here's one you probably haven't seen; My "theory" is that math is logic quantified and reality is logic manifest. The imperfect overlap creates rounding errors, constants, and a misapplication of mathematical principles and equations to a digital reality.

I once had a TV that I had needed to repair several times. Like so many such things it was highly "quirky' and required experience to even operate. When it went out "completely" the picture was replaced by two narrow horizontal lines across the center. The sound still worked so before I bought a new TV I would continue to use it once in a while for old movies or the like. One day an ad I had never seen before was on and before they said the phone number I knew what it was. It took me a while to figure out how I knew but if I looked at the bottom of the screen and quickly looked upward I'd get a pretty good image of the entire picture. So I got a piece of glass and flipped it up and down in front of the screen rapidly and it worked. I even motorized the glass for optimum viewing. I bought a new TV anyway.

It's always been assumed that there wasn't a single Ancient Language as is suggested in some ancient sources and necessary for my hypotheses about pyramid construction and why the evidence hasn't been seen despite it's ubiquitousness and vast array as to type. "Proto-indo-european" languages may well have all arisen from a single vocabulary that I call Ancient Language which like animal languages was representative, digital, and lacked abstractions. There is growing reason to believe our interpretations of the oldest writing is misinterpreted and mistranslated. There is growing evidence that there was a single global language with very few words. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230990-700-in-search-of-the-very-first-coded-symbols/ We don't so much experience "evidence" as we see what we expect to see. Ancient people simply didn't think like we do. "the second moment after he saw N (the dead king) , the second moment after he perceived N (the dead king)." The Pyramid Texts: The Pyramid Texts: 6. Mostly Serpent Charms, Utterances 226-243 (sacred-texts.com)

I heard an unsubstantiated report that a B17 flying in formation suddenly glowed and disintegrated. It was reported lost to enemy fire. I've watched for ball lightning under all sorts of conditions my entire life. Ironically I was only a few hundred yards away when a machine operator told me he had just seen what looked like a bright ball bounce off a metallic pile and then settle back and disappear.

Finally something on which we can agree. If I can say that.

There are numerous ways to "cheat" gravity. We can throw ourselves forward and using our legs to convert the momentum to lifting. Essentially we can use most of our muscles to lift ourselves rather than just those designed for the task. As you get older you find that such tricks are less a luxury and more a necessity. Where you were once able to leap to your feet from a prone position in one single movement you'll find that six or eight movements become needed. They say if you can get up in two or fewer movements you won't die for five years. It's been a long time though since I could do it in two. I don't believe there are "laws of physics" but I certainly believe a set amount of work is required to left weight and this amount is fixed. Efficiency can vary widely though no matter what means is employed.

I can not properly address these questions in someone else's thread. I have threads around in which I'd be happy to address them. So far as ancient technology; it is everywhere. They didn't invent agriculture based on Darwinian beliefs. They didn't use first year physics to calculate the ideal angle for "ramps". They made fantastic shapes like the tri lobed disc of Sabu by unknown means and for unknown reasons. While they had almost no words in their language most of the nouns (which all invention would need) have no known referent. It is hardly logical to assume they lacked sophistication and used primitive means when the artefacts are mostly mysterious. This goes many times over since most of the surviving artefacts are stone clearly implying objects made of more perishable materials are lost. Other than a few lines from Sumeria that Might be more hyperbole and fiction than reality there is no recorded history from prior to 2000 BC. All this missing writing about science, technology, and history are necessary to understanding ancient technology. Ancient technology may be only explicable in terms of ancient science and this does not survive. Instead we have mostly incomprehensible writing like the "book of the dead" from many centuries after the invention of writing, the advent of history, or the end of the era after which all these mysteries and artifacts arose. How did ancient people before written history exist? How did they survive and most importantly, how did they accumulate the knowledge which is clearly evident in archaeological excavations? This is the question here.

Yes!!! We are exceedingly arrogant. We see our beliefs preferentially to everything and mistake these beliefs for omniscience.

We are led by our beliefs and the beliefs that we are exactly like our ancestors has led us for centuries. It did not lead the inventors of modern science and it did not lead early scientists. If we are wrong then we are off the rails. I believe the subject of this thread is critically important to the continuation of the human race. Perhaps you think that because I refer to us as "homo omnisciencis" that I have no respect for us. Far from it! Our ability to survive (and eventually prosper) despite knowing everything shows a great deal of character and countless positive traits. YOU believe that the ability to survive is good genes and fitness but I do not. I believe that for us it is science and before science was invented it was ancient technology. I believe looking for the science that gave rise to this technology is a very important endeavor and I await Einy and The Greeks' interpretation of evidence. Just seeing what his focus is will be exceedingly interesting to me.

This is Einy and The Greeks thread so I'm not going to get into science based on logic and observation instead of experiment and observation. But the technology is everywhere. "Agriculture" was a very highly complex and multidisciplinary technology. They didn't cultivate a few crops or animals as non-human animals have but dozens of different types of plants and animals. They mined and refined metals and created alloys. They worked all sorts of stone with results that are impossible to duplicate today. They invented cities and built megaliths all over the world. Most of their accomplishments are unknown as to the means, metaphysics or science. Little survives from before 2000 BC because it has all rotted away so we can only imagine the technology that might be in evidence had it not. Ancient people all believed their ancestors were wise and powerful and that their science and technology had been lost. All that survived were crafts and those things that could be passed down father to son or journeyman to apprentice. If there were any science then there was necessarily metaphysics. It is impossible to know highly complex science simply by being expert or through observation, trial and error, or referral to authority.

