cladking

There's no such thing as "the subconscious". There might multiple consciousnesses in the body but there's only one single integrated and complete consciousness of which we are aware. This doesn't mean there's nothing going on in terms of processing, sensation, perception, and cognition of which we aren't aware, merely that there's only one of us that is complete. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there are low level consciousnesses in ganglia and nerve clusters throughout the body but these consciousnesses are aware of their function and the overriding consciousness. This might be the basis of "muscle memory" and our ability to achieve exceedingly fine control of the concrete world through our muscles. But the Freudian idea that we are split into pieces is simple fantasy and misunderstanding of his work. It's likely the result of a dalience with a sister in law that was intellectualized and then misunderstood. There's plenty going on beneath the surface because the brain is a lean mean processing machine. It processes information and filters out overload and information which it is preset to ignore (anything that defies our beliefs). These "sub-processes" can come under some lose control if we strive for it. Things such as seeking answers in our sleep actually works. We are mere observers but I seriously doubt there is more than one of us in each instance except where disease processes are at work. We become our beliefs so to some degree if you choose to believe in the subconscious then you are likely to exhibit more behavior and more attributes consistent with having a "subconscious". I believe this is very unhealthy for the human race though it's one of those things that give some individuals comfort. To each his own.

One always and necessarily runs into the same considerations no matter what he counts. There might be four apple seeds in an apple but perhaps only one is viable and can grow into a new tree. A section of sky can be defined and four stars counted in it but on another night there might be three or forty. A cell divides into two but these are not really identical and one might even be a mutation that is important to the survival of that species. Obvioiusly counting is important to observation but the numbers really have more in common with construct than reality. This doesn't mean there is nothing that isn't more reality than construct. Swings of a pendulum are pretty similar, but more importantly, they are consecutive so each can be numbered ordinally. Frequency and things like heart rate are similar. If "two" individuals have different heart rates then you can certainly count them and divide by two to get an average. People should remember when they perform such counting and calculations exactly what it is to which the numbers refer. We should remember when adding apples and oranges that there's no such thing as an "apple-orange". It's easy to apply derived science too broadly and make improper extrapolations. We only really know what the experiment says and in the terms of how it's conducted. It looks like the OP has deserted the thread. I'm curious what was in mind.

There is also some evidence for how these structures were built that show a highly intelligent and sophisticated people. Egyptologists point to each feature and say it was made for "religious purposes" but the majority of these features actually disclose the means used to build. The pyramids are founded on water collection devices. Before the first stone went onthe pyramid a large water tight structure was made. In the case of the Great Pyramid this device also channeled water to the two points on the cliff face which would have been the most advantageous places to put counterweights. One of these counterweight runs is actually man-made because the natural cliff had the wrong shape. These runs are almost exactly 300' in lenght which is exactly the distance ancient reports claimed stones "moved toward the pyramid". Other reports say a "priest" attached a piece of paper to it and then it "flew away" (presumably 300' toward the pyramid). Much of the runs are satill apparent and the main run to the quarry even has a "tomb" that might function as an hydraulic elevator. A huge hole on the east side of the pyramid appears to be an hydraulic leveling device for loading the "boat" that took stones up the side. There is water erosion in the canal leading to the place of the eastern counterweight. Remember this is a desert and the only water is believed to be in downpours for which these canals are woefully underdesigned. They simply couldn't channel any but the smallest rains and it's known rainfall was as much as 4 times greater during construction. These "aprons" under and surrounding the pyramids are perfectly level and imply that water must have been used to achieve such accuracy. There is a cistern directly downhill from the the second pyramid (G2) which could not be filled in a rain event because the inlet was too small. This simply screams that there was running water since they wouldn't want to drink the dirty Nile water which was 150' lower and half a mile away. Running water means there was an unknown source. Design, construction, and maintenance of ramps would have been onerous tasks but nothing would have been more onerous than dragging stones up them. It's all wholly unevidenced anyway and the word "ramp" isn't even attested until long after great pyramid building ended. The pyramids are five step structures as can be seen on the gravimetric scan half way down the page here; http://hdbui.blogspot.com/ This is not at all consistent with the use of ramps. What we can see is vertical lines on the pyramids; [http://www.puretravel.com/uploadedresources/continents/subcontinents/countries/Giza%20pyramids%20Egypt_20090218143916.jpg What we see is a deep groove from the top to bottom on all four sides; http://www.catchpenny.org/images/ikonos.gif http://www.catchpenny.org/concave.html These features are not religious and are not the work of people who had no means of building pyramids other than tying a rope to them and dragging them up ramps they themselves built. The titles of the builders do not reflect ignorant bumpkins but rather sophisticated and intelligent people. They had jobs like "Overseer of the Metal Shop" and "Weigher/ Reckoner". There are no jobs like harness makers, basket weavers, or overseer of stone draggers. All this is a modern superstition born of the idea our ancestors were incapable of inventing even the simplest systems and making the most basic observations. We assume that their science and technology were basic even as we can see that it was not. Since there is no preserved science from so long ago we might assume their metaphysics was so different than ours we might not recognize it if it were a snake and bit us. First we need to use our science to discover how this was built and then I'm confident their metaphysics and their epistomology will slowly come into sharp focus.

