Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cladking

  1. They do a superb job of providing an overview of almost everything. But they do a poor job of being consistently factually correct and differentiating fact and opinion. I think of wiki as the ideal place to go for experts who don't know much about a subject outside their own field.
  2. Actually the Great Pyramid is just the tip of an obelisk.
  3. You might be forgetting that there are many similarities between reality and our perception of it and we aren't mere points but rather live and operate in the real world. This isn't about what's "better" but what exists. Human knowledge is simply too extensive and complex to model holistically. We must model it in bits and pieces.
  4. Are you suggesting it's relevant but doesn't support my position? Logic isn't in words. It's in nature. It consists of bites like "Iff A then B" where A and B are defined in terms that apply to all things. These are the discrete bits of reality that might be mistaken for "laws". It is the way reality unfolds and makes reductionistic science appear to generate universal laws. Our science is experimental and the experiments in aggregate show this logic. Most of this logic probably has initial conditions or time as a component. I can't define logic since it would require centuries of study and involve omniscience. I'm merely trying to put "the nature of our existence" into words anyone can understand. That I might be wrong is irrelevant since everyone who has ever lived might be wrong and it's a rather all encompassing question. Perhaps rather than say everything is an issue of science I should have said "I believe that given sufficient time it might be seen the everything is within the purview of science". Numerous things are outside the scope of science now. Mountains and rivers certainly share many characteristics with living things and are intimately connected but they don't reproduce and are not conscious. You missed my point. I meant that the nature of our existence is for animals to have a four dimensional world derived from four dimensional thought (which they don't experience) and humans to have a one dimensional reality composed of their own beliefs and thoughts (which we do experience). Animals don't have a chain of thought but rather their entire brain operates within and as a part of reality. Due to their highly limited capacity resulting chiefly from the lack of generational learning they see very very little of reality and know it. We believe we see all of reality and we "know" this.
  5. I would maintain that everything is an issue of science.
  6. A bee's waggle dance is quite complex and reflects existing reality. A bee must know the position of the sun and the distance to a food source. It must be able to attract the attention of the other bees and each bee must attend to the nuances of the dance. It is entirely within the realm of reason to suggest other information about water sources and predators might be relayed as well. Then the bees must cooperate to gather the food and use it. The waggle dance is quite possibly just a tiny little part of what it means to be a bee and to do what they do. Whether this can all be hard wired as instinct or not is more a philosophical question than it is one that supports or denies my theory. It is philosophical largely because I am not maintaining that they "think" like we do. I suggest their brains, consciousness, and behavior are all one single thing based on the logic of reality itself. They do not experience "thought" but obviously they must have something in its place and this is consciousness. This consciousness allows them to react properly to the existence of threats and opportunities. It gives them a chance to survive and procreate. I am suggesting that the bee's waggle dance is digital, metaphysical, and representational and as such constitutes natural language which every species uses (most very limitedly) to thrive. Humans are different because our brains are wired for a different kind of language. We experience thought. This is largely perspective. If we had no math "science" would have little practical meaning and would still be in its infancy. Yes. Obviously there is generational learning in crows and most complex species. A cat teaches her kittens to hunt. But this knowledge being transferred is relatively simple and simple language can be used to transfer it. Much more complex knowledge is handed down generationally in humans and this knowledge includes not only the efforts of the giants of the past but also the means by which knowledge is gained. A cat or a crow has highly limited knowledge of any means to gain new knowledge beyond its ability to recognize patterns in nature. It isn't intelligence or the ability to think quickly and clearly that has created the modern world. It is complex language which we use to pass knowledge to each new generation that individuals might claw their way up onto the shoulders of giants. This IS the nature of our existence. There are literally thousands of experiments that have shown we see what we believe. I haven't read this so can't swear it's completely relevant; https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/reality-constructed-your-brain-here-s-what-means-and-why-it-matters It's not only experiments in the soft sciences that support my theory but all experiment to my knowledge. There isn't even a proper scientific definition of "consciousness", "reality", "logic", or most of the terms I'm attempting to define here. You can't experiment on what can't be defined so no theories apply to such things except the prevailing belief that the "laws of nature" define reality. Even if this belief proves someday to be correct, at this point in time we simply don't know all the laws of nature. I can't ask others to support their beliefs which is why the thread is on the philosophy forum. Right or wrong my theory is based on fact and experiment, thousands of them.
