cladking

I agree somewhat with the contention. It seems most individuals who think about such things do think about the nature of thought and consciousness from a fairly young age but I doubt if this applies broadly. It might mean more that thinking about how we think leads to an interest in philosophy in same cases rather than that they are equivalents. There's also a tendency for such things to run in families so children get exposed to it at younger ages. In other words I suspect a high correlation does exist but it might have relatively little to do with innate characteristics. People often get interested in things in later life or young adulthood that didn't previously appeal to them.

I think you're pretty close to the problem; the status quo. A hundred or two hundred years ago there was a reason for inefficiency and waste but technology has reduced the need for waste. In the past the total amount of waste was more limited because there was far less ability to use resources. Now we have huge machines that can rip vast amounts of valuable material from the earth and ship them almost straight to landfill. It is this flow that powers the modern economy and our leaders are afraid to tinker with it. Instead they make token gestures to increase efficiency or waste more resources for the "good" of people. If we don't have fusion power within the next decade or two there will be an horrendous population decrease caused by all this waste. Our great grandchildren might survive largely by picking through our garbage dumps.

You have several unsupported ideas here if I understand you correctly. But most notable is that in reality health, strenght,and intelligence tend to be strongly positively correlated. It is only through specialization that some traits are forfeited in favor of others. Specialization affects individuals rather than groups. There is some "unnatural" selection that occurs such as Napolean putting the tallest troops on the front lines but height and intelligence are not very closely correlated. Indeed, most unnatural selection is of traits not closely allied with intelligence. If man hasn't actually devolved in terms of intelligence as I believe it is only because women tend to select mates who are more intelligent than they.

Most animals have language. Indeed, it's possible all animals have language as well as some plants. We can't figure out animal language as easily as they learn ours but we have made some inroads into prairie dog language; http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/researcher-decodes-praire-dog-language-discovers-theyve-been-calling-people-fat.html

Individuals can exceed their programming through effort but it's very unlikely that a species can. If some individuals were compounding learning from one generation to the next giving rise to advancements like agriculture then it would benefit all individuals of that species and not necessarily confer a survival advantage. Individuals who were most successful might have larger families or more off-spring but this wouldn't make others smarter or more able to communicate.

Your idea is interesting. I have some reservations but perhaps it can even tie in with my idea. Again though I believe the evidence well supports the concept that the primary difference between humans and other animals is that humans have complex language. The lack of such complexity in animal languages suggests more that they don't have the capacity to generate or understand it. If by some means an individual fish suddely became capable of speech it probably would confer no survival advantage and it would be bred out of the population. But in humans when an individual was born with a super sized speech center it gave him the ability to more easily communicate with others which was an everyday practical advantage. Some of his children were born with this same ability and language was invented. By the time his grandchildren were born there was already a huge evolutionary advantage since learning was already accumulating. Soon the speakers controled and owned the entire gene pool. The concept that humans are "intelligent" is merely a confusion caused by modern language which arose only ~4000 years ago.

I believe we completely misapprehend the nature of intelligence and language. We miss some of the most important aspects of science. We misunderstand other animals and ancient people. The nature of humanity mostly eludes us. There's barely such a thing as intelligence at all and what does exist is much more evenly spread among people and god's creatures than most imagine. It's not intelligence that appears to make people so unique but rather it is language. But it is not only that complex language makes us unique but that the nature of the language we now use is unique among animals where humans once spoke a human animal language. It is language which which allows us to build on the work of previous generations and generates tremendous knowledge which fills our minds and is retrievable at whim. We seek to understand nature but usually can't see the incredible complexity of what we study because of the terms in which we think. We can watch a pan of boiling spaghetti and would never try to predict the various interweavings and where the next wisp of vapor will arise. We don't consider the various molecules in the water and steam or their collisions nor try to consider the differences from one piece of spaghetti to the next or the possible differences in one molecule to the next. We can safely predict it will be done in ten minutes but wouldn't consider predicting which noodle will be on top or which cell of our body an inhaled water molecule will occupy. Even in nature's simplest events there is complexity beyond description and far beyond our understanding. All of nature's laws might be simple but the interactions are impossibly and infinitely complex. The human "animal" which preceded human beings must have been very similar just as the animal that laid the first chicken (egg) must have been very similar to it. But if the difference between humans and the animal that gave rise to us is nothing but language as is apparent in the very definition of human as seen in this light then the likely change was simply the ability to communicate using complex language. All animals have some language so it should follow that the human ancestor had a language as well. Whatever gave rise to complex language affected a spoecies that already had basic communication skills. It is my contention thart this was a simple mutation in the human speech center and the first complex language was an elaboration on our natural animal language. Learning immediately began being passed down and human progress was begun. Obviously we were already a little more clever than most other animals since we took tool making and fire to new levels but it was language that began the race. This language didn't make us more intelligent but merely gave the species the ability to build on the work of individuals. This already existed in other species which manipulated the enviroment and used tools but with complex language and progress we took it to a new level. I bel;ieve these animal languages are all metaphysical in nature. They mimic observation and grammar mimics nature. Most learning was derived from observation and logic and this fit naturally into the way animals think. Humans were no different for tens of thousands of years. They built up an extensive science with language as its metaphysics but this language became increasingly complex especially with the invention of writing and within a 1000 years it collapsed and gave rise to modern language which has almost no restritions in phraseology. The ancient science was lost but its technology survived passed down father to son and its applied science was preserved as religion. Many aspects survive but the science itself was lost and must be redeveloped. Modern humans are likely less intelligent than our ancestors but this is difficult to determine and based largely on logic and anecdotal evidence. Ancient phraseology could be incredibly complex implying the average man could follow. Complexity of a language is not determined solely by the number of words but by the "grammar" as well. Look at computer languages and how very few words can generate extremely complex programming. The ancient language had few words but they could express almost any thought if you could figure out how to phrase it. Modern science, metaphysics, and language are far removed from what once was taken for granted but none of the truly important things ever really change. It will always take a set lenght of time to cook noodles and science will ultimately depend on observation and our ability to apply it to nature and our machines.