Cavemen would have had an excellent estimation of the shape and size of the earth by direct observation. They would simply see that the horizon dips down on both sides over water. One can get a good feel for the size of the planet by this alone. Then to refine the estimate the distance measured from a height would show how much of this height was hidden behind the horizon. No doubt they used an estimate equivalent to about 16' for each five miles. They could confirm their theory by observation of the shape of the earth on the moon during an eclipse. Certainly all the nearby bodies in the heavens (including Venus) are round. The distance to the moon can be estimated by the relative heights of the tides once they deduced (or discovered) that the pull of an object (tefnut) is decreased by the inverse of the square of the distance. This could be observed in numerous ways including the size of a ripple in a lake. This means would not provide a close estimate but would be sufficient for all their practical purposes. They would probably have some comprehension of the nature of the atmosphere because they knew they needed air and that air had constituent parts. They could see the planets orbiting differently than the stars and that the stars "twinkled" and would likely deduce that this was caused by the tiny angle of vision (and perhaps atmospheric disturbance). Even the depth of the atmosphere can be estimated by the varying air pressure. This estimate would be greatly refined over the years from "the air too thin up there" to the same sort of units that we used today to measure it. The distance to the sun was likely poorly estimated with only the shadows of the earth and moon to work with. They would quickly see it was a very long way since the moon's shadow has the same apparent size despite its position. It's apparent ancient man sun gazed to affect his pineal gland and quite possibly observed sunspots. It would be noticed that the aurora boreaolis would peak a few days after such events and this "speed" was likely mistaken for the speed of light. While wildly inaccurate, it still would have been sufficient for all ancient purposes. Ancient science was far more adept at disclosing concepts and accurate modeling (especially ancient cosmology) than it was in producing technology. There's some reason to believe their pharmacology or botany, entomology, zoology etc were somewhat better since it was cavemen who invented the agriculture which gave rise to great cities. It was cavemen who preceded (khepri) the genius of the Egyptians. Somehow all of this technology and its metaphysics were utterly lost around 2000 BC and the only thing we have to try to understand it is the gobblety gook known as the Pyramid Texts. There is something very wrong with this picture. It is simply not logical to use the fact we don't understand something as evidence those who produced it were superstitious and backward and this goes many times over when it was they who gave us the pyramids and civilization itself.

