cladking

So far as I am aware there is no known means at this time to read behaviors such as dam building in the DNA of beavers. We say they are hard wired to this and there may well be some truth to this but it's unlikely that the first dam built by a beaver was "hard wired" into it. I'm not denying instinct by any means. I'm merely suggesting that any animal must have some basic understanding to function in unknown situations (other than fight or flight) and complicated behaviors must be learned after the understanding makes the behavior possible. Gunpowder burned rapidly and exploded if it was confined. Perhaps it was an accident caused by the explosion not being completely confined that led to the first rocket but the individual who saw and perfected it had to understand the theory behind it rto accomplish the task. Nothing has ever really changed. What sets man apart is the ability to pass down very complex learning not only through apprenticeship, oral tradition, and various forms of writing but also our relative dexterity and some simple cleverness. It's much too easy to overestimate human cleverness since most of what appears to cleverness is actually learning. There's no evidence other species have such complicated language as we do. Most appear to have no more than a few hundred words. Even if these are arranged in something like computer code the amount of information that can be passed and the complexity of the ideas must surely be rather limited. Perhaps there are other human characteristics that come into play as well but it seems most improbable that language isn't the primary source of our power. Human males have always had a need to impress the females for instance but this is probably not a strictly human characteristic. This is exactly the point though. The first thing a writing system would record is all the knowledge, oral tradition, and history that existed at the time writing was invented. This simply doesn't exist. To my knowledge there simply is no comprehensible writing between 3200 BC and 2000 BC. I know there is nothing Egyptian from this era other than what is said to be religious writing but none of it is comprehensible. Every book fronm before 2000 BC didn't survive. A few ancient works were transcribed early in the 2nd millineum BC but in each case these works are primarily lists. Most of the other surviving writing are titles and labels. Are we to believe the ancients wrote only one word sentences and religious mumbo jumbo? This is most highly improbable. It appears from the PT that the entire vocabulary might have consisted of about 15,000 words. This seems insufficient to express all the ideas we do today. Many words now are highly esoteric or archaic but most people use more words than this in everyday conversation. To me it always comes down to the same question; where is the ancient writing and evidence for their extensive theory. I'm not certain I see the connection. I'm not certain I'm even impressed by most modern communication outside of math and science. It seem most communication is clumsy at best. It seems a miracle anytime two people are on the same subject and doubly so when I'm one of them.

Well... ...I suppose in the lounge there's less need to stick exactly to the original topic so I'll respond to this. The only nature of the pyramid that is really made up is the assumptions that the builders were too superstitious to use any means to lift stones to build tombs than ramps. This is simply all unevidenced and it's more unevidenced that their religion never changed for a thousand years. These are assumptions were made because man has an insatiable ap- petite to understand everything and especially his past. People want to be able to model reality so they can see how all the pieces fit. The pieces didn't go together without the in- vention of these assumptions that act like a cement. They seemed logical enough with the evidence at hand when they were invented. No one would look at the pyramids and think They had cranes, flying boats, or winged stones. Here's a thread where you can point out errors of logic and fact. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78598-pyramids-through-the-eyes-of-the-builders/ In these two posts I've barely scratched the surface of all the evidence. The pyramid is really much more a times machine than it is a tomb and this is a fact; 1649c. who will cause this pyramid of N. to endure, 8g. endowed with life, endurance, joy, health, like Rē‘, eternally. 1046c. thou commandest (with) words as he who is at the head of the living, eternally. 1369d. (thou) who endurest eternally at the head of the mighty ones. 1693b. so that thou mayest surpass the years of Horus of the horizon, 1661b. so may the name of N. endure, 1661c. so may this his pyramid endure, and this his temple, likewise, for ever and ever. 167a. To say: Atum, this thy son is this one here, Osiris, whom thou hast made to endure and to live. The builders thought the pyramid was a time machine that could transport the king to the future and forever watch over Egyptians. No one wants to talk about what the builders actually said which just happens to be supported by the physical evidence and logic. They don't want to talk about it because of its profound implications. They don't want to talk about it because they need to believe our ancestors were stinky footed bumpkins rather than scientists who built time machines and could hold everything they knew in mind.

If he believes I will have hijacked this thread he's living in an alternative reality as well.

I ain't got much book lernin'. ...but I know which thread I'm in and which way is up.