  7. Most all of what I'm saying here is merely reinterpretation of existing knowledge and experiment. I am aware of no "extraordinary claims" that I've made in THIS thread. Every experiment shows people see what they believe and I am extrapolating from this. If bees don't think then how can they communicate? I would remind everyone that we don't know what 'thinking even is but rather use its existence as proof of our own; "I think therefore I am". From this perspective it is impossible to think about thought and learn anything. I have arrived at different very ordinary conclusions from a different perspective. People don't accept the means I used to achieve this different perspective and find it rather extraordinary which isn't too far wrong. But just as the type of lab equipment that is used is normally irrelevant to experiment the means I used to get to my perspective is irrelevant to a conversation about the nature of life and its meaning. People don't want to hear about epistemology and metaphysics and they most assuredly don't want to hear about metaphysics that is based on the exact same perspective used by bees. But these too constitute "experiment" and are within the scope of human knowledge.
  8. What I meant was that for the main part every thought derives from the previous or new input. Additionally we tend to often be subject oriented. This varies individual to individual however. I defined "consciousness" several posts back. And before that I defined "thought". I am still using those definitions. Consciousness is life and thought is the comparison of input to beliefs. This works. Yes, but when I refer to abstractions I'm talking about the means we use to communicate and think. Abstractions aren't real but we treat them as if they were. They are symbols of complex ideas. The nature of our existence is to build models of what we believe and to communicate about these models in abstractions. Historically these models have always proven to be wrong or woefully incomplete. We have no means to know whether anyone's beliefs are any better today other than science and we know science changes one funeral at a time. We have no means of knowing what future scientists will think of our current models but it is "certain" they will have better ones. The various parts of our brain/ bodies are wired similarly to many other life forms. "Consciousness" is the means by which life survives. It tells a rabbit to avoid foxes and the bast means to escape. A key aspect is learning to make predictions which is derived logically from pattern recognition. If a rabbit sees a fox by the creek every day at sunrise it avoids being by the creek at sunrise. Consciousness seeks patterns to make useful prediction. This is not the nature of consciousness. This is the nature of thought. Other species apply all of their knowledge to all of their interactions with reality all the time they are awake. But our existence is largely a chain of thought. Animals succeed so well on so little knowledge because they exist in four dimensions where we essentially are in only one. We succeed because we can pass learning from generation to generation through language and gain knowledge through induction, deduction, and experiment. The nature of our existence is unlike things that are not alive and unlike all other living things. We are unique! And where each rabbit is essentially the same except for experience we are each different as defined by our beliefs.
  9. We have both thought and consciousness but experience only thought. Other life has no thought but do have an individual consciousness which they do not really experience. In our terms you might say they think but aren't aware of it. Our abstractions are a great way to communicate complex ideas and use for inductive logic but they do not exist in reality. Obviously there is more going on in the human brain/ body than just chemical processes and thought and we are aware on some level of many of these. We still live and exist in our thoughts. We see the world from the perspective of our thoughts. We are still animals and still hooked up like other animals but unlike other life we have a "one track mind". All consciousness, even human consciousness, seeks patterns. Even without thinking a dog is still trying to understand its master. Where we model beliefs dogs model reality itself to the degree their limited knowledge and capacity allows. The brain/ body/ life of other consciousness resonates with reality. In reality humans experience thought so even a dog can pick up on this and possibly imitate it in small degree.
  10. Reality is a collection of discrete logic operating in four dimensions with every event affecting every other event. We can make no sense of this by merely applying beliefs so we had no choice but to invent experimental science to look at it. But we can't look at the whole. We can only reduce bits and pieces of it to experiment so science is by nature reductionistic. Things that can't be reduced are invisible to us. This certainly includes things like consciousness and the nature of our existence. When we reduce reality we see some of the logic that underlies reality by means of experiment. But this logic is not a "rule" by which nature must operate. There are no rules, no laws, only logic. Math doesn't work because it's required any more than objects fall to the earth because they must. Math works because it's as logical as reality and things fall because it's part of the logic that holds reality together. We extrapolate and interpolate experiment as part of a paradigm but then we usually forget that all experiment applies to all things at all times similarly to the way all things affect all other things in reality at all times and across time. We have created models which are unique to each individual and incorporated them right into our beliefs. It is these beliefs that define the nature of human experience but not the nature of existence. Other consciousness have no beliefs. We are distinct from other life. It is unlikely any other life form "thinks" ie- is aware of its mental processes. Rather they engage small pieces of reality according to their nature, their experience, their knowledge, and their consciousness. Obviously this can be very highly limited in many cases. We experience thought rather than consciousness. It's entirely possible that other species or individuals might sometimes experience thinking. I think this would apply especially to dogs through imitation and porpoises through intelligence and the observation of humans. I certainly don't know but I tend to mostly doubt it. Brains develop in utero mathematically and logically. Their output is logical. Consciousness is defined by reality. Yes. It is the logic of nature and is incorporated into each consciousness. In our terms you might say it is axiomatic. Human brains don't work like a computer and even contain a few analog cells. This is evidenced by the existence of abstractions in our thinking and communication. There are no symbols or abstractions in a bee's waggle dance; it is strictly representational. This is most probably a reflection of the way they each think; no abstractions.