Excellent. Without the Pyramid Texts my case is virtually air-tight because ALL of the physical evidence supports the idea that they used counterweights full of water to lift stones to build the great pyramids. The PT is essentially used by Egyptologists as proof that the bulders were superstitious bumpkins and as such had no other means to build these pyramids. Briefly, the pyramids are five steps because they pulled stones up the sides one step at a time and they were built on water collection devices because they reused this water for myriad purposes inclusing more lifting. Evidence is actually fairly extensive and I'll be happy to elucidate any point. It should be added that no physical evidence exists that any stones were lifted on any great pyramids with the use of ramps. The "evidence" for ramps is that they were too primitive to employ any other means. This argument is logically flawed as well since ramps would have been grossly inefficient and require more effort than the pyramid itself. On completion of the core the ramps would then have to be rebuilt to apply the cladding stones which used to be on them. Ramps can be excluded altogether as a possibility on the basis of extensive physical evidence and logic. My contention is that the ancient metaphysics was the language and since none of the language survives other than the Pyramid Texts this leaves us to infer the knowledge and epistomology from the physical evidence itself. In the real world the Pyramid Texts will come to be seen as a form of metaphysics but unlike everything else I can't show this to the unwilling nor in this thread. I can show that they had extensive knowledge and that the pyramid manifests significant amounts of that knowledge. It's not just the extensive use of the highest technology of the day including bronze, lead, gold, and numerous other materials primaily created or refined by man but the nature of the constructions themselves. Many of the techniques used are still poorly understood or not understood at all. They polished large quantities of granite and laid water tight joints between 70' and 140'. The interior would have required extensive math to lay out as a plan and its exactness demands it was all planned. The original casing stones were so exacly placed that visitors of the time couldn't see the seams and believed some stones were 20' in lenght. Petrie described the surviving casing stones as having been laid with "optical precision". One can make an argument that this could all be done by stinky footed bumpkins but then comes the layout of the Giza Plateau. The Great Pyramid is oriented perfectly north to south. This means they had knowledge of true north to a very high degree of accuracy. This would not come about by watching shadows and required stellar observation and this is reinforced by the existence of a calender and their naming of some stars (in the PT). It's also reinforced by the fact that the calender appears to have been based on the minute. This is the lenght of time that sunrise increases daily at Giza during early summer. It is divided into 60 seconds which is the length of time of the human heart beat. All of nature was set to the music of the human heart beat (60 Hz). The three largest pyramids are aligned with sunset on the winter solstice such that their shadows combine along a line stretching nearly to the sea. This must have been a wondrous sight to those who knew to look. Perhaps most incredibly, and less well known, is that each side of the Great Pyramid doesn't lie in a single plane. Each side is actually comprised of two planes slightly offset from one another such that there is a seam running from the apex to the bottom middle of each side. This offset is only a few inches but causes the pyramid to "eat its own shadow" at sunset on the autumal and vernal equinoxes. A great deal of knowledge manifests in not only the pyramids but the entire culture that built them. We are viewing this culture through misunderstanding, confusion, and 19th century eyes. We are simply ignoring the actual evidence in a headlong rush to the answers while refusing to do the basic 21st century science that would answer these questions positively. Until our science is done ramps remain debunked and the actual evidence suggests a very sophisticated and intelligent people whose metaphysics are not in evidence. I believe the missing metaphysics are in plain sight and mistaken for gobblety gook.

Indeed! However this fact doesn't preclude the possibility that numbers aren't a human and a crow construct.

By knowing how many or how much apples we have we can make an excellent prediction of how much applesauce it will yield. By the same token if we know how much of two reactants exist we closely estimate the product. But this doesn't mean each apple or each proton is identical. We don't even know all the constituent parts of a proton yet so it's impossible to say they are identical or that their constituent parts are each identical. So far as I'm aware there's pretty limited evidence on even the weights of protons and these can not be closely estimated by deflections in individual collisions so have to be inferred from atomic masses and the like. I think of it this way; no two objects in nature are identical so it seems most unlikely that two objects known only as a theoretical construct are identical. Perhaps someday we'll be separating all sorts of elemental particals by type to achieve some new property or ability to combine with other elements in a new way. Or maybe we're approaching another bridge out in science caused by our inability to understand its entire metaphysic which includes experimental results. Perhaps our modern reliance on thought experiments is symptomatic of any impending road block. Perhaps specialization will forestall this problem.

I've seen this before and it is superb. It dovetails nicely with what I believe is the ancient metaphysics as it appears in the Pyramid Texts; 0 = 0. I often joke that man creates the universe by the invention of machine intelligence which runs amuk and becomes "God". Everything worth anything makes itself, right? Perhaps time is the only thing that actually exists and it is immutable and eternal. Perhaps it can, however, coalesce into tiny bits of "matter" which can form the building blocks of of matter. Maybe the universe is far older than we can imagine and big bangs occur in regions where too matter collects. It's a massive dance that grows ever heavier and more extensive.

I see. I wondered why you included calculations since I think of them normally only as a result of interpretation. I suppose this reflects too many years of thought experiments and calculation-free experimentation (and I should have seen the point). Thanks.

But the the definition of what an atom is is what's leading to the assumption that each atom is identical. Sure, it's probably pretty safe to say each hydrogen atom has a single proton but it's much less safe to say that each proton is identical. Perhaps some are light or some are on the verge of transforming into something else. Numbers are ideally suited for logic and math considerations but we tend to apply them to the real world haphazardly and incorrectly. A concoction of half a pound of fish and half a pound of water and sodium tripolyphosphate at $4 a pound might sound like a good deal until you realize the fish costs $8 a pound and you have to eat chemicals. All fish isn't the same and will be far more expensive yet if it's already spoiled or if its sitting on a water soaked pad. Of course this could introduces the concept of the nature of money which loses value as more is printed or all products are substandard in some way. Money gains value as an individual has less to spend or has enough to get into a lower tax brac- ket. There just isn't anything that has an absolute number where that number applies equally to each part other than concepts. This seems to me to make numbers a construct. ...A very valuable construct but not real.