I hate to break this to you but school is going to get much worse after high school. I don't want to discourage you from college but you sound a great deal like me at your age. In school you are allowed to think for yourself but when you get to college this changes with most of the teachers. Perhaps what you are seeing is similar to what I saw. The root of the problem is that there is so much knowledge today that it is broken up into an ever increasing number of specialties. This is necessary for most individuals to serve a function in a society where most human effort and natural resources are wasted. Most employers don't need efficient employees they need employees who do what they are told. So the situation is that most people get pidgeon holed into some job that is beneath their training no matter how little they've had. Adults lose most of what they learned in school because they aren't allowed to think. This is all great for the status quo which is what most people think they want because no matter how bad they have it they fear change. They fear it will get even worse. It's better to spend 14 hours a day picking through a junk yard for food and scraps than to have no junk yard at all. The problem is specialization. There are no generalists. No one is trained to look at entire systems and see the illogic, waste, and inefficiencies. Each individual tends to see only tiny parts as defined by their field of study. It is not wise to follow in my footsteps but I would make some suggestions. Don't believe anything until it fits with what you really know and has been independently verified. You will believe what you want to believe so always try to believe the truth. You will become your beliefs so it's helpful if they are palatable. Try to not forget whatever you learn even if this means reviewing your favorite (most accurate) text books every few years. In college read some of the reading lists and never be afraid to form your own opinions (don't necessarily report them because they won't be seen favorably). There are only two reasons to be here. We are here to make the world a better place for our children or future generations and to have fun. Don't overindulge or neglect either. Decide now how you want to live your life and select a pursuit that is most favorable to it. Lofty ideals are very out of fashion so try to keep them out of your selection process. Best of luck. I'm sure you'll do great (and have fun).

I'm quite confident that the builders thought of it as a time machine similarly to how a TV can transport you hours into the future. But a television leaves you in worse shape, bored, and older. The Great Pyramid was pure whimsy. What other than whimsy could lead several hundred people to stack up 6 1/2 million tons of stone four and three quarters millinea ago? The Great Pyramid makes time fly and is powered by pure unadulterated whimsy. Without the pyramids it would be a very different world and one where time dragged more often. It would be like an endless bad sitcom.

There is carbonated water today under the Giza Plateau. In ancient times it was apparently so heavily carbonated that it sprayed out of the ground like seltzer. This is described over and over in the PT but the powers that be won't even test this water. There are caves all over the plateau and the powers that be denied their very existence until they were led into one by the hand in 2010. The ancient name of the plateau translates as "Mouth of Caves". Caves figure prominently in the PT but especially in the Coffin Texts. The PT paints a picture of stones being pulled up the side of the pyramid in steps. The last science that was done at Giza was more than 25 years ago and confirmed that the pyramid is composed of five steps wirth each 81' 3" as the PT says; http://hdbui.blogspot.com/ You can see the picture at the top of this page. The author misinterprets it as ramps but if you measure these lines you can see they are parallel to the base so it's impossible for them to represent ramps. It's virtually impossible to build a cladded pyramid like G1 that is stepped with ramps. Ramps are debunked anyway because the evidence points elsewhere. The builders oversaw metal shops, canals, boats and the weighing of material. There are simply no titles whatsaoever consistent with ramps. The builders village is a tiny fraction of the size that it would need to be to build with ramps. There is obvious water handling devices and operation all over the great pyramid building sites that Egyptologists seem unable to even admit. They concoct 92 word sentences to not say water was channeled from a water catchment device that surrounded each pyramid to the cliff face where there is a 300' counterweight run. Ancient source say stones "flew" to the pyramid 300" at a time. I can only scratch the surface with all the evidence in a single post. But, I believe, the more important point is that all this is mentioned in the Pyramid Texts in a different sort of language than we use today. The builders describe how to use this water and how to continue its flow. They do so in a simple to understand language that's like computer code and expresses meaning through description(though it sorely needs retranslation). They said the pyramids were not tombs and were built by the "gods" and this is stated not by superstitious bumpkins as we percieve them but as highly sophisticated scientists who used a natural and primitive language which was the metaphysics of their science. If anyone is interested I've got a great deal more evidence and I'd be happy to cite sources and defend any statement. They could not have used ramps. The concept is simply absurd. The actual method is easily falsifiable through a little simple testing. They said a lot of other things that are probably true and far more startling than using nature to lift stones. People are in for a rude awakening.

I don't doubt in the least that there is some truth to this. However, I believe that at least some conflict is mostly the result of poor communication.

I believe there is "truth" that can come from philosophy outside of math and physical processes but that this "truth" is always dependent on definitions and is provisional based on the premises and assumptions. Unless we hold something as "sacred" such as the importance of human life or human freedom then there can be no real truth. Unless we accept concepts like free will and the reality of observation then truth becomes nothing more than a dream or so ephemeral that it can't be defined or held. To a very real degree "truth" is like "knowledge"; it exists only viscerally and contingently.