  11. Math is math and all math is logical by nature. Reality is infinitely complex and we are always inventing increasingly complex math in attempts to learn about nature and to explain existing phenomena. I will try to keep evidence out of this but remember I believe that it is entirely consistent with all experiment. This is interpretation. "Consciousness" and thought are distinct. Only humans today think. It is the product of comparing all sensory input to beliefs and models. For all practical purposes "life" and "consciousness" are the same thing. All life and all consciousness are individual. Consciousness arises from the individual's "wiring" which is logical so consciousness is logical. Other than humans individuals act on experience/ knowledge and logic. Some things are axiomatic to consciousness and these include cause precedes effect, no two identical things exist, reality exists as it appears, and that reality is complete unto itself. Survival is wired into every individual and is the chief purpose of consciousness. Pattern recognition exists to explain and predict reality supporting survival. Consciousness is digital (binary) except in humans.
  12. I'm not really suggesting that your beliefs can change reality. BUT you will perceive reality consistently with your beliefs and then your every action is consistent with your beliefs and perceptions. Your actions can most assuredly change reality. No "science" will ever be "overturned". However experiment is periodically reinterpreted from a new perspective often called a "paradigm". This occurs in fits and starts based on the specific individuals who are at the forefront of research. As this group evolves theory changes. Actually I believe I'm the only one with evidence. But this is a philosophy forum so evidence is off topic and nobody, I can assure you, is interested in such evidence. Suffice to say that every experiment ever performed agrees with this interpretation, or at the very least, no experiment counters it. It's simple enough. Math simply always corresponds directly to reality (2 apples is 1 more than 1 apple). This correspondence results from them both being based in logic. ...Like the double slit experiment? If you think it's off topic I will respond no further. Buit this is I believe the nature of our existence; the nature of life, the nature of reality and the nature of science and philosophy.
  13. It is the simplest paradigm to explain every experiment. No. Not really. We see quantified logic we call "mathematics" agree with experimental results, but experiment is just snapshots of the logic we all seek and that is reality. We can't directly observe reality because we see our models and beliefs instead. Non-mystics rarely have mystical experiences. We are each different and each a product of beliefs so almost anything becomes possible. Even entire cultures going insane is possible. There is often a sort of truth or logic even in the most baseless beliefs and experienced phenomena. Truth and logic exist just as much as falsity and illogic exist everywhere.
  14. Yes. There are no "laws of nature". There only seem to be because reductionistic science can only reveal one data point, one experiment, at a time. Only in humans do abstractions like "belief" even apply. All other life deals with everything through experience/ knowledge much of which derives from pattern recognition and previous experience. The rest comes from genetics which is another manifestation of logic/ reality. Yes. But it's far more true and far more relevant that your beliefs define how you experience reality. You are a product of your beliefs but reality is not. After we've adopted a set of beliefs it changes largely as the result of experiment, experience, or critical thought. Most of our beliefs are with us for a lifetime. Your perceptions are wholly dependent on your beliefs. We filter everything through our beliefs. We don't normally notice such things because our beliefs and reality tend to be very similar at least to the degree our beliefs can be tested. We are still a product of our time and place. Everything that can't be tested we tend to assume is like our beliefs. Indeed. ...at least until there is a dress rehearsal.
  15. Reality has little effect on beliefs and beliefs have no effect on reality except through the actions they induce. Yes, of course. But no education can't make a person correct about anything. Critical thinking might. Experiment is a sort of set of guideposts to keep us on a road but it can never be certain it is the right road.