At least my "theory" addresses a few of the specific questions asked that are otherwise virtually unanswerable by orthodox theories. By counting the number of words in ancient text and extrapolation it's hardly difficult to make meaningful estimates of the number of words. I did point out that my work does not agree with mainstream belief. Of course, I don't see any "racism" either. I'm not necessarily supporting any idea about naval battles but each modern language has numerous differences, and hence, advantages and disadvantages to every other one.

There are no real answers to your questions but my theory is that humans had a natural animal language that went back some quarter million years. It was composed of sounds and words that were natural to humans and probably had a vocabulary of between 200 and 2000 "words". Babies may have always been born capable of using this language but are not sufficiently proficient to even know it. Sometime around 40,000 years ago a mutation occured which allowed an individual greatly enhanced ability to use and understand language. He was only parly successful at teaching this to others since they lacked the mutation. But it bred true and the new language speakers had a huge evolutionary advantage on their animal cousins because they could pass down knowledge and learning from one generation to the next. This language fascilitated thought and the results became the massive wealth of knowledge in their "unconscious minds". I believe this language was very much distinct from modern language because it was just an "animal language on steroids". It expressed meaning through context rather than the words taking their meaning from context as modern languages do. Context was expressed though the usage of scientific, colloquial, and vulgar term. All knowledge was incorporated into the language as new branches of knowledge were born. Hence in a very real way this language was metaphysics. It was the understanding of science. Apparently this language (there were numerous dialects) had 20,000 to 30,000 words. It became overly complex and modern language was born and the old language forgotten. Modern language has some 100,000 words used "frequently" and another 150,000 extremely esoteric and precise words. An older thread on the subject; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78437-ancient-beliefs-and-evolution/ It was pyramid building that gave rise to my theory; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78598-pyramids-through-the-eyes-of-the-builders/

There may be some apples and oranges being argued here. Our science is based on observation and experiment. There's been a lot of "fudging" in the last century but "science" has been turning out some crackpot ideas for a century as well. I believe there are at least two sciences and one is based on observation and logic. Of course anyone trying to use such a science today will be employing a lot of data and facts learned from experimental science and confounding results. Perhaps, science is actually taylor made for each user already and it's not apparent. We use careful scientific terminology to communicate ideas and results but I doubt any of us are so careful in the use of such terminology to think, form hypothesis, or even analyze experimental results. Each individual will have his own understanding of words. This isn't to cast doubt of the results of scientific experimentation; merely the purity of the process.

I believe this points to the greatest invention. Like math I consider language a discovery as well. It required the ability to form and understand ideas and a logical system of language might have required some intelligence as well but all these processes are more similar to discovery than invention. In this light I consider Writing to be the greatest invention since it allowed a single teacher to have numerous students even long after his death. Certainly agriculture was of supreme importance and more complicated than language. in terms of the ability of the human race to thrive and increase population agriculture might be the most important invention unless the internet beat it. But in terms of the ability of the human race to progress and learn writing is number one and the printing press that made it ubiquitous was number two.