It's my opinion that the ancient people were not nearly so war like as is usually suggested. I doubt they even had the capability to fight at great distances due to logistical problems. My guess based on my understanding is that most battles were skirmishes and both sides were usually close to home. There were expeditionary forces sent out to Nubia and to battle "troglodytes" as recorded on the Palermo Stone but there's not substantial or verifiable evidence of extensive warfare before 2000 BC. Since no books survive this could be jumping to conclusions. Even were there lots of wars and battles there's no reason to suppose every single copy of every book could be destroyed. Even a single copy could be preserved and duplicated so something should have survived barring an organized attempt to eradicate books or some other reason such as language change rendering them incomprehensible. Here's a link to the physical evidence proving such a change. I have virtually overwhelming evidence though it is, unsurprisingly, mostly low grade. But there is one exceedingly high grade aspect to it; it has a very high predictative capability. This can really only be the result of the simple fact that it's generally true. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78598-pyramids-through-the-eyes-of-the-builders/

The title really needs no punctuation. It is a pun on countless levels and the colon exists partly to represent a set of eyes and primarily as a tribute to Samuel Mercer whose intellectual honesty in translating the PT made it possible to crack it using a computer. Mercer splashed punctuation everywhere. How the great pyramids came to be spills out of the "only" written source that exists from ancient Egypt; the Pyramid Texts. But it is also evidenced throughout the physical record. The ancients didn't really communicate in puns but it looks like it to us because of the nature of their language. It looks like puns because their language was a natural language like computer code that was based on the logic of the various aspects of nature they studied. Each of these aspects of nature were called something we mistranslate as "god" and they were each heavily anthropomorphized. The gods were created in man's image. But man was an animal; a part of nature himself so when an animal better represented a trait then that aspect of nature (god) was depicted with the animal part that best represented the concept. The language arose naturally and was probably just an enhancement of whatever animal language proto-humans spoke before the mutation of the speech centers which allowed for complicated language. But how the language came to be isn't at issue here, only how the language expressed meaning and the proof of this which is the pyramid. The question really boils down to were our ancestors superstitious bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps or were they sophisticated scientists made powerful by their ability to think in a language that was a reflection of nature itself. I believe the answer will someday be seen as obvious and that even a casual observation of the evidence will show they were the latter. A logical place to start might be what is the nature of the pyramid; 1416b. N. truly ascends to heaven, permanent like the earth. The meaning of this does not become clear until each referent is solved by context. "N" is the dead king and he ascends to heaven as the pyramid. The Pyramid Texts consistently say the pyramid is not a tomb and this meaning can be extraxcted in many instances. In no instance at all does it say the pyramid is a tomb. We must assume that the pyramid is not a tomb and that it represents (is) the dead king. So how does the king ascend as the pyramid; 1405a. To say: The earth is high under the sky by (means of) thine arms, Tefnut. Again each term must be solved by context. Each time a term is used it gains definitional and connotative properties. Indeed, a word is these properties because some will use worrds incorrectly to mean something else. But in every case in the PT "tefnut" is the "physical phenomenon of downward" they used this term as a synonym for what we call "weight". Word usage was based on whether the concept under consideration was being viewed scientifically or colloquially. "Tefnut" is the scientific term and "earth" is a colloquial term. The scientific term for earth was "Geb" (physical phenomenon of the earth). Here it's not the planet being lifted but rather constituent parts of it. Gods can act at a distance only through their arms so this states that earth is being piled up by means of weight. This is consistent throughout the PT and all the little literature that survives. Osiris (physical phenomenon of water under pressure and its discharge) is even said to tow the earth by means of Ma'at (the physical phenomenon of balance). In modern terms what they said and said consistently is that the pyramid was built by using counterweights full of water. They said that the gods built the great pyramids and men merely helped. Men made the counterweights and maintained them but it was gods who did the heavy lifting. 1101a. Further, to say: Men and gods, your arms under me, 1101b. while you raise me and lift me up to heaven, They said this consistently and coherently. They never contradicted such statements. The pyramids were built by pulling stones up in an ascender one step at a time using counterweights full of water (Seker was the phenomenon of ballast). This is exactly what every single piece of physical evidence points to. Ramps have been debunked based on evidence. The meaning of the PT probably isn't as important as the implications. It answers how and why the pyramids were built but, more importantly, it answers why and how human history before 2000 BC was lost. Language changed because it became overly difficult to express meaning in a natural language. The invention of writing was the final starw for the ancient language since it allowed one teacher to instruct many students and human knowledge exploded over the next 1200 years. It simply became too difficult to say what you wanted to say. Everyone used this language and many people simply weren't up toi the task. Improper phraseolgy resulted in an uitterance being mere gobblety gook. One wrong word would make your statement something akin to word soup. So a new language was invented and confusion has reigned since for the main part. Of course modern language has undergone 4000 years of tweaking and word invention to reduce the confusion but it is hardly solved. It is observation (heka; magic) which enables men and gods to act. It was the Eye of Horus through which Atum created the power (Sekhmet) to lift stones. It was men's ability to observe which led to being able to use nature itself to do the lion's share of the work. People have simply got to get the idea that the ancioents thought like us but were none too bright out of their heads. It's not true in any sense. They shared our values (even invented them) but they did not think like we do. They were scientists and had no religion at all. They did not believe in "magic". Each person had to understand science to even speak and one could get ahead by invention and discovery.