Of course there are political and religious considerations in our understanding of history and our past. People are married not only to the concept that our ancestors were superstitious but that it was the Greeks who lifted us out of our ignorance. This isn't to say that there is no truth to such a view but that this truth pales in comparison to several much greater truths. There is probably some basis for believing that the Greeks actually understood some of the ancient writings. This is diffi- cult to ascertain but is implied by the fact that they venerated the ancient Egyptians and that traces of the ancient language and literature seem to appear in the hermetic writings. It's hard to imagine an "advanced" culture like ancient Greece venerating the beliefs of the 7th century BC Egyptians. It might well have been a great culture but wiithout mincing words it was not founded on logic and philosophical principles. Indeed the word "philosophy" likely is derived from the Egyptians while the late era Egyptians were founded on something much different than logic. This leaves the question of evidence for the change in the language of 2000 BC and the question of why the evidence isn't much more widespread. There appear to be numerous reasons. I believe the biggest is that there was no longer a value to the ancient metaphysics after it was no longer used for communication. Initially there would be some grave concern over preserving as much as the ear- liest writing as possible since this was much of what they knew as ancient history. They would have written treatises on the translation of the ancient language into modern language. They would have preserved as much of the technology as possible and written resources on its application and means to generate it. Then, of course, the final source of evidence is the preservation of the ancient writing itself. So where is all this evidence and why does so little exist other than the story of babel? The most telling thing is the paucity of evidence from shortly after this change as well. Few things sur- vive so the chances of one of the preceding existing are greatly diminished. Very early people would forget how to translate this material without instruction. Remember that the language was a mess at the time of the change because the vocabulary was severely to restricted to make meaning clear. New words were being invented daily to fill in the blanks and direct the listener to the intended meaning. In only a few generation the original language speakers were gone. I believe you can see the the torture this inspired in I Corinthians 14 which I believe is an appeal to attract more people to the new religions springing up. This "appears" to have been written much earlier than its suggested era. This fits in with the concept that the writers of the Bible attempted to incorporate as much as the ancient writing as possible. Even Genesis can be interpreted to be even older and as the Egyptian concept of creation in its confused (post language change) form. Ancient people had access to significant amounts of the older writing but simply couldn't understand it. The few who did placed no value on it. As the books crumbled with age they simply went on the trash heaps or were lost to book worms, fire, and flood. Things that aren't valued have staggering attrition rates. The Egyptian priests might have had some original manuscripts at late as the Greek era and even the ability to understand but the Greeks credited no one for their successes; they adopted cul- tures they conquered rather than crediting them for technology or ideas. There seems no obvious clue that they were able to decipher ancient writing. This might mean the ancient language was updated in- to modern language but, again, all we have to work with is the writing that survives some of which might have originally been written in ancient language. I believe the lack of evidence is largely the lack of interest after the change. The very nature of the metaphysics was such that it had no value as language any longer and coiuld no longer generate new knowledge. Any concern for ancient writing would be to preserve as much of its products as possible rather than its source. The "philosophy" was preserved preferentially to the language. Now there's just not much of anything at all left from before 2000 BC other than the Pyramid Texts which are considered mere gobblety gook. Yet this book can be reduced to something like a geometry equa- tion. This should not be true of any modern language which certainly implies it's nothing like modern language. It's like computer code and you must understand all of it before you understand a part of it. The words themselves might be a highly formal form of the language rather than what people spoke day to day but it still paints a picture of people who don't think like we do. It still says in "plain English" that the "god" known as osiris was an effervescent column of water that off-gassed CO2 and lifted stones with the "boats of balance". We are still at square one which is no one can show this isn't true. We still have all the physical evidence that agrees closely with this while the current paradigm is in shambles.

I was referring to Egyptian writing which didn't really exist from before 2000 BC when the world language apparently changed. This changed in the 1870's when the Pyramid Texts were found. As regarding other writing, I do have some small familiarity with it. Sumerian is the only other writing that survives and it survives on clay cylinders. This should spark a great deal of mystery but no one seems to even notice that no books and no paper/ papyrus survives from before 2000 BC. We know the papyrus is durable enough to last so long because a blank book survives from 3000 BC!!! But no one seems to question why recorded history doesn't begin until 2000 BC. There is a hard line before which writing hardly exists. I intend to expand on this exact point later and how I believe this line came to exist. The Mesopotamian (Sumerian) writing is really quite interesting. I believe this writing is quite similar in content to the Egyptian but where the rituals of the Pyramid Texts were mistaken for spells and incantation by later people the Sumerian was mistaken for the epic of Gilgamesh. This writing is much more highly fragmented and much less extensive. I might be able to deduce its meaning but it would be of no benefit to me if I did. I've already learned the name of water pressure in it and just don't see how a proper interpretation of the work can help people understand the important points here. It's a blind alley for me and bad strategy to work on understanding it. It would also be tactically far more difficult because these writings are so much smaller in extent and so much more fragmented. There might be no real world referent, such as the pyramids, to help stay on track. Once the metaphysics are better understood then this might be great fun for someone else to decipher. I kind of have my hands full here and have been virtually working alone except a little help from my friends. Egyptologists haven't talked to me in years because I feed on information and they'd rather I starve. People need to remember that I solved the Pyramid Texts by determination of referents. Once a word is used enough time in context the meaning becomes apparent and this meaning can be inserted back into the work to solve for other referents. This is probably a more legitimate means to understand something than even experimental science believe it or not. The fact is that words mean what the author thinks they do rather than what any dictionary says. This is true whether you're speaking modern gobblety gook or the "words of the gods". Sumerian writing simply doesn't use words enough time to make this process simple.

