Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cladking

  1. 17 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

    There are many ways the stone vessels could have been made.  It looks like the Metropolitan Museum of Art has about 115 ancient Egyptian stone vessels, so they don't seem as rare as you thought.

    There are tens of thousands (if not more) of "Egyptian" earthenware, stone, and ceramic vases.  Egyptology has great expertise in most of this material.  But just as we fail to distinguish between the great pyramids which are huge and older and the tiny pyramids which are all in ruins there has been no differentiation between the older perfectly made vases and the later ones.  I believe most if not all of these were found in a single spot dating back before the end of the great pyramid building age.  I simply don't know how many were found and how many were mostly intact.  The initial report said a "cache".   

    I know of no reason to believe that other vases and art objects share such characteristics. There are certainly more of these older artefacts that defy ready explanations as to their manufacture or use but none are known to have been made to such exacting standards.  As I've said many times, all the artefacts from the great pyramid building age should be subjected to systematic scientific testing.  Only this one, to date, have been.  

    17 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

    I don't see any big issues with obtaining any vases or vessels to test, but I also don't see burning reason to test them anyways, what do you expect to find?

    Nothing has been scientifically examined systematically since Petrie at the end of the 19th century.  We have far more knowledge and instrumentation than we did a century and a quarter ago.  We have far more means to seek anomalies and so we can then study them to learn about the great pyramid builders and their lives.  

    We can't see through the pyramids or see the characteristics of vases with our naked eyes.  We must use science and it is not being done!  The "Evidence of Your Own Eyes" does not extend into the ultraviolet or the specific gravity of ancient artefacts.  We must use instrumentation and knowledge to peer into the unknown and unseeable.  

  2. 6 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

    Do you have any evidence of these tests and what they showed.  If 'they' refused to release the results how do you know what the results are?


    The tests were so surprising to Egyptologists even though I had predicted them exactly that the initial reaction was to publish them and ask all Egyptologists for hypotheses regarding the causation.  Of course it quickly became more widely known that I had predicted them and there were no further stories released to the press.  There were several leaks as they tried to communicate outside the press which were sufficient to show my theory was probably accurate.  There were other goings on reported by visitors to he site including evidence that endoscopes were used and scientists were trying to devise a means to access this area.  It was all rather comedic.  

    But the scientists didn't stop in 2015 and continued to gather more evidence that almost certainly corresponds to my theories and predictions but this is not certain since Zahi Hawass has refused to allow publication of more data even to Egyptologist for fear it might "confuse" people!!! 

    There are continuing leaks and they still conform to my predictions.  They went looking for gold and spiral ramps and found neither and the failure to publish proves they found no ramps.  

    6 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

    Apparently there are many thousands of these stone vases owned by thousands of people and organizations, so I am not sure who these people are that you say are trying to control all of the vases.

    I don't even know why you think someone would try to hide how they were 'really' made.

    I'm sure no one knows how they were made.  But accessing these might be extremely difficult.  IMS there are fewer than 100 of them and there are UN laws now that essentially put the onus of proof on the owner rather than the countries of origin.  In other words if you own an ancient artefact you almost need to show a 4000 year trail of receipts to prove legal ownership.  Many items now are traded outside the eyes of the press, the foreign governments, and their agents.   There is a continual flow of objects out of the US especially from private collections.  Museums are usually supportive of both the Egyptian government and Egyptology.  

    I agree that it shouldn't be overly difficult to get at least a few vases and other objects to check but Egyptology still controls the sites in Egypt and simply refuse the systematic application of  modern science to any of them.   

    6 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

    If 'they' refused to release the results how do you know what the results are?

    It's not so much "they" as it is Dr Zahi Hawass who still calls all the shots.  No doubt he gets support from others, some of whom could be named.  He seems to believe he is the final authority and nobody has contradicted him.  

    Egyptology is highly insular.  

  3. I've been campaigning for many years to get these vases tested right along with the great pyramids but it has always fallen on deaf ears.  When some tests in 2015 showed exactly what i predicted they refused to release the results with the explanation that they didn't want to confuse the public.  Where I predicted it they lacked even hypotheses or speculation as to its cause.  