I was just thinking about a similar question yesterday. It's a safe bet that the lack of time travellers is indicative of the impossibility of time travel (at least backward). But why aren't there aliens everywhere? Perhaps there used to be aliens but at a given point the powers that be forbid interference in primitive cultures. Perhaps it's much simpler and faster than light travel is impossible. Of course it should be mentioned that we are familiar with only a single planet teeming with life and there's no intelligent life on it. Maybe there's no intelligent life in the cosmos either. Maybe intelligence and life are as oxymoronic as intelligence and military. Perhaps it's this that is the impossibility. Maybe we'll build true intelligence and discover why there are no alien stumble bums or death stars.

There's a great deal we don't know about these structures and how they were built. There hasn't even been infrared imaging done on them yet. Even if we had run all the scientific tests and measurements possible a great deal of material has been removed from the Great Pyramid over the millinea. It is within the realm of possibility that it could have acted as a sort of leyden jar collecting a charge from the atmosphere or collecting lightning. Some people have suggested that it could draw it from the earth etc. Utterance #261 (PT) appears to speak of nerve impulses, lightning,and conductance all in a brief paragraph that is merely a ritual. Since they performed brain surgery we have to believe that they knew there was something moving in a conductor. This isn't enough information to make a conclusion in the absence of better evidence which is lacking. Remember though that anything of value would have been stripped out as soon as it wasn't needed any longer and anything else would be removed by treasure seekers, looters, tourists, and those trying to understand the nature of the pyramid. These structures are in ruins on the most heavily disturbed site on the planet and this disturbance continues today. http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

I'm not supporting this theory so much as just trying to point out that it's not impossible with the level of knowledge they could have had. It wouldn't be neccesary to produce or store electricity if they could convert natural electricity to hydogen and then store it in the numerous caverns, caves and man made tunnels in the region.

No, this would be known. There just isn't enough contamination (other than natural contamination) to have any significant effect. Most of this melting ice some people are so fearful of is ancient ice anyway and wouldn't be contaminated by man. It's quite possible a lot of ice is being coated with soot and other colored particulate matter which absorbs heat and speeds melting but this also would be known and the effects of dimished reflectivity of heat to space caused by this would be known. The bottom line is this is all far more complicated than any human can comprehend so it's all modeled by computers and the computers have been wrong for a decade now. Computer modeling barely even works for things that are simple and most variables are known such as traffic management. To expect it to work for long range weather prediction smacks more of political correctness than science. We are performing an experiment on the planet and we won't really know the answers even when all the facts are in. Maybe we'll have a warmer planet or maybe an ice age but whatever happens we won't likely understand why. My money's on ice age, frankly (if there's any effect at all).

Indeed. Each of these pyramids is also associated with cenotes (water source) adjacent to it or other water collection devices. The Acapana Pyramid even has water tanks and weirs at the top. There's no real doubt that the Egyptian pyramids had water by some means since there is evidence for water everywhere and they sit on top of glass smooth water collection system that could only have been buit using water for level and for the purpose of collecting and channeling water. The first great pyramid is surrounded by a moat that could be filled by an overflow within the water collection device that was just below the height of the dam that surrounded it. The workmen's village that was used to build The Great Pyramid had a water system despite the fact it was above the highest level of high Nile. I like that word "hydroarchaeology". It's very likely most of the megalithic sites are intimately and fundamentally related to water, its control, and used its weight for construction. I don't know how this has been missed. Actually I could put together quite of bit of evidence for this. There are historical accounts that some pyramids were topped in metal and there are "electrodes" hanging into the air shafts in the so called queens chamber. Behind two of these electrodes there is nothing but a small vacant region so it's something of a stretch to believe this was their function. The Egyptians were masters of drilling using copper tubes so a cunductor could exist within the stone from which the copper protrudes. Vistors have reported a static charge frequently exists atop the Great Pyramid. The Pyramid Texts has a few lines about electricity and one of these could easily be interpreted to suggest that lightning actually flowed through the dead king or the pyramid. I believe there are better fit hypotheses than that the pyramid was used to produce or store electricity but it would certainly be handy for cracking water for fuel and light if it could.