My favorite book other than the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" is "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" EA Burtt 1923. There's a very old book and its metaphysics I've read countless times. Newton's work on physics and the pyramid have always interested me as well. I've always had a dictionary (usually Webster's New Collegiate 1973 or '81) because you don't necessarily know what the other guy's talking about. Now days I'll fall back on wiki when surfing. The 1920's produced some great scientific work and hypotheses especially in physics. Burtt's work deserves more attention than it gets. I consider it virtually comprehensive.

In a nutshell what we have is this. The great pyramids were all built with the usage of water in counterweights and the only piece of literature that survives says it explicitly in a sort of computer code. Not only is this what the physical evidence supports but it is indicative of separate metaphysics from modern ideas. Despite the fact that I can show this to a significant level of confidence as well as show how to interpret the writing there is no interest today by egyptologists, scientists, or apparently philosophers. Even though the theory is falsifiable the only response to date has been Dr Hawass referring to it as "other unscientific theories on the net". Even though the paradigm is in shambles and has never been able to answer questions or make accurate predictions it is accepted as gospel by billions of people with a vested interest in the status quo. Meanwhile the powers that be refuse not only to test any new theories but have never even tested their own. Even such basic things as forensic examinations of the pyramids has never been done. Infrared imaging has never been done. The list of basic science and its tools that have not been applied to the great pyramids is not a short one. I'm surprised that in this day and age that so few are interested. I wonder what it will take to get the world off the dime. How can people tolerate a belief system to define humanity? Is this really what humans are; the result of confusion? I wonder what we might become if we learn the truth and know we are confused.

The cutting edge has always been untestable or untested by definition. When the correct hypothesis comes along there's no reason to assume an experiment isn't possible.

There are a limited number of ways to say this; There is no evidence of technology associated with dinosaurs. This can be considered virtual proof that they lacked what we consider modern technology. I'm surprised that in a forum given to speculation that other perspectives are so upsetting. Perhaps the quoted material could make some interesting discussion on some forum and this might be exactly the right one. -edited to add that I might well be missing the obvious here. I would start the indicated thread if I believed anyone would respond. I missed at least one thing and that is "Resident Experts" are a type of moderator.

I doubt the earth will ever be evacuated. I can see man moving out to the stars but human life on earth will probably fail long before the sun becomes a red giant. Who knows?

When you invent it, it will have widespread applications in industry. I often toyed with the idea of some sort of van degraaff accelerator for causing dust to come off of equipment and then adhere elsewhere. I never studied the question but suspect it's more complicated than it appears on the surface.

Definitions are sufficient really. The nature of technology is such that it will give rise to more thanb merely tools and instruments of discovering nature but will also serve the purposes of the discoverers. I can't know that a dinosaur would necessarily desire to knpow the time of day or position of the sun but they would have some needs that would be satisfied by technology. It is necessity that is the mother of invention and if there were no necessity there would be no invention. They would at least want to make a t-rex detector or tools for controlling their enviroment or predators. They would want means of flushing or raising food. If they lacked the tools and instruments then they lacked the technology. Yes. All things decay. But most things made by science last a great deal longer than flesh and blood. This means they can sit for protracted periods waiting for the proper conditions to fossilize. Some of these things will require very long times to fossilize and some will occur relatively quickly. With complex machines some parts will fossilize at different rates than others so only parts might survive. I can imagine even the perfect enviroment that something like an IC chip could be almost perfectly fossilized. The point isn't they didn't have computers, the point is no technology is associated with them. It's illogical to believe anything can evolve from complex to simple and there is not even any simple technology associated with them. I can't rule out they might have been scientists or more intelligent than humans but it's pretty safe to rule out any sort of technology beyond the sorts that animals are already known for. Fopr all I know they built their own pyramids but if they did then they did it without technology of the sort we have. Part of my initial confusion regarding the topic is the title. People are continuing to conflate intelligence and technology though. They are not related (though obviously some correlation probably exists).