    This time an object was found outside their control and it is not explicable in terms of modern beliefs about stone pounders and brutish force.  

    Read the comments!  

  4. 56 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    Balderdash, or in the ancient language, nuh-uh.

    Did you not see the chart showing the same symbols being used all over the world or the one showing Ancient Language breaks Zipf's Law.

    One of the reasons it breaks Zipf's Law is that there are very very very few words that were used.  Most of the words were nouns and none of the words are necessarily abstraction.  Indeed, there were also no words for "thought" or "belief" as well as no taxonomies!!  

    Many languages are traced back to a single one called "Proto-Indo European" and I believe they all split even earlier than this and this is invisible because none of these languages were actually recorded and survived other than Sumerian and Egyptian. 

    I believe the fact that all languages obey Zipf's Law and the Pyramid Texts do not is highly significant.  It implies a different formatting or usage or a different way to think.  I believe it is all of these.  

    I really intend this thread to be "the evidence of your own eyes" so intend to try to avoid this specific subject to the degree possible.  



  5. 7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

    So according to your link, CIA reports now take the form of handwritten bullet points that have no explanation and make no sense.


    For some reason the image of a hovercraft full of eels comes to mind...........

    As I said I discount the report in its entirety.  It is merely interesting that no part of such a detailed account contradicts any of my hypotheses at all.  I find it humorous because I discount it. 

    There are some strange things implied by my hypotheses but those not in agreement with known science AND with ancient science I dismiss in their entirety.   

  6. This whole thing has been happening in very slow motion for many years now.

    A doctor and polymath as well as an expert on ancient Egypt and hieroglyphs  has given me permission to reproduce his work undertaken because of my contention that Ancient Language  does not obey Zipf's Law which holds all writing displays word incidence that lays out on a logarithmic scale. I knew it didn't obey the law because of its appearance so never counted words.  


    By; Manu Seyfzadeh

    As you can see it's almost exactly as I had predicted; two well defined intersecting lines instead of a sweeping curve as all modern languages exist;


    Also I have contended since 2006 that the Egyptians could use linear funiculars without having the wheel which had existed for ten centuries when great pyramids began.  I have contended they could have simply used a log or roller confined to a trough. Now that are teams working on this;






    They've actually demonstrated the ability to lift heavy weights up steep inclines.  

    Again, it is quite apparent they had actual pullies but these experiments prove they were not necessary.  


    As an aside since this thread is at the top anyway, there is a humorous little tidbit from the CIA where a mystic was interviewed and repeatedly said that there was water spraying up.  Even though the mystic actually mapped some aspects of my hypotheses and this is CIA I still tend to discount it in its entirety.  


    I also find it absolutely fascinating that he described people with attributes of animals since the usage of metaphysical language forces an entirely different mode of thought that is just like animals.  

    This fits with my contention that homo sapiens are extinct and we are homo omnisciencis.  

  7. I'm in general agreement but would say it differently.


    Life is consciousness and the first demand of consciousness is survival and the second reproduction.  

    Second is to have fun to both feed your soul but also to maintain your desire to survive.

    Third, and most importantly, is to try to leave the world a better place than you found it.  In every way you want to leave it better.  

    Fourth, fight death with every living breath.  You can age gracefully as you seek the fountain of youth.  If you find it just hope you're still young enough to enjoy it.  

  8. On 8/3/2022 at 8:24 AM, MigL said:

    Since there are not, and probably never been, any aliens on Earth, are you suggesting we do the same, and leave ?

    Mebbe never been.

    My theory is the aliens have a machine that can extract intelligence from the human species and will leave when they suck up the last little bit.  

    On 8/3/2022 at 4:46 AM, Glancer said:

    There is something wrong with human philosophy that is allowing human civilization to slide into a dark place.  Whatever woo New Age crystals that you all don't like, it was taking us in the right direction. 

    I am suggesting that we, as the scientific community, stop and reassess whether or not our philosophies are helping us survive as a species?  Or letting us perish.