Indeed. Philosophy is the attempt to define and understand nature in language. Since language is for most practical purposes the means by which we think and understand everything (consciousness), philosophy is the root of individual existence. It's possible for individuals to ignore this connection or to not understand it but their beliefs still constitute their personal philosophy. As such philosophy is and can be different for each person. We each understand our own thought because word definitions are fixed and grammatical errors become irrelevant since we know what is meant. But the primary function of language is communication and the ability to relay thoughts and ideas to other people (at least in theory). This is where philosophy becomes important. We must understand premises and definitions to understand other's statements. We must have a referent for each of their words whose meaning depends on context. Ideally philosophy will serve to include logic and definitions which allow communication. Philosophy should by definition include theory and all human knowledge, or at the very least, never run counter to it. Philosophy is a sort of applied science for language. To have value to humans it must place human life and value above all else. In the modern world it seems philosophy is not being pursued, understood, kept current, or expressed as adequately as it should be. People are losing sight of what's right and wrong and most have come to believe in the absolute supremacy of their gods or the knowledge of man. They have come to put their trust in astrology or the latest fad in thought. Or they believe that so long as they are politically correct then they can do no harm. It's no longer even considered practical to avoid waste and destruction. I used to consider logic the mother of philosophy and math but recent learning has tweaked this perspective somewhat. I now believe observation is the mother of logic which is the mother of both philosophy and math. There might always be new ways to skin a cat even though there is nothing new under the sun.

It's not my thread. The topic is essentially whether or not the ancients had a concept or a memory of evolution. While my work answers this strongly affirmatively any other discussion borders on being OT. I am happy to continue the discussion as it is relevant and will start a new thread later (probably tonight) to support the proof that there was a distinct ancient language that described how the king and the stones ascended on the great pyramids. As such it's relevant but there's a great deal of discussion that could be engendered and I believe it would be considered thread hijacking. I do intend to link back to this thread.

The first writing dates back 1200 years earlier. Some "proto-writing" may be even older.

Ok, I'll open up a new thread later to deal with the physical evidence which is OT here. We each have our own perspective and my perspective on this has evoilved over time to closely match what I believe is the ancient Egyptian perspective. I believe I have a fairly good understanding of the PT despite the fact it's written in natural language and poorly translated. I believe I solved the PT by discovery of referents through context and the writers were highly sophisticated and intelligent. They were very knowledgeable about nature and its nuances. I'm sure their knowledge exceeded ours in a few limited areas. It's really extremely extensive knowledge and it wouldn't have been solved without google and images that can be searched. They had a very very different way of thinking and expressing themselves. It is the pyramids themselves which have been the focus of my study but as seen through the eyes of the builders. I've worked for years to get the Egyptologists to do any of the science but none at all has been done. No real science has happened at Giza since 1986 when it was essentially proiven ramps weren't used. But further research and data gathering is indicated anbd they won't do it and won't allow others to do it. Instead they continue to trowel for ramps and drill holes in the pyramid and under the Sphinx and filling important infrastructure with concrete. Again though, you must bear in mind that the quality of the evidence is not so impressive as its scope and that it all supports a literal interpretation of the ancient writing. There is a strong implication that nothing changed in human beliefs or practices until the mother of all changes at the Tower of Babel. Some will want to discount this just because it's in the Bible but one can always just figure there were two separate events and the Bible version is wrong. Frankly I suspect even if it's right that it has the location wrong. Maybe it was Babel University in a different city. The Pyramid Texts is comprehensible and I can show it but can't prove it until basic science is done.