ROFL. Well he did find 10,000 things that didn't work (ya' couldda just asped him). That the pyramids were built as tombs is one of the best supported of the Egyptological assumptions but it has far less support than most people realize. There is no direct evidence of any sort that they were tombs. The Pyramid Texts consistently, repeatedly, and coherently say they were not tombs. It always comes down to the fact we can't comprehend the language so Egyptology dismisses the literal meaning implied in it. The best evidence they were tombs is the presence of a stone box in it which Egyptologists call a "sarcophagus". This box is larger than any entrance so had to have been sealed in as the pyramid was built. When it was apparently first opened inthe 12th century there was no "reported" body in it. Indeed, this seems typical for "sarcophogi" in pyramids (not mastabas). None of these have been found intact though sample size is very very small (three I believe). Most possible functions of these have been totally overlooked despite the fact that they did have some functions whether they were intended or not. For instance there was a covered "walkway" from the pyramid to the "valley temple" that could have transported significant amounts of cold air as air conditioning. These are eight sided structures since each side is actually slightly indented. This caused the pyramid to "eat its own shadow" (or flash) at sunset on the equinoxes. They are lined up with their south east corners to point at the setting sun on the winter solstice ("the way of twilight mounts up"). There appears to have been some sort of machine which operated in the "grand gallery" though this is much iffier. Jean Paul Houdin proposes a counterweight though I'm skeptical. This area is air tight so whatever was going on probably required this. I'd guess the pyramids were at least gnomens among other things and that they served to tell time in the river valley. There is extensive evidence that there was water on the plateau and that this water was integral to the construction and/ or operation of the pyramids. Until scientific enquiry is renewed on these sites after a more than quarter century of searching for gold and ramps, there is very little likelyhood of positively answering questions.

This gets into philosophy but I very much agree that to most individuals technology is virtually a god and science is religion. You can attach the word "science" to almost anything and the general public will accept it as established fact. We need to teach a lot more metaphysics and history of science in school.

I think there might be a lot more to being in tune with nature than our perception of its being just shorthand for "primitive". Modern people are so removed from nature that many don't even think of themselves as animals at all. We tend to think of ourselves more as "stewards of nature" than a part of it. The Egyptians, on the other hand, were animals and I believe they thought as animals. More importantly though is that I believe technology is almost solely a natural by-product of experimental science. We learn to isolate variables in the lab and simply extrapolate this to the real world as machines. I believe there was an observational science that was used by the Egyptians and they knew quite a bit about electricity. They simply couldn't extrapolate their knowledge very readily into technology because things like dynamos and steam engines don't exist in "nature". It's ironic that we think of things as "man made" rather than "natural". It's not my contention that any pyramid was designed as an ocillator or any sort of machine per se. However, until more is known it might not be a good idea to write off too much and it's never a good idea to misunderstand your ancestors. I don't so much disagree with your points as I just see them all from a wholly different perspective and from where I stand They could have had the knowledge even if they lacked the ability to handle steam. Many people might be interested to know that the pyramid was originally air tight in the chambers between 70' and 140' (+). This would have made it "steam tight" as well. Some believe the word "pyramid" came from the Greek and means "fire within". Again though, I believe it's improbable that this was the function of G1. It's more likely that the word "pyramid" came from the Egyptian "mr" meaning "instrument of ascension" and that they built themselves. Unfortunately no science has been employed in this study since 1986. Everyone is out of date.

It appears that either the ancient sources are untranslatable or they wrote things that don't make sense. The only things from before 2000 BC that make sense are lists (one word sentences). No papyrus survives and the writing that exists is chiseled in stone. There is no "cultural context" that would apply to questions like "what did they know?".

Consciousness and will must be considered as axioms. The alternative for the human race is extinction. Consciousness and free will are also experienced and become visceral knowledge.

I don't agree with Mr Chomsky on several particulars but do tend to agree with his conclusion(s). It's great to see him looking so healthy especially since until recently I had thought he died back in the 1960's. I strongly disagree with your extrapolation of the point, or perhaps, primarily with the definitions. Yes, new ideas in "science" in most cases need to be brought to the attention of scientists. Even if the new idea changes the axioms or definitions they are best analyzed by scientists rather than people in chat rooms. But, much of what we call "science" now days has very little rlationship to empirical data or experimentation. It has little to do with the scientific method and is more a construct based on assumption as viewed (ideally) through a scientific perspective. Certainly almost all archaeology concerning times from before 2000 BC falls under these parameters. There is a virtual vacuum of evidence so things that are known from later times are projected back to fill the void. There are endless assumptions that since later people were superstitious than the more ancient ones were as well. This applies to a greater or lesser extent to ALL of the "soft" sciences. They are necessarily founded on beliefs and assumptions and if any of these are challenged then the current practitioners are not even capable of rendering an opinion. An expert simply can't competently render an opinion on an idea outside of his axioms and assumptions. Strange ideas are forever cropping up in these quasi-scientific areanas and can last almost indefinitely with much of the reason being that outsiders don't realize how much is based on opinion and assumption. Experts are no idiots and have reasons for what they believe and most can "talk a good game". They can cite endless books of endless opinion to support their own opinion but they are still opinions based on a construct. You can't even get a new idea in front of them for peer review because it will be tossed out as nonsense. If your mind is made up then new evidence and new ideas are simply confusing. In my case I've contacted numerous real scientists for opinions on various subjects by eMail and by posts in forums. All of them have been answered with the lone exception of a question on a seldom used message board. It was a highly esoteric question and was probably seen by fewer than a dozen people. No Egyptologist has ever responded to one of my eMails and few of my posts are answered unless the responder believes the answer is detrimental to my theory. Actually, I believe some of the most important things to human beings are really questions that must be addressed by the soft "sciences" and that message boards and the internet might be the ONLY way to get them considered. I believe we don't even understand the nature of humanity and that this is much of the confusion. It's why people think planes can't take off from a moving surface or things fall faster than 32' /s/s. I might also point out that a significant amount of the real scientific opinion that has been given to me has been utter rubbish. They frequently contain factual errors that a student would note. This is the real scientists mind you. I don't want to be specific because I greatly value scientists who answer eMail even when they make errors. Everyone's a specialist and if you ask a question that doesn't fall squarely within the specialty there will be errors oftimes. Even when they fall within the specialty if it's a seldom studied phenomenon or only indirectly related to their current work it might be misunderstood or unknown. Most people are so wrapped up in their own expertise (which can be considerable) that they just don't notice. I can only imagine how much worse it is in the "sortta sciences" (and they won't even respond).