    We have lost sight of our humanity.  We have lost sight of why science works and what it is for.  We no longer hold leaders responsible.  "Science" is often not pursued for its own sake but rather for monetary purposes.   

    Aliens might be our only hope.  

  9. The meaning of life?  


    That's the easy one.  Mebbe Mother Nature just got tired of watching boulders turn into sand while an entire species could have  come and gone so She invented consciousness.   



  10. 10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    Do you need to know how a computer works at the hardware/software interface in order to use it? Why do we need to understand consciousness in order to do science? 

    You certainly need to know how a computer works to improve on it.

    Like all life all science is individual.  Individuals invent hypothesis and experiment and interpret results.  Individuals build models and then science changes one funeral at a time.  


    Without understanding consciousness the mechanisms of this interpretation are unknown.  The effects of interpretations on humans and other science are unknown.  

    Only individuals are conscious. 

  11. 4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    Can't see that. At all. Without thought, how would they find shelter, capture food, win mates, decide who was in charge at any given activity, teach their children not eat poisonous berries...?

    They did it the same way animals do it; without beliefs, thought, or abstractions.  It is modern human consciousness that is different.  Ancient humans "thought" just like other species and part of this mode of consciousness is to not experience 'thought" at all.   It is apparently our beliefs that give rise to "thought" which is a comparison of sensory input to our models and beliefs.   Without beliefs animals experience reality directly but can perceive only what they understand.  

    4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    As for machine consciousness will not be created; it will 'arise' from unconscious machines once they expand their limited vocabulary.

    I couldn't disagree more.  There is no reason given time that even an animal brain couldn't be modeled with transistors.   Of course such miniaturization may well be very far in the future.  But even before that I believe that actual machine intelligence can be created.   Whether or not it is conscious is a different question.  

    I seriously doubt that language can create awareness or intelligence.  

    5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    No dictionaries. Symbols would suggest both thinking and abstraction, which you say this universal, very early use of shared symbology does not represent.

    No.  You're oversimplifying.

    You assume they are symbols but I believe they are representations of human knowledge.   This suggests either language spread from a point and was universal or that the nature of human consciousness was such everyone ended up at the same conclusions or it was both.  

    Since there is no known contact between humans tens of thousands of years ago it implies some kind of shared consciousness or shared language or both.   The odds against the same symbols evolving on each continent are too high  to even bother to estimate.   

    5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    No, I just can't follow either the reasoning or the history you present.

    History is history and the fact is there are incredibly few words expressed in ancient writing, virtually no historical accounts, no abstractions, no words for belief or thought, no taxonomies, breaks Zipf's Law, and none of it makes sense after translation.  This refers to the oldest language(s) does not apply to newer writings.  There is a very strong implication that the authors could not possibly think like we do.  There is an implication that consciousness itself must be different.  Rather than saying he acted after he thought about it they said he acted the second moment after perception!!!!   This says almost categorically that they could not think like we do.  

  12. 9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    There was language, with words and syntax, but it was limited (highly limited?) What circumstance imposed that limitation?

    The language wasn't "limited" the vocabulary was.  There were only some few hundred words and several thousand nouns but with these words they could talk about anything they knew.  Just like computer language employs only eight words and operates everything they could live their lives with very few words each with a single meaning.  

    9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    And then somebody - who was unconscious at the time - somehow invented a new kind of language, and that new language caused consciousness to happen, so that after the vocabulary was unleashed, we could experience thought.

    No.  People who spoke this language were conscious but simply didn't experience thought.  They knew they were alive and individual but their brains operated like other life forms.  They were "human" only because they possesses complex language which allows the generational passing down of knowledge and in many ways defines what it means to be human.  

    Language, modern language, programs the brain and allows us to experience thought.  Ancient Language was the natural programming for the brain but did have shortcomings like the lack of taxonomies, abstractions, and symbolism which made inductive reasoning impossible.  

    9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    I go along with the second half... provisionally.

    At this time.  I'm not ruling out the God, magic, or the ability to create machine consciousness.  I'm merely saying that at this time to our knowledge all life is conscious and consciousness, no matter how it is experienced by the individual, is life.  


