cladking

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.

This is exactly the problem; where we are today. Numerous unsupportable trends are in place. People don't understand science so we allow the government to shut down generating plants supposedly to reduce so called greenhouse gas emmissions. Nevermind that this destroys vast amounts of wealth and causes jobs to go to China wghere they are very inefficient so the net result is even higher CO2 production each year. People are poorer in aggregate and more CO2 is added to our experiment on the planet. Rather than a comprehensive attack on production of the gas in light of human needs we are saddling the future with ever higher debt and fewer resources. It's simply inhuman. Where we are today is also the problem inasmuch as to virtually all individuals this means we are at the pinnacle of creation. People to believe that in aggregate we know almost everything when the fact is we don't even necessarily know more than cavemen. Technology is mistaken for knowledge because people because people don't understand the true nature of science. Our modern science is based on a simple enough metaphysic but in order to understand science one needs to know this and each experiment that has led to our knowledge and how technology springs from it. So we have an extremely dangerous superstition that we know everything and this allows us to stumble blindly into the future with no consideration to people who might live there and no consideration to the past. There are tests of our ability to cope coming up and rather than address issues related to these tests we waste more than we use. I believe ancient knowledge might be a help in several ways. Chief among them though is a simple understanding of just how ignorant we really are. Simply knowing this will help us see the future and to look for unintended consequences before the fact. Knowing we are part of nature in every real way might help us appreciate the majesty of nature and how small we really are. Understanding of the ancients might even help with mundane problems today such as new ways to attack problems with comprehension of phenomena or even the development of a format for artificial intelligence. I'd be happy just to discuss what the cavemen really knew and how they came to know it. I'd be happy enough just to show that once the means to build the pyramid is known that we'll find an extinct science that was in many ways far superior to our own. I think we'll find that the human race has been going downhill in terms of intelligence for a very long time and that we have been on a 4000 year detour from much of our humanity. We mistake our comfort for intelligence and our technology for knowledge. Simply stated, the paradigm for our understanding of the pyramid and its builders is absurd in the extreme. It is virtually baseless in fact and is built on assumptions. This "theory" has proven incapable of making accurate predictions since it was invented 150 years ago. There are people now trying to find a new paradigm that works and someday there is likely to be a lot of coalescence around something that does work and does make predictions. We'll find, no matter who or how they were built, that the builders were highly intelligent, knowledgeable, capable, and scientific. All the real evidence supports this. We'll find that where the builders said "the earth is high under the sky by means of thine arms tefnut", that they were literally and exactly correct by any real measure. The current paradigm excludes all the words of the buiders and the era as being irrelevant. Once you really know what "tefnut" and her arms are then you have the thing solved. Even a caveman knew the answer to this and could use the knowledge along with all his knowledge simultaneously.

No numbers really mean anything. Sure there are some like moles of one element that can combine with another that are reflective of reality but even these can be expressed in other terms and we'll probably find out some day that all Oxygen molecules are not created the same and differ along numerous parameters. Our metaphysics has caused a divorce between man and nature and between man and reality. The ancients were fully aware that numbers were not reflective of reality so they had a built in fudge factor of 1/ 64th by which anything might vary. 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 or as we'd say 1.5625%. This fudge factor could then be factored out for important things like perfect alignment of the Great Pyramid. Euclidean geometry simply defines the intersection of three lines at right angles to model reality just as numbers are an attempt to model a reality that doesn't actually exist. Just as there is no place to which eyclidean geometry can be apoplied there atre no objects or concepts to which numbers can be properly applied. Of course you can't add apples and oranges but you also can't add apples and apples in the real world for countless reasons. It's never legitimate to say one apple plus one apple makes 2 apples because apples differ and this sort of counting implies a knowledge of the future since perhaps one will be destroyed and become nothing but kitchen waste or the other will fall into the hands of Johnny Appleseed and become countless apples. If you have 64 apples in a bushel there is every chance that one is already more like garbage than it is an apple. This is the very nature of packing a bushel of apples; to be sure even apples that might not be good do not go to waste. If one throws away all apples that might not be among the best one might have no apples at all. Every apple is unique in all ways so they can be counted/ weighed/ or otherwise measured in infinite numbers of ways. How do you count the number of apples in applesauce? How do you count them after a major US manufacturer adds water to extend the number of jars he can sell to an unsuspecting public? The metaphysics of modern science removes people from knowledge because they don't understand what that knowledge is or how it was gained. All knowledge is visceral and modern people have very little visceral knowledge outside their specialty or their experience in some limited arena. Our belief in the sanctity and independent existence of numbers is one of our greatest weaknesses largely because most people have great difficulty applying them appropriately to the real world anyway. We see the real world kaleidoscopically through lens of numbers and "science" and believe what we see is the reality.