  16. "We are an expression of whatever beliefs we choose to accept. " I mean it quite literally. Life is consciousness and consciousness has the exact same logic that underlies reality that we perceive as the "laws of nature". In part consciousness is pattern recognition and in humans this manifests as explanations of our perceptions based on beliefs and models. These models often derive from paradigms which are, in effect, more beliefs; beliefs about the proper interpretation of experiment. Each human chooses what to believe and this begins with trying to imitate and please our caregivers/ parents. As we learn we each choose what beliefs to incorporate. We are each a construct of what we choose to believe. Obviously nothing is static and these beliefs evolve over a lifetime and the change will ideally be driven by logic as we perceive it and the logic of reality as expressed by experiment. At every point of our lives our actions and perceptions are driven by our beliefs. Typically our beliefs are reinforced by our perceptions and by the outcomes of actions driven by those same perceptions. There is no breaking out of this pattern but by recognizing it we can influence it.
  17. We are an expression of whatever beliefs we choose to accept.
  18. We must use science to untangle the illogic of language. Experiment provides glimpses of reality which we extrapolate. When we remember we also interpolate these glimpses. Logic is logic and science is science and they are both a part of reality.
  19. It appears the precision involved with the ancient vases has been confirmed; They have good provenance. Petrie himself said stones were fitted on the pyramid with "optical precision". The evidence of our own eyes says our interpretations of the ancient societies and what they left is all wrong.
  20. Here I am referring to the horizontal section from the queens chamber to the chevrons above the entrance of the great Pyramid. I believe this entire length has sand in the walls in some places with most of it near the exterior. Today they've announced I was right all along that there is at least a 30' section of passage that was previously unknown through here. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-36351-0 There's also a picture taken from a boroscope inserted at the chevrons;
  21. What's missing is that words like "think", "believe", "ramp", and all abstractions didn't even exist in Ancient Language. They had a mere handful of words and they were almost all nouns. The language breaks Zipf's Law because they not only didn't think like Egyptologists they didn't think at all just like "all" non-human species. I didn't say this simply because I thought that saying they didn't think like Egyptologists would suffice and it is not my intent to take this thread off topic. We can't imagine a metaphysical, digital, and representative language used by people who each thought exactly alike and didn't even experience "thought" at all. And since we can't my showing it it can and does exist will probably do very little good. I believe I answered your question very comprehensively in the last post but have elaborated only little here because I'd like to keep this as clos4e as I can to pictures and things that can be seen. There are a virtually infinite number of tests that this can and has already appeared. Hence the thread. "Funiculars" make numerous specific predictions beyond what has already been delineated. For example if chemical testing were done there would likely be several places that it is seen. Protected areas on the north side should have copper hydroxide deposits cause by the chemical interaction of copper sulfate, sodium decahydrate, sodium chloride, and calcium carbonate as described in ancient literature. There is probably still significant CO2 dissolved in the water at the bottom of the Osiris Shaft. There are numerous other ways this can show up. Ultraviolet imaging will probably show returns under the chevrons on the north side. The infrared imaging already showed most of the results I predicted but more extensive study will show many more. Microscopic stratigraphy done inside the great pyramids will show none were used as a tombs and other data will appear. There has already been vaterite found in the walls of the horizontal passage but i can't show a picture if this!!! There will be sand all through the walls here and it is the cause of many of the high density regions. All the testing needs to be done. And then all the anomalies will need follow up. Most of the work needed is the technical stuff that has never been done but there is also more mundane things like excavating the cave at the "Tomb of the Birds", and eventually clearing out the massive fissure just to the north of G1 in which Vyse failed to get all the way. There are barometric readings that need to be undertaken in the great pyramids and especially the Bent Pyramid. By this means the cause of anomalous air movements can be discovered. I have little doubt we'd quickly find caves open to the atmosphere under them. Many of these tests would probably provide new pictures for this thread.