    9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    If everybody understands about thinking, you don't need to talk about thinking.

    It isn't only words about "thought" that don't exist in Ancient Language but all words related to "believe" and all abstractions.  There is no inductive reasoning and their words show they reasoned from the specific to the general.  It was apparently a totally different way to experience consciousness.

    10 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    But that's beside the point, which is: the earliest languages, and even some quite recent ones, were not written down.

    There are the same "symbols" written in caves all over the world.   Obviously these must be somehow innate to man.  I believe that they are the product of deductive reasoning, they are what early man learned based on his consciousness.  They are the natural product of a natural language as experienced by people all over the planet.   


  13. 2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

    Arose - what does that mean in biological terms?  Why? When? By what mechanism? In response to what stimulus?

    I believe all these questions and their answers are highly relevant but I might be the only one.  I'll have to be extremely circumspect.  Only those answers directly related to consciousness will be provided.  

    "Arose" is not a biological term here.  The parent language that was natural lent only its highly limited vocabulary to modern language that gives rise to our consciousness and experience of thought.  In essence modern languages are a pidgin form of natural human language which is now nearly totally lost.  

    7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:


    Consciousness is life and all life is conscious.  Language in other species arise from the way the brain is organized or wired.   This wiring forms in utero and follows logical rules and a mathematical unfolding.  For practical purposes in all other species language and consciousness are two sides of the same coin.   Each species has a unique set of knowledge and this knowledge is based on what is needed to survive and procreate.  Their worlds are perceived only in terms of this knowledge while ours are perceived in terms of what we have been taught.  


    13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

    Birds and groundhogs make specific sounds to stand for things and events; they express possession, intention, warning, persuasion and call to arms - those are ideas - with symbolic utterances.

    No.  Words in other languages represent something and each word has a fixed meaning.  The direction of a bee's waggle dance can not be interpreted or parsed because it represents the direction of food.  Each bee must take the exact same meaning so abstractions and symbolism do not exist.  

    16 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

    Sez who? On what evidence?

    Ancient people apparently described a different way to "think" where words like "think" simply did not even exist.   It is an abstraction and there's no evidence any animal understands abstraction.  But to deny them consciousness is obviously wrong.   We don't relate to animals (communicate) because we can't think like they do.  The formatting of the languages is different and "thought" as we experience it is an artifact of language.  

    Perhaps if you're interested I can start another thread for the evidence of this.  



  14. 9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    Of course an army requires each soldier to think! Not to devise strategy or make tactical decisions, but to deploy their learned skills and co-ordination to maximum effect, and to protect one another, and respond to changes in a developing situation. It's the same kind of limited thinking that ants or factory workers or migrating swallows have to do.


    You could be a boss in industry.   One of the biggest problems in American industry is the men aren't supposed to think.  

    All ideas originate in individuals so if any individuals aren't thinking then maybe none of them are.  The bosses and colonels can just look up procedure or rewrite Demming's Laws to operate any plant or take any hill.  

    There's no beating consciousness.

    9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    Where did this different language come from? Who did the programming?

    It arose from a previous language.   All language programs all "brains".  But there are at least two distinct kinds of language and our analog symbolic language underlies the programming of all modern language speakers.   The other kind of language, natural language, is digital and representative I believe.  Users are still completely "conscious" but they don't experience thought and operate on the total knowledge of their species rather than their beliefs as acquired through complex language.  

  15. You've not really thought this through; an ant doesn't need conscious thought for hive intelligence to work, so an ant colony is intelligent unconsciously. 

    An army doesn't require individuals to think either but you aren't ever going to be promoted for getting yourself killed following orders.   

    I believe humans "think" differently than all other consciousness.  All consciousness arises from the wiring of the "brain" but human brains are programmed by a different type of language that is analog and  symbolic where other consciousness employs digital and representative language.  We perceive thought because it emerges from the way we think.   We act on our "understanding" which is really just our models and beliefs of reality but all other consciousness acts on their knowledge and this knowledge is species wide.  Individuals still think but do not experience thought.  