I'm not going to be drawn into another discvussion about the nature of intelligence. Suffice to say all animalsa are intelligent and there's far less deviation between levels as people choose to believe. But one thing is more certain and that is there were no technologically advanced dinosaurs. This doesn't even mean they couldn't be "scientific", merely that if they had technology then we would know. Fossilization is rare in animals because flesh and bone tends to rot, be eaten or decompose before it can fossilize. Certainly this doesn't apply to most products of advanced experimentally based science. A wrist watch worn by a dinosaur would be far more likely to be preserved, at least in part, than the dinosaur itself. Garbage dumps would be treasure troves of knowledge since some products can last centuries waiting for the proper conditions to fossilize. An animal can be far more intelligent than modern man and never develop technology. This is true because of the natures of intelligence, science, and technology. It is also true because of the natures of the specific animals. No matter how intelligent something like a whale might be, it remains a whale with highly limited means and perspectives to gain knowledge of its surroundings.

I can't copy and paste or even quote a previous message for some reason. Manderson said; "I see no divergence in language.". This is the crux of the problem. Egyptology had deciphered the language with good accuracy before the 1870's when the Pyramid Texts was found. Virtually no writing of any sort from before 2000 BC existed up to this point. The little that survived and was found was less well translated, comprised primarily lists and single words like labels, and was not understood grammatically. Words were recognized but meaning was unknown. Certainly they had a more than adequate understanding of the later writing which existed in copious writings and even comprised a few intact manuscripts. This writing can be enigmatic but the meaning usually seems clear and is not entirely dissimilar to how we express ourselves. It's simply archaeic and foreign to most readers. Unfortunately the one thing that survived from before 2000 BC was the one thing that just mostly coincidentally survived right across 2000 BC. The Pyramid Texts is merely the ritual that was read aloud to the crowds at the ascension ceremony of the king and it was maintained right across the change in the language and updated to new language eventually becoming the book of the dead. These later works are religious, magical, and "superstitious" in nature. Their meaning is pretty clear and these incantations are primarily the spells the king needs to get him to an afterlife in the elysium fields. When Egtptology found the PT they were very obviously an older version of this work so there was the immediate assumption that they are exacly the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The one thing everyone should realize is that translations of the later work are comprehensible but translations of the Pyramid Texts are just gobblety gook. Rather than investigating the possibility that meaning was expressed differently or there was a different meaning there was a tendency to simply take the lack of any coherent meaning as prima facie evidence that the pyramid builders were backward and superstitious. Indeed, since there is no other evidence that defines the builders Egyptology has simply projected the beliefs of later people to the pyramid building age and used this assumption that nothing changed as justification for interpreting and translating the Pyramid Texts as being identical to later works. Most of what survives from ancient Egypt even to later times has come out of tombs and pyramids because these were built up on "the horizon" in the desert where materials are more likely to survive. This massive sampling error has given them a very warped and wholly inaccurate picture of not only the oldest Egyptians but those after the language change as well. This leaves Egyptology with virtually no evidence at all and nothing to work with other than a mistranslation and misinterpretation of the PT and a few assumptions that seem certain but are in actuality wholly unevidenced. The assumption that the builders were so primitive that the only possible means to lift stones was to drag them up ramps is the most easily disproved and the one that most led them astray. The means they used is obvious yet it wasn't seen before now (or at least it wasn't published); the stones were pulled up the pyramid one step (81' 3") at a time. This is the description of Herodotus as well as a few other ancient sources such as Manetho who implied the ancients believed water shot up out of the ground. The point is Egyptology excludes much of the real evidence as being irrelevant or a manifestation of religion. When the shackles of the assumptions are removed there is actually sigificant amounts of evidence that is relevant. For instance the great pyramids are built on water collection devices! The ancients called these the place of Set or "Ssm.t" (sacred aprons) and they were necessary to collect the water that was channeled through canals to where the counterweights operated. This is all fully consistent with the titles of the men and women who built the pyramids. There wasn't a huge city full of stone draggers and ramp builders nursing their aching backs but a tiny little village full of men, women, and children who operated boats, canals, and weighed the material before being lifted. This is what the Pyramid Texts is actually describing in very "plain" language. This is how I've been able to find so much evidence for the means that was actually used; there are clues and descriptions throughout the PT. The problem is the interpretation of the PT as nonsense underlies much of the study of the ancients. People want to understand them and there's not much other than the PT. If I'm right (I am) then every single thing that people now believe about the PT is wrong. They don't want to deal with it. They don't want to try to test the theory because they apparently are afraid it's correct. There are countless easy ways to test this including a simple $200 chemical analysis of carbonated water that still exists under the ground today! They aren't testing their theories either and I've already debunked the possibility that ramps were used. Remember the Egyptological viewpoint isn't that ramps were used or that such evidence exists (it doesn't) the belief is that the ancients had no other means to lift stones. The word "ramp" isn't even attested anywhere until after the end of great pyramid building. Egyptology (as it applies to great pyramids and their builders) is a construct founded on four incorrect assumptions; -that the pyramids were tombs -that they had to have been built by ramps -that language and the people never changed -that the people were superstitious This doesn't mean that a great deal of genius hasn't gone into learning to understand these people and it's not at all unusual that Egyptology is quite right in a left handed sort of way. It's a wonder they learned so much with so little evidence and incorrect assumptions. They are still wrong and this is of critical importance at least to our understanding of the past.