The difficulty here is in no way the lack of evidence. While there is very little evidence and it tends to be low grade evidence it's scope and range is very impressive. Meanwhile there is no evidence whatsoever to support the paradigms that say our ancestors were superstitious other than the projection of ideas and beliefs from thousands of years later. While the quality of the evidence tends to be poor, all of the known facts fit this interpretation and no facts support the paradigm. The paradigm leaves only mysteries and the idea the language changed answers all the questions including why this wasn't discovered previously. Truth to tell, I believe when (if) this is looked at in hindsight most would agree that the evidence is already pretty solid even though Egyptologists refuse to do the scientific work that would prove it or to allow others to do it. There is simply too broad a range of evidence for me to believe it's happenstance. The fact that there is no recorded history before 2000 BC could be considered highly telling. This is the closest thing to high grade evidence until science is done. When you hear of battles before 2000 BC they are simply extrapolated from pictures on pallettes or a line on the Palermo Stone. There is no independent confirmation of such events. Since the language isn't understood even those things that seem obvious might not be real at all. No battlefields have been excavated and no cemeteries found full of young men who died at the same time. Everything is based on assumption wirth the least legitimate assumption being that nothing changed in the religion or culture for 1000 years. The problem is that modern day culture is virtually gounded on the concept that our ancestors were superstitious and highly primitive so dislodging this belief requires not only that I show the facts of the matter but also how flimsy and insubstantial the basis of our beliefs are. People are married to their beliefs so they can't even entertain the notion that there are simpler and more rational explanations of the little evidence we do have. The most damning single piece of evidence against the paradigm is its absolute inability to make predictions. They've been arguing ramp configurations for building great pyramids for countless decades but the the literature says exactly how they built it and it is in evidence; they pulled stones up a step at a time. The paradigm has failed to answer basic questions not only about the Egyptians and their practices but about all people. It has left even recorded history with no foundations and no precedents. It has come to seem natural to us that this should be the case so this is an argument that must wait but it does explain things like alchemy and the story of the Tower of Babel. It does explain other ancient (yet modern language) texts including some of the hermetic texts. It certainly explains how superstitious and primitive stone age peoples could have competed with those who used observation and logic; they didn't. They couldn't have competed because the non-superstitious people would forever be eating their lunch. Using the information in the ancient language has already been sufficient to debunk ramps as a means of lifting stones to build pyramids. This debunkment employs a significant amount of factual and evidential information but isn't relevant here. The point is that if ramps are debunked on the basis of the ancient literature then it probably follows that it is written in a natural language that hasn't been understood in the past. It also follows that these people put a lot of time and effort into all the natural sciences before 2000 BC but that their conclusions are largely lost (at least mislaid). This would account for how they knew that some dry land had once been in the ocean just as they actually stated. They simply would have known that the fossils which comprise the Great Pyramid could only have formed in the ocean. They could have written books about it and we wouldn't know. A far better question than do I have any evidence is do Egyptologists have any evidence that the ancients were superstitious bumpkins. When they start trotting out volume after volume be sure to filter out everything dependent on the assumption that the Egyptians never changed because there will be nothing at all left. There are no books so everything gets interpreted in terms of an era that there were books. We need answers to some basic questions and these answers will point to more questions. The most important thing at this point is to determine how the pyramids were actually built with some simple infrared imaging. But in seven years this is happening. The past is held hostage by thoise who can't entertain the possibility they are wrong. This isn't to say there are no other ways to prove these points and in my opinion the logic is pretty strong as it exists. I simply don't know any other way at this point in time to prove ancient people didn't speak gobblety gook than to prove beyond doubt that they meant exactly what they said. They meant it literally and were accurate when the said the dead king watered the land after itr came out of the ocean. Just because we don't talk or think this way doesn't mean those who did were primitive and superstitious. It might merely mean they employed a science that we never even thought of. They used observation and logic rather than observation and experiment. This is probably the nature of nature itself. Man once was a part of and a force of nature as was his language. The ancient word for nature was "neter" which we mistranslate as "god" so in actuality they spoke the "words of nature". We speak a confused language. It is symbolic where words take their meaning from context. Excellent point. Thank you. I'm dubious though this this could account for 100% attrition. You'd have to also postulate that all structures were inflammable and that they were all burned. Anything short of 100% attrition would be expected to result in a reprinting of the old texts but none of these were recopied later other than lists. To me this is a strong suggestion that the old texts were untranslatable or incomprehensible. Based on the existence of what we actually see the suggestion is they were incomprehensible. It appears people tried to save the science in various ways such as the invention of religion (gods). It appears that people 4000 years ago misunderstood this stuff in a very similar way to how we misunderstand it.