    There is no "hive intelligence" but rather each individual acting and working in tandem create that which has served their needs ibn the past.  This action isn't really "instinct" but it is a product of language which is hard wired into the "brain" and usually into the genes as well.  Just like in humans every individual is thinking but more of the time animals are being carried along by their programming.  

    Every new invention of termites or bees was invented by an individual and then communicated to the rest of the hive.  


  16. On 5/6/2022 at 2:11 PM, Peterkin said:


    I'm not sure why you're so concerned about this cardinal behaviour. It sounds to me more like something a male would do than a female; I have to cover my mirrors in springtime from robins and redwings. They see a reflection and take it for another member of their species who is invading their territory and must be driven off - particularly if it's near their nesting site. The motivation and the behaviour are clear and logical in terms of bird life, but the artifact has no significance in terms of bird culture.

    Ask a child why a mirror reverses left and right but not up and down.  

    An animal that recognizes the existence of itself in a reflective surface will know "instinctively" the nature of a refection.

    I've come up with a few possible hypotheses for why at least three species of birds fly into mirrors, but only one seems very possible at this time; they are trying to teach themselves how to hover better and, quite possibly, so they can defend a territory.  I'll be trying a few experiments and observations to try to support or deny the possibility. 

    The point here, though is that "consciousness" exists and underlies everything from beaver fisheries to, perhaps, even pyramid construction.  Why do ants leave a pile of sand around their entrances?   Calling things "instinct" is not a solution to understanding how animals and humans think and behave.   

  17. Quote

    But the cardinal might understand the mirror as well as most 15 year olds.  

    She sits on the window about 5" away looking at her reflection for a few seconds then flies into the mirror and then goes straight down to the ground staying only moments.  This is followed by a short flight to the bottom of the hill from whence she returns after about 20 seconds and repeats the process.  He mate usually watches from about 20'  from a vantage on the opposite side of the vehicle and downhill.  He's obviously watching her flight path rather than what seems to be her strange behavior.  

    My understanding is cardinals don't necessarily nest in the spring and this spring has been so cold they might not be ready.  


    I'll try to make a better observation and use some binoculars.  

    Whatever she's thinking it's definitely the mirror that is fundamental since I've seen her flying into another one.  

  18. Quote

    I strongly recommend attempting both. Anthropocentric assumptions have kept us in ignorance about and indifference to everyone else - and pretty soon, there won't be anyone else. 

    I agree.   

    But we can't do the latter until we do the former.  


    Really? The existence of a watch proves... what? 

    It merely proves that one species has sufficiently complex language, manual dexterity, and enough understanding to create a new thing of nature; a watch or a rear view mirror.  

    Understanding the read out of any of our watches (since the sun dial) is probably too abstract for any animal to understand.  

    But the cardinal might understand the mirror as well as most 15 year olds.  

  19. Quote

    Self-awareness does not require understanding of artefacts from outside one's natural environment.

    I would suggest that what we take as "self awareness" is merely a recognition of our own thinking.  But all "thinking" is an abstraction based in language which is the means by which we acquire all our knowledge and the ability to think.  For some unknown (to me) reason the cardinal appears to either be interested in her reflection or in streaking my car under the mirror with her waste.  I seriously doubt she's "thinking" in any terms we would recognize.  To understand her consciousness we must either learn the nature of consciousness or quit "thinking" in terms of self awareness or consciousness being something uniquely human.  

    It is to be presumed cardinals have an exceedingly simple language based on their behavior.  Yes, they have highly complex and "intelligent" behavior but they don't attend school or read books.  They don't understand abstractions or form committees to study their problems.  


    It seems there must be something far more fundamental to consciousness than self awareness; even more fundamental than thought or abstractions.  

    I don't believe there is such a thing as "man made" so it follows that there is nothing in a cardinal's environment that isn't completely natural.  If she weren't trying to torture my mirror there are a dozen other cars within less than half a mile.  

    Perhaps she wants me to drive her somewhere but then this is one trick I haven't learned yet.  