If there had been technology we would have found it and the technology that led to it. There would be fossilized dinosaur garbage and other such artefacts. We could have even found fossilized cities and houses but these would be difficult to recognize. There should be ample evidence if they had any sort of technology other than basic farming such as termites. In aggregate they might have had some impressive structures and practices but not technology bourn of science we would could recognize as science. Modern humans will be very well known for a very long time. We will leave a fossil record so complete that our language can even be reconstructed.

I'm aware of no evidence that would support the belief that dinosaurs had any sort of civilization nor any other technology. What do I know, I misunderstood the subject of the thread.

You have the point but miss the perspective. Every single human being who ever lived is a product of his time and place. This is because human knowledge at any given time is distinct to its location. It's the computer breaking down language barriers that have been inplace for 4000 years. It's computer code that is making the dessemination of ideas into all languages possible at the speed of light. We are approaching a hegemony of thought where a person's place will no longer be important going forward. He will primarily be a product of his time. Now the belief is that experimental science is the fount of all knowledge but very few individuals are familiar with what science is and no one is aware that there used to be a different science that prevailed on the face of the earth. This is simply no small matter. The other science was observationally based but derived from metaphysics. It was logic that deternmined the nature and meaning of observation. This science didn't arise because wise people sat around a campfire gnawing mammouth bones and speculating there must be a better way to live. This science was the natural outgrowth of natural language. Just as computer code is a sort of natural language so too was man's first language. It was based on sounds in nature and the needs of logic and it came to encode the ancient knowledge. It was a very simple language where complexity could be achieved only in word order like computer code. It will prove pretty easy to put all the evidence on a paradigm that reflects reality. The reason nothing sticks to any of our paradigms is that they are greatly mistaken. You can't get good observation to stick to a faulty way of organizing observation. Everything we believe about our distant past is wrong. These weren't barefoot bumpkins nor noble savages. They weren't even exactly human the way we think of the term because they were first and foremost scientists and only secondarily animals. Their concerns were very human, even moreso than our own because they were intimately interested and connected to their future and past. Where we despoil the earth and waste her resources they would consider such behavior "sinful" Deducing ancient knowledge should not be very difficult once people start thinking about it. Once we have the proper paradigm we'll also know where to look for evidence and what that evidence is when we see it. No doubt you point is valid that few people had opportunity to contribute to human knowledge since so many were preoccupied with more immediate concerns but there was less knowledge and more primitive knowledge making contribution that much easier. Remember all science is probably observationally based so even stumble bums chasing their dinner might make an important discovery or observation which could be passed down to following generations. It is we who are misunderstanding everything. Your perspective is remarkably similar to my own and your knowledge of the ancients is comparable on some levels at least. I fully agree that Greece was founded on Egyptian thought and it appears possible that this is related to Dogon beliefs. My primary divergence is that I believe there is a nearly invisible change in the language that took place about 2000 BC and is remembered as the story of the tower of babel. This change in the language masked many of the ideas that Greece borrowed and then these ideas were never credited. Greece adopted all the civilization it conquered and merely got a lot more from Egypt than others. It seems obvious that Egypt and the Dogon (if applicable) also had precedents and were we able to track all these precedents we would find that even the very first people 40,000 yeatrs ago contributed. In other words my contention is human progress (thot) was a steady progression until 4,000 years ago when the language was confused. It is the computer that has made it possible to discover this although we eventually would have turned up physical evidence to learn it. No. Egyptologists call these people backward, superstitious, stinky footed bumpkins. According to Egyptology every thing that survives from before 2000 BC is evidence of religion, superstition, and magic. Even infrastructure for building pyramids is invariably pronounced to be religious in origin. Here's a more dramatic sample; 722c. Thy foot shall not pass over, thy step shall not stride through, 722d. thou shalt not tread upon the (corpse)-secretion of Osiris. 723a. Thou shalt tiptoe heaven like Śȝḥ (the toe-star); thy soul shall be pointed like Sothis (the pointed-star). This is translated to suggest the gods themselves needed to be warned against walking through "corpse drippings". One should tiptoe if one must walk in the fluids coming from a rotting corpse. I won't even get into the tremendous illogic of a dead god having actual drippings but this is reflective of how our current "scientists" understand the pyramid builders. I won't explain the lines since people don't like it but suffice to say that Osiris' "efflux" is actually CO2 that they called "risings begetter" because it caused foam to rise in beer, Osiris to stand, and cake to rise. There's nothing wrong with "observation> hypothesis> experiment> conclusion. Despite the fact that we are so confused it has given us technology and wealth. It's not this metaphysics with which I find fault but rather the near universal misunderstanding of it.