I'll try again. There is not a single book or manuscript on paper or papyrus from before 2000 BC anywhere in thwe world. None exist. There are scraps and fragments of paper with a few words on them but no complete sentences. There are no books from before 2500 BC in any form at all. None. There are apparently some short Sumerian writings from this early on clay but these aren't available on-line with dates. So far as I know this includes no corpus and no "book". After 2500 BC there is writing that has been copied from the walls of timy little tombs and are known at the "Pyramid Texts". This is extensive writing but it is all religious in nature as is all other known Egyptian writing (don't forget there are no books). The PT can be thought of as a book but can not be thought of as being comprehensible (unless you define "comprehensible" to include no definitions of the subject). There were numerous writings on wooden coffins but this writing is very similar to the PT but is not a corpus because parts of it come from many different places. There is some Sumerian writing from this 2500 to 2000 BC time frame as well, but again, not on paper. These are on clay and they are mostly incomprehensible as well though "Gilgamesh" looks vaguely recognizable in this form. As far as I know there is no Chinese and no Indian writing surviving from before 2000 BC unless there could be some lists there as well. But there are no books. Pretty much the only ancient writing that survives (and the only corpus) was inscribed in something. There were no books. The inscribed words are almost strictly (at least by percentage) incomprehensible gobblety gook. I don't know what happened to all those books that no longer exist. I don't know why none of them were copied in later times to preserve the ancient knowledge and the oral traditions that must surely have been recorded when writing was invented. But I do believe there's a very simple explanation and this explanation is based on the facts and logic. The ancient books were just as enigmatic and just as much gobblety gook to the people in 1999 BC as they are to us. They knew their ancestors were wise and knowledgeable but they couldn't take the meaning of the writing. It mustta been highly frustrarting if you catch my drift. If I'm right the ancient scientists would never have even tried to translate their science into the new language which they referred to as "confused" or had meaning that was "divided". They would have believed all science would forever be conducted in the ancient language and that it wasn't really translatable anyway. It would require not words, but flow charts and logic charts. They saw no pressing need to preserve their science. They did not foresee that the inability to adapt to the rest of society would eventually doom them and that society could function and thrive on the existing knowledge being passed down father to son. Populations were high and man's control of his enviroment was strong enough that even without the ancient science people could live. The ancient knowledge was preserved in bits and pieces in alchemy, religion, astrology, witchcraft, and many other esoteric lores. This is not to say that I believe in any of these or that there is truth in them, merely that knowledge in a fragmented and distorted form underlies these. Perhaps the knowledge was best preserved in alchemy but this is not the same thing as ancient chemistry nbut rather they use some of the techniques and knowledge of ancient chemistry (this means "of Chemis" which was a city near the pyramid) are used to attack a single chemistry problem which has been forgotten. I could even tell you how "chemis" became the root word for chemistry but it would be OT. I'm sure this all sounds strange to people. But it is a simple fact that there is a void in history between 3200 BC and 2000 BC because "all" the exceedingly few wrirtten sources are incomprehensible. Experts believe there is no useful knowledge in any of this but these are the sources that suggest why chemis became the root for chemistry and what alchemists have forgotten. It suggests an explanation for all human history and even parts of the Bible and Koran. All I mean is what I say. I may not always say what I mean as well as I might but it is what I mean and no more. There are no books. All we have is the Palermo Stone which is chiefly a list, the PT (incomprehensible), and the titles. These do not add up to the paradigm without a lot of assumption that makes the whole package illogical. I don't believe there is anything in the Sumerian literature that will change these equations.

Maybe this will help; http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ Some of these pre-date 2000 BC but it's too difficult for me to study them without knowledge of the origin or more substance to thew works. I can only solve the meaning of ancient writing by referent discovery where words are used in context sufficiently often to determine meaning.

Now this might be progress. Tell me, what exact books do you have from before 2000 BC? I'm of course willing to accept translations of any such books.

. No books at all survive. Papyrus could have survived and a blank scrill exists. But not one single papyrus book survives or one single scroll survives with writing on it. I don't understabnd what's vague since I try to speak in tautologies and absolutes as possible. No books. There are not even any sentences that survive from before 2500 BC unless the Nefermaat title is actually a sentence. I'm aware that it's possible Sumerian writing exists but If it can be found it will be just as incomprehensible as the Egyptian. I have read all the Sumerian writing I can find that positively pre-dates 2000 BC and it is not necessarily written in modern language. All of it can be described as being superstitious as it is translated. The only corpus that survive is the Pyramid Texts. It was inscribed in tiny little tombs euphimistically called "pyramids" by Egyptology. This dates to between 2500 BC and 2000 BC but does not exist on papyrus. A few of the utterances have been found in similar form and language on wooden coffins that date to between 2300 BC and about (probably) 1900 BC. There is a collection of various writings on coffins which is apparently all superstitious and some are written in modern language (after 2000 BC). These are the PT; http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/ Rather than addressing the logic and evidence presented you are merely claiming it is unsupported while even failing to specify what is unsupported. If you want to actually argue the points then please say what you disagree and then say why. You've already allowed numerous points to stand that would answer your charges here that my argument is unsupported. In point of fact the only argument that is unsupported is that statements like "Men and gods, your arms under me as you raise me and lift me to heaven", must be accepted as "religious" in nature. That it is religious is an interpretation that has failed to answer basiuc factual questions like how the pyramids were built or how the ancients knew the land came upout of the ocean. Listen carefully to this sentence: It has even failed to explain the ancient religion. It's the interpretation that is in error. It is the logic that is in error. Please list any ancient writing or specific objections for a further response.