  22. Principally we are missing the simple fact that ancient Egyptians didn't think anything at all like Egyptologists. Egyptologists insist on parsing what they believe are incantations in order to understand them. The reality is there are no incantations and they only seem to be because Egyptologists can't understand the writing that can not be parsed because it is like bird's song, computer code, or a mathematical equation. The meaning disappears when it is parsed in any way at all. Because they wholly misapprehend the people they misapprehend the artefacts and everything else about the culture and the physical evidence. Because the tests have never been done we are missing the reality of how pyramids were built. Were the truth known that it was built with linear funiculars it would be be far easier to see this in the ruins and in the cultural context which said "Osiris tows the earth by means of balance and that it is "downward" that provides the motive force to build". They virtually used these exact words but it is invisible to anyone who believes ancient people couldn't even manipulate a wheel and appealed to many gods in every sentence. You can't parse any sentence correctly if you don't know the referents and this goes many times over for Ancient Language which was literal and could not be parsed. It meant only exactly what it said but Egyptologists assumed from the very beginning that it was incantation.
  23. Then you have the results of testing that I've stated categorically has never been done!!! I didn't say that Egyptology is a 'conspiracy", I said they have never done great amounts of testing from chemical to microscopic and they've done no systematic testing except for stratigraphic work since the t9ime of Petrie 125 years ago. There is probably no conspiracy, and I certainly don't believe one exists, there is merely the professional belief that the answers are already known so testing is superfluous. Before the infrared testing showed that there are all sorts of structures inside G1 the Egyptological position said that the pyramid is too homogenous to show any kind of detail.
  24. Thank you. I should have thought of this. I'm not sure these capabilities would be transferrable to building vases however. I do not believe it was done this way. The evidence of your own eyes suggests it was built in five steps and stones were relayed one step at a time up the 72 degree step sides. Obviously one can argue the definition of "ramp" to include the 72 degree sides but the bottom line is that there was no team of stone draggers pulling them up and no teams of "ramp builders" as defined by modern beliefs. While I've delineated and pictured a great deal of evidence to show this is how it was built in this thread there is still a great deal more evidence which simply can't be pictured. Most of the necessary evidence exists in ruins but not all of it can be pictured. There is also a great deal of cultural context that supports this hypothesis including statements by the builders which state how it was built. I believe, because there is evidence, that almost no stone movement was made through muscles. They used motive forces most of which were falling counterweights full of water. I believe, again based on evidence much of which can be pictured, that the builders were a force of nature and masters of one moving piece machines. I've never really cared much for this hypothesis for numerous reasons. initially because it would be almost impossible to clad the structures and it should leave evidence in the stone work. But it also flies in the face of the simple fact that the pyramid was stepped. The wooden cradles would make the stones more easily moved on level ground but uphill would be little easier and downhill a nightmare. They are generally much too flimsy for most stones. Just as a 6' tall grasshopper couldn't even stand up there is a fundamental difference between a 50' pyramid ands a 500' pyramid. It's not only the amount of stone and the work to lift it because more work has to be concentrated in a smaller area. As ramps get longer there is not enough room to support the number of men who must work on them. I believe these questions will never be answered without the use of modern science. I believe they aren't using modern science because they believe the builders could have used nothing but ramps. "Beliefs" very much are the issue when it comes to the great pyramids and the application of science. The perfection. Nobody has come close to duplicating even the easiest of the vases. The evidence is the utter lack of evidence and published reports. It's almost impossible to do anything on the Giza Plateau because it will not be allowed. If you are willing to pay for it yourself AND entice a museum to return artefacts they might let you in but there's a five year wait. All technology that has been applied to the pyramid has been thrown at it to see hat sticks but very little has been done. This is why you can't find any data about the pyramid or any of the artefacts. When anomalies are found they are ignored. Caves "known" to not exist are simply locked up when their existence is proven. But far worse is that there is no clearing house to record the many changes and extensive damage that is still occurring. It is almost impossible to differentiate the original from modern changes. Holes that are likely infrastructural are often filled with concrete for to accommodate tourists. Holes are drilled everywhere in the search for gold and booty. Science applied systematically would measure everything and then it would investigate every anomaly. None of this has been done since Petrie left over a century ago. There would be stratigraphic microscopy and many other such results. When infrared photography which has been commercially available for more than a century was finally applied the results were so stunning they not only refused to allow publication but never followed up on the dramatic anomalies. Allowing an isolated test from time to time does not constitute "study", I believe. "Study" by definition must mean the usage of all applicable resources. It must mean all science and all human knowledge coming to bear. In reality not even the knowledge of a single individual has been brought to bear. I've long said an engineering intern could solve how the pyramids were built on his summer vacation. Egyptologists are linguists.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.