No. No experiments because experimental science hadn't been invented yet. The Greeks were successful because they were free and were excellent observers. Yes, they obviously staged observations which is extremely similar to experiment but it misses the mark. Ancient people left numerous clues to how they invented their technology but we don't think as they did. They invented agriculture using a different kind of science that generated a different sort of technology. It is very difficult to see because all our assumptions are wrong and we can't think like they did. We are for all practical purposes a different species than homo sapiens. I call us homo omnisciencis because we are so different even though anatomical differences are slight. Seek the metaphysics and you can find the basis of the technology. I'm not sure of your meaning. I believe all knowledge is "good" and leads to "understanding" which allows "creation". Ancient science would just be another tool we might use; perhaps a very valuable tool. It should at the very least lead to a much better understanding of natural systems and the prediction of outcomes we cause. Sounds interesting. Nothing interests me more than finding ancient knowledge buried in ancient texts or right in plain sight. It's funny how until a few centuries ago everyone believed ancient people were wise and powerful. Somehow they became stinky footed bumpkins today.

"Technology" today is an outgrowth of things seen in lab experiments. The Greeks had no experiments so any technology more complex than the observation that water runs downhill was unlikely for them. If you want to find ancient science you need to look for the source of ancient technology. Unfortunately all your sources appear to be corruptions of original writing so the science would be very difficult to see here. Any science you find will necessarily correspond to ancient technology and ancient knowledge, not to modern experimental science.

No. It's most probably not true. Newton studied the pyramids largely because he thought the builders knew the size of the earth (probably true) and he needed the data to test his theory of gravity. While he never found it he did ironically translate the Emerald Tablets of Hermes from Syriac to English. He was truly a remarkable man. He couldda moved heaven and earth if he had google. 😎

I can't defend the idea "intelligence" exists on earth but the word appears (per Mercer) in the oldest writing known to man; 1701a. To say: Nun has begotten N. on his left hand 1701b. a child; the intelligence of N. is not. 1701c. N. is freed from the evil gods; 1701d. N. is not given to the evil gods. https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt47.htm It appears twice in fact; 411a. N. is disgusted when he licks the emetics which are in the red crown, 411b. (but) he is delighted when their magic is in his belly. 411'c. The dignities of N. shall not be taken from him, 411d. (for) he has swallowed the intelligence of every god. 412a. The lifetime of N. is eternity, its limit is everlastingness While the text dates only to ~2400 BC it is believed by Egyptologists to have been composed many centuries earlier and might even pre-date writing. "Intelligence" may have meant something just a little different to the writers of this work and they certainly used the word "heart" in many instances we'd use the word "head". Some individuals simply think a great deal faster than others and some are more adept at coming up with useful ideas. I should think even animals display and note differences in the speed and importance (accuracy) of "thought".

I don't rebut that. My point is that we don't know everything about anything. This leaves open the possibility that our ignorance is far broader and deeper than anyone can imagine. Even a butterfly can use hot air rising from a fire to gain altitude but that hardly means he "understands" any kind of scientific theory whatsoever. Yes. Additionally to not being able to predict the future due to chaos and subtle effects we obviously don't even know all the fundamental "laws" which govern any event.

To quantify an "event" and then predict what are its effects it is necessary to quantify every effect of that event including the trajectory of each subatomic particle.

Thank you for taking the time to explain that but you lost me early. By "not being able to quantify anything at all" I merely meant that no event can occur in which all variables will ever be quantifiable. We quantify conditions or possibilities using as much knowledge as we can. But words and thought are much more events than conditions. Good luck in your work.

If I understand you correctly (I'm not at all sure) then our positions are not so very different. In light in the fact that we essentially exist as individuals by virtue of our ability to recognize patterns then how could it be possible to not have philosophy? So long as we use words to think how could it ever be possible to quantify words? Our primary agreement I think is that we see the quantifiable as the basis of reality but, then I don't believe we'll ever have enough knowledge to quantify anything at all.

I'm a big fan of science as well. It is the chief means by which we can arrive at true knowledge; visceral knowledge. Any philosophy that denies free will or the life, liberty, and happiness.In practice there are always trade-offs but this is politics, not philosophy. Only individuals think or come up with new ideas. Only when an idea becomes theory can it benefit science or people. Of course we do! If our models were identical we'd come to the same conclusions and make the same predictions. There are even sexual differences such as women tending to navigate by landmarks and men routes. Many scientists believe philosophy is irrelevant (different models). Yes, we explore roots and meaning but most of this exploration is really uncovering language. A perspective from outside of language can not be found easily. Even when we look at something from a new angle or step outside the box we take language with us. In very real ways "I think therefore I am" is the root of science but thought as we know it doesn't exist outside of language. Seen from this angle philosophy becomes navel gazing and science just so much lint. I'm surprised you'd dispute the idea that scientists believe in laws of nature. Logic is logic. It behaves no laws per se but rather just is. Math is the same thing but is quantized rather than manifested logic.

"History warns us that it is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions" I am not suggesting that real science is wrong about everything or anything. I am merely saying that science looks at everything from the same perspective which is reductionistic and dependent on definitions and axioms. Since all ideas and all progress are individual it is also dependent on models and language for all practical purposes. Just because 2 + 2 = 2 x 2 does not make our models correct or like one another. Each of us has a unique model and each of us sees the interrelatedness of scientific and mathematical knowledge but this can't make any of us correct about anything either. Philosophy falls by the wayside because everyone's understanding is solid, so who needs mere words to ruin the wonderful symmetry found in nature? Of course the problem is we have no roots in anything except beliefs, language, and ephemeral definitions and meaning of language. We have no roots except our models constructed from our interpretation of the reality disclosed by proper experiment. "Philosophy" becomes irrelevant when our understanding is complete. I am saying that philosophy could contain a broader perspective if it had a vocabulary with fixed definitions but mostly I am saying that any philosophy that marginalizes individuals is evil.