You most assuredly have done no such thing. You quoted a wiki page thatr supported my argument that the vocabulary didn't change so lists, labels, accounts and the like survive But no written sentences. There is no science, no literature, no anything at all except what is interpreted to be nonsense and religious gobblety gook. We don't understand one of their gods, sceptres, icons or most of their heiroglyphs so it's rather baseless to claim that we understand the religion. We're told their religion was magic but we don't know how the magic was supposed to have worked because the writing is internally inconsistent as it is interpreted today. I can phrase this in many ways but the fact remains exactly the same; there is no comprehensible writing of any sort from before 2000 BC. It's true that some of the gobblety gook looks comprehensible when taken a sentence at a time but it will be contradicted or unsubstantiated.

quote]You haven't yet presented any evidence that this "ancient language" existed. It would be considered OT here. I’ll start another thread at some point. If you’ll notice I did sneak in one earlier that implied the ancients were aware that some land had come out of the ocean. The oldest written records are about 1,000 years older than that. And entirely comprehensible.From wikipedia: Wiki is an immensely valuable tool but it’s always wrong. They’re closer here than usual; “administrative accounts; long lists of various objects, foodstuffs and animals that were probably distributed among the population from a centralized authority.”. Again, it’s not the words which are the problem. When the language changed the vocabulary did not change. The only change was the way words were put together to express meaning. This is why things like account, lists, and labels survived. They were understood quite clearly. Writing such as “I believe there are many gods which protect me” or “add natron to the solution to produce a very powerful soap” simply do not exist at all. Everything that survives makes no sense. Indeed, only a single sentence from before 2500 BC might survive, “Nefermaat is he who makes his gods in words that can not be erased”. My own opinion is that this is a mistranslation of a title rather than a sentence. In any case it has no meaning without interpretation. If you’re aware of any such writing I’d truly love to see it. No. This is what is projected to the public by Egyptology but it’s simply not true. If you’ll look more closely they never say this. We can make extremely good inferences about things like geneolgy from written information but no sentence regarding geneology exists. It’s names and titles extracted from tombs and not books. Everything is “religious” such as “the dead king inundates the earth after it came out of the ocean”. I simply do not believe that this sentence or any other that was actually left involves religion or magic. It is misinterpreted and it needs retranslation to reflect intended meaning rather than our estimation of what these people must have believed. Purina Dog Chow? A great deal of behavior can be instinctive if you lack the learning to supercede it. It might be possible for a human to raise a dog from a puppy without knowing anything about digestion but then why would such an individual believe he and his dog eats and eliminates waste at all? Surely even an animal knows there's a link between food and waste. Eventually we almost all have even visceral knowledge of this process. If that's a pun then please forgive me. It's very difficult to remove oneself from his place and time to see how others might see things. This is why the ancient writing is mistaken for incantation and magic. I believe things like dam building in beavers and fungus farming in termites is far too complicated behaviors to be the result of natural selection. Nature can't select for those who build rockets until someone builds a rocket. Nor can she select for dam building until someone builds a dam. I believe the simplest explanation is we are looking at the problem wrong. People tend to believe that humans alone are intelligent and that humans got here from highly superstitious ancestors who thought they could talk to gods and animals. Logic suggests we are mistaken. Observation suggests it's not intelligence that sets man apart but language. I think it took a long time to domesticate animals and grow crops because it is extremely complicated. It couldn't begin until there was enough theory to support it which means man had to understand some genetics and the myriad other subjects necessary. Obviously they didn't understand DNA and the like but they had to observe how offspring were like and dislike their parents. They had to know how to care for the animals at less expense than their ultimate value as farm produce or meat. They had to know the hydration requirements or risk expending more effort than the value of the animals. A huge amount of knowledge was necessary. They also would require some sort of security or human marauders would make off with their handiwork. A great deal of sophistication was absolutely required abnd this sophistication is reflected in the evidence. It is merely opinion that the ancients were superstitious and this opinion is founded almost solely on what, I believe, is obvious misinterpretation of the written material that survives. The interpretation is simply illogical and not even consistent with the written material. In each case what is said is interpreted to mean something else. I'm sure you're right that the knowledge was transmitted orally but it appears that the language used was distinct from our own and more like prairie dog language or computer code. Until some effort is made to recover the language, its syntax, and grammar it is very difficult to make many statements about it. In the meantime the general concensus remains that humans used to be superstitious but we're all better now. The concensus is that it was easier to live with predators and a lack of most basic tools and weapons so long as you are superstitious. It was easier to drag stones up ramps if you were building a tomb for a god. There was no need for logic or common sense if you were sufficiently primitive. There's no logic to our beliefs about ancient times and this is why the evidennce doesn't fit the beliefs and why there is a void before 2000 BC instead of a record of numerous oral traditions and scientific works. This is why we have myth instead of history.