Sure there is. Experiencing the weather improperly can lead to your death if you don't seek shelter. Everything we do and feel can be experienced improperly and can lead to disaster or even war. Yes, we tend to have experiences that conform to our beliefs because our actions are caused by our beliefs and what we see is a confirmation of those beliefs. But if you mistake a rare natural phenomenon as the rapture and fall to your death you're still dead and still wrong. When you're raised into heaven then your beliefs are vindicated. This applies much more to the mundane where people read instruments like thermometers improperly and proceed on "false experience" which can lead to significant trouble. People typically experience things wrong. I'm sure the metaphysics of being something like a frog wouldn't include very much counting. A frog essentially just sticks out its tongue and a bug appears on it. It doesn't experience vision and doesn't know why bug land on his ourtstretched tongue and doesn't need to. It merely needs to know about the best conditions for sticking out his tongue. Perhaps frogs can exhibit true genius in this determination but how are we to know. It seems to me that we can safely assume the ancestors of every living frog had at least a piece of genius. Other animals are more complicated and might need the concept of counting. But without knowing their metaphysics how are we to know whether thay are counting by some means we don't see? Perhaps they are using base three or some system that is more complex like variable bases. Certainly dogs and some other animals can be taught our numbers and might even use some approximation of our numbers in life. But other animals might not be able to translate the concept of "6" as a single action, sound, or concept. It might just not be able to translate its knowledge of "6" into something we recognize. Does this make them stupid or us? Very much agreed. There are languages which we don't understand (besides all of them) but it does seem apparent that none of these languages are sufficiently complex to pass down intricate learning. However two things need to be remembered before dismissing this concept out of hand. I believe and have extensive evidence to support the idea that natural languages as could be developed by animals are like computer code and even a limited vocabulary can arranged to convey very complex ideas. Also it is known from observation that some animals are adept at communicating surprisingly complicated ideas and descriptions to other individuals of its kind. Crows, for instance, can warn other crows of threats that are not present including a description of individual humans!! This suggests there is a lot of communication going on of which we are not privvy and it might be a great deal. It's a big world out there and life is going on all around us. People can't see it because we're on a 4000 year detour. This doesn't make animals stupid, it means people are confused. That the sky is blue is superstition. Anyone can look up at night and see it's black with specks of light making compex patterns on it. During the day it can be white, tan, orange and a multitude of other colors. Even the blues vary in intensity and cohesiveness. We don't know if the blue one person experiences is the same as that another does. We haven't even defined what the "sky" is and it's being pronounced "blue" which might have no meaning as well. Is the sky just upward or is it some definable part of the atmosphere. At what altitude does the sky cease to appear "blue" to most observers? Is this blue the natural color of the sky or some refraction of the light passing through it? We make countless assumptions like 2 + 2 must equal 4 but without units neither 2 nor 2 exists so neither can 4. With units the coincept loses its cohesiveness altogether because every single thing on God's green earth is unique so you can't have two of them. If people can think so much differently than one another then why should we simply assume that to the degree a dinosaur can act like us it must be intelligent? Who died and left people in charge of defining the nature of intelligence. The fact that we have failed at this definition is certainly relevant to trying to understand the intelligence of an animal that no longer even exists except as fossils. Humans mistake our science and technology as intelligence and they are nothing of the sort. They are a manifestation of language as surely as the ancient science was the manifestation of language and the "words of the gods". We apprehend ourselves and are in no position to "rate" other animals in any way until we both understand their language and their metaphysics. Then we can speak of the intelligence or lack thereof in frogs.