  20. On 4/19/2022 at 7:45 AM, geordief said:

    "Is there any kind of a test (perhaps along the lines of the Turing test) that we could administer to a sentient creature (or a machine) that would allow us to define or determine whether or not the said subject was actually  conscious?

    Until there is a definition for "consciousness" we will not be able to study it or even understand whether it must be "self-aware".  Then this begs the question of what is self awareness.  A cardinal has been flying into the rear view mirror of my parked car for days now.  Does this mean she's self aware?  Was the male cardinal conscious when it stabilized a hosta stem loaded with seeds while his mate gorged a few seasons back?  

    Any definition of consciousness that excludes living things will prove a failure to its study.  Any definition of "self awareness" that applies only to humans will have no usefulness except to humans and it will provide no knowledge of consciousness.  

  21. 5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    That may happen sometimes, but it can't be the norm, or society would break down and cease to function. More likely, it could never been established in the first place.

    We do when the other guy shows up an hour late at the wrong meeting-place, or all the walls of a building lean outward. When a bridge or tunnel started at two end fails to match up in the middle as planned, the discrepancy is not due to verbal misunderstanding but mathematical miscalculation. Most of the time, in most transactions and social interactions, people understand one another quite well - in fact, much meaning is communicated indirectly, in oblique or coded language, coupled with intonation, facial expression, gesture and context.  

    Yes.  Two people engaging in different conversations is rare.   The longest I ever heard was about twelve sentences.  

    Usually it's just a very few sentences but neither notices.   


    Hundreds of marines were killed in Normandy when their gear to scale the cliffs was insufficient for overhanging cliffs there was and is no standard means to depict these.   Many times when people are supposed to meet at "midnight tuesday" they show up on different days because this is not defined.   "Midnight occurs between two days and neither it nor noon is AM or PM.   

    Nobody seems to notice these things until a walkway collapses with  dozens of people and then nothing changes.  


    Language is "confused".   It works after a fashion for thought but not so well for communication.  

  22. This is really remarkably simple but difficult to see. Modern language always has an ephemeral meaning because words are defined.  Not only does the specific intended definition have to be parsed from context but connotations can affect how the sentence is parsed.  If this isn't problematic enough most people have unique definitions of many words and whether that unique definition belongs to the speaker or the parser is irrelevant and will affect meaning in ways neither the speaker nor listener can possibly predict.  But here is where Wittenstein comes in; the way our brains process information and experience is driven by language so even our intended meaning as well As the taken meaning is dependent on language as much as author intent.   

    The long and short of it is that every listener always takes a different meaning of every utterance.   We assume these are merely shades of meaning but in actuality they can be polar opposites.  But we don't notice this.  Two people can actually have two different conversations and walk away thinking they had just communicated with someone where there was actually no communication whatsoever; no exchange of ideas or knowledge.  

    This is all exceedingly important because among the problems of programmed thought is the belief that we are intelligent and that this "intelligence" can be imparted to machines if they merely have a sufficient number of diodes or processors.  We can teach language to a machine and it might well mimic intelligence but it will still be susceptible to the same inability to accurately communicate or to consistently come up with a correct answer except in mathematical questions.   This is because no modern language is logical and meaning must be relayed as tautologies to have a fair chance at correct interpretation.  


    There are simple steps that can be taken to mitigate or eliminate all these problems but they are not recognized so their is no will to do so.   The message to the general should simply have said "attack at day break and I'll follow immediately, do not proceed without me".  Generally a better solution is to limit the number of generals.  

  23. On 1/6/2022 at 8:57 AM, Genady said:

    In fact, it is overexplained. There are many different explanations, sometimes overlapping, sometimes inconsistent. My OP generated a small survey of what some members here pick as their favorite explanation. It turned out to be a subset of explanations existing "on the market."

    Here's one you probably haven't seen;

    My "theory" is that math is logic quantified and reality is logic manifest.   

    The imperfect overlap creates rounding errors, constants, and a misapplication of mathematical principles and equations to a digital reality.  

  • 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.