How did they breed animals and keep them alive without knowledge of biology. They not only had to do all they did but they had to do it at a profit or they would have all died. Nature is the ultimate accountant as well as a cruel one, and feeding cows to chickens just might be more a liability than an asset. I'm not sure what you mean here or intended but there is nothing from before 2000 BC other than what we understand to be "religious writings" and incantations but which make no sense. There is no science and no records from before this date according to modern understanding. I have no idea what that sentence means. And it doesn't seem to address the question. This is how easy it is to lose one's audience in the modern language we are using here. Most people can't understand directions for almost anything. The directions are written in computerese that make sense only to those who know the language and think in pure logic with no intuition. When computer language is expressed in everyday English it makes no sense to most people. I have no idea what that sentence means. And it doesn't seem to address the question. I do not believe this is true. There is almost nothing in Egyptian and the only other source to my knowledge is Sumerian but these are all short works and undatable apparently. It appears that the ancient books were unintelligible and discarded after the change in language. Most all of what survives was inscribed in stone or clay. Yes it is. We have written records of oral histories going back thousands of years. Much of it is supported by, for example, archaeological and other evidence. You seem to have little in the way of evidence other than your own beliefs. I'm confident you know of none of this from before 2000 BC. Evidence that this is a destructive force? This is the nature of nature. People act on their beliefs and if there are beliefs are unnatural there will be no benefit to them collectively. Even if some unnatural belief were able to protect them through mere happenstance, eventually conditions would change. Reason and logic are puny tools but superstition and foolishness are very powerful tools against survival. They were not superstitious at all. They were not religious and didn't believe in magic. This is a misunderstanding caused by a misinterpretation of ancient writing. Which also seems to argue against cladking's beliefs: many pre-literate, oral societies have been studied. They are just like us. No ancient pre-literate societies left enough evidence to understand their beliefs and knowledge. Even literate societies before 2000 BC are assumed to be superstitious because all the writing they left appears to be gobblety gook. There are no known cultures before 2000 BC. Later ideas have created our understanding and not the evidence left by those societies. This is just the way it is. It doesn't prove I'm right but it leaves the door open to me being right and the fact that my understanding of the ancient writing makes accurate peredictions indicates very strongly that I am right.

I see now. I should have expected a reasonable point since your other point and logic all seems to fit. I'm looking at this from a different perspective and much of the difference hinges on the meaning of the word "know". I've been using it colloquially but when applied to individuals the meaning changes. We are each a product of our time and place and this determines most of our perspective. When the term "know" is used from any specific perspective its meaning changes because what's real from "god's" perspective may not be from any individual's. In other words all true knowledge is visceral and usually learned through experience. If you don't know it in your bones then it's not true knowledge but something else. Even visceral knowledge though is dependent on things like current conditions. In aggregate man's visceral knowledge is much less extensive in scope but much more accurate. From my personal perspective it doesn't (no longer) annoys me to be ignorant on a very broad range of subjects (all of them) as I try to understand nature and gain knowledge in those things and in those ways I can. Most other people fill in the gaps with something. So long as reason is at the heart there's every chance the individual will succeed. So long as reason underlies the reporting of knowledge and experience I'm willing to listen. Gees cut off a huge bite with this thread but it's still entertaining.

This all is probably true enough I needn't quibble with it. I certainly agree strongly with one of the conclusions; that change in language should be continuous throughout human history. Of course the veracity of this conclusion is contingent upon those things which apply to our language also applying to the ancient language. This is where we run into trouble with the current paradigm; in order to understand the ancient language word meanings and beliefs from many centuries after the origin of the writing have been inserted to understand it. There simply is almost nothing available to solve the meaning internally from the actual words so definitions and ideas are imported from later religious works. It's hardly surprising that this has made the earlier work incomprehensible and made it appear to be religious in nature. If we were talking about a single work here or there were in existence writing that could be understood, if the our understanding of the writing were consistent with known facts, if any of this understanding were internally consistent or otherwise comprehensible none of this would be at issue. The fact is almost no writing survives from before 2000 BC and none of it is comprehensible. Experts believe words change meaning by context and none of these meanings are known except as they relate to later definitions. Since we believe almost every word they left was about magic, incantation, and paganism we tend to assume everything they did and thought was magic. This is most probably impossible. There is most probably a very fundamental problem in our understanding. Using observation and logic would be nearly as likely to lead to evolutionary success as language itself. Indeed, if the only thing language is used for is to communicate superstitions language would become a massive liability rather than an asset. So which groups of humans hunting mastadons had a greater likelyhood of surviving the cold wimter? Was it the group which saw, knew, amd planned or the group that prayed the hardest and invented the more gods? Since 2000 BC humans have been riding the coat tails of our ancestors for survival. We have been surviving on the fruits of their effort. It was only the discovery of a new kind of science that could be done in the new language that allowed progress to resume.