I'm sure we all know people whose greatest insights are along the line of remembering to breathe or which way to turn the steering wheel to go left. But even these people can come up with a pearl on rare occasion. It seems almost everyone has at least some minor competence in some area. Correct. There is some correlation of people with high status, great wealth or "intelligence" with arrogance but this doesn't mean that any of these cause arrogance. A priest might be holier than thou and a pauper wealthier than his neighbors but arrogance is always an attitude and way of dealing with other people. It isn't ever justified. One can be rich and evil or powerful and even stupider than average. Arrogance is simply a personality defect that almost all individuals are nearly equally "justified" in adopting. Few people have difficulty grasping my meaning. There is a problem with all communication because everyone deconstructs what he hears. Each person always takes away a different meaning than the intended one. The primary problem people have with what I say is they don't take it literally. Few people express themselves literally especially among those who use a lot of tautologies and absolute statements. I never "dumb it down" but do use more complicated phraseology on a science site than a bar. I didn't mean to imply such a thing (I don't intend to imply anything most of the time). "Intelligence" is exceedingly complicated and is composed of hundreds or thousands of attributes which each are interconnected. How can there be more than one norm? Every human is an individual animal and none can be any more "chosen" than a beaver or a termite. Our circumstances vary but not our nature. A genius can plow into another car while an idiot can come up with some improvement on some machine. The rich can be wiped out and the powerful fall from grace. Even a fool can win the lottery. I seriously doubt I'm truly relevant in a thread about genius or arrogance. The confusion individually and collectively is mostly language.

Einstein was most assuredly not arrogant. There's very little in this thread with which I agree. People are really stupid (at least in comparison to the typical self assesssment). All people have moments of great clarity and insight. We all have the ability to learn a great number of facts and hold them though accessing them tends to be far more difficult. Some individuals can string together lots of moments of clarity and can do it very quickly much of the time but this doesn't change their nature, they merely are called "geniuses". What we mistake for intelligence is mostly the ease of language use and learning. It is language, the very basis of most thought, which confuses us into believing we are intelligent. It is technology, the result of language, which we use as confirmation of our intelligence. It is the lack of a language we can comprehend that lead us to believe animals not only aren't intelligent but aren't even conscious. Arrogance has nothing to do with intelligence, strenght, wealth or any human attribute but is based on the belief that the individual self is better or more important than others. It is the belief that an individual is more important than other others individually and collectively. It is the belief that our needs and concerns must be kowtowed to regardless of other peoples' needs. It is very rarely based on any legitimate measure but is a personality defect. It is never appropriate.

True, except this doesn't work in all individuals. It's not my contention that the consciousness we experience is distinct from the rest of the body but quite the contrary; the mind and consciousness is the entire body. the relationship of this consciousness to the other consciousnesses in the body and the neurons of which they are primarily composed is exceedingly complex because of the interplay between all these parts and consciousnesses. Just because we aren't aware of a ganglion doesn't mean it isn't a part of our consciousness or that it lacks its own. Where we aren't conscious of such things there might still be a two way flow of information through the medula which can allow the mirror trick to work.Perhaps it works only if the sufferer can belief he's seeing the missing limb. The ganglia might respond by shutting down pain signals. The nervous systems are quite complex and not well understood. It's possible too that there is some other trigger. Pain perception is very poorly understood.