I do. I can't imagine what makes anyone think he is intelligent or know its nature. Just the fact that we experience something doesn't mean we are experiencing it correctly. We use words to understand everything including our thoughts but words can be deconstructed. We can't model the real world in our minds except from specific perspectives at best. Other people will arrive at diametrically opposed positions using the same logic, premises, and evidence because of language. Consider that even the simplest questions about math and nature are beyond most peoples' ability to answer. Two of the worst groups for being able to answer whether or not an airplane could take off from a conveyor belt moving in the opposite direction at the same speed are airline pilots and people in aviation. These people aren't stupid but are merely highlighting the human condition and the fact that most people don't understand the wheel, or they can't maintain a single perspective in consideration of simple problems. I'm not saying there's no such thing as human intelligence merely that very few things are so exaggerated. Humans can't even learn any animal languages and have to teach animals our language. I wouldn't be so quick to underestimate animal intelligence at least relative to the reality of human intelligence. The understanding that is required to be a cat is very different than that to be human. How are we to relate to something so alien or to express it in human terms.

They didn't leave a written text, they left a large body of knowledge as language. The lack of a written language only impeded cavemen to the degree they could have individully learned to read and write. Generally groups were too small to have a "school" with more than a single student so the lack of books was not very limiting. They lacked paper, and access to those who might overcome this handicap. Trade was extremely limited before cities for logistical reasons. It's necessity that is the mother of invention and they had very little need for writing. There were, apparently, many individuals whose primary or sole function was to pass down history in oral form. But writing developed much later and possibly primarily by accident and serendipity. Natural phenomena were defined anthropomorifically and became part of the language. These are what we misunderstand as "gods". For instance a natural phenomenon is the concept of inertia and was one of the "lions" they called "neters". When you see this word think "nature" because everywhere it's used in the ancient literature you can substitute these terms without changing meaning. This phenomenon was named "shu" and shu could stand without getting tired. His consort was "tefnut" which is what objects do when they stop "standing"; they fall. Tefnut was the goddess of downward. There's great evidence for this and I'll be happy to provide it if there's interest. Let me point out that part of the ancient understanding of nature appears to exceed our own since part of the defining characteristics of tefnut is that she was "sneezed out". Where modern man sneezes into a clothe that spreads the germs in all directions they knew to point the sneeze downward so it would fall to the floor. There was no need to point a sneeze at the floor unless they understood the concept of germs. Shu, on the other hand, was spewed out of his father atum. People might consider such things trivial but a literal understanding of the words is possible and it says who these people were and gives a description of the processes by which they built the pyramids that is actually in evidence. For the Egyptians to know so much there is an implication that the knowledge couldn't come easily since they lacked modern science. It's apparent that at the very least they had huge amounts of observation behind them. Either philosophy was a common occupation which seems highly improbable in an era with no books or there was some other way to maintain the metaphysics by which they observed and understood nature. This strongly suggests that the most likely means was, indeed, language. Language which expresses itself through word order like computer code can generate quite complex ideas with very few words. This is exactly what exists in ancient times; very few words. Caveman knowledge grew until they could grrow their own food giving rise to cities. Cities gave rise to the need and ability to economically employ writing. Writing caused an explosion in human knowledge which so greatly complicated the language that it failed with the epicenter of this failure; "babel". This is the state of afairs. Today we have the opportunity to easily model this knowledge in computers. And then it can be brought up to date. The result would be extremely complicated and far beyond the ability of humans to speak or understand. It should be possible for computers. the results might be interesting. I think the fact that "intelligence" is virtually disproven is one of the more interesting implications. I think people should know we are speaking what the ancients called "confused language". It's impossible to go back but this might help guide us going forward. People have a right to know their very distant ancestors weren't brutish and ignorant. Perhaps we can gain some insight into what it means to be human.

As long as I'm in the right forum I have some new speculations I'm working on today. These are unsupported except by previous deduction and previous evidence but I'm still in sight of solid ground. An interesting thing that people seem to not notice is that the sun rises at Giza almost exactly 60 sec (one minute) later each day all through early summer. It seems highly improbable this is a cosmic coincidence and more likely is evidence they invented the minute and it is the basis of the clock/ calender. It might have been the Sumerians instead but the point stands; the minute is an approximation of a natural phenomenon. It is a messaged number in order to get 1440 in a day. It's interesting that the 1440 is to the "sacred number" 1460 as 360 is to 365. The Egyptian calender was 360 days with five "epigomanal days" added to reflect the year. There are so many relationships between numbers involved at Giza I'm beginning to speculate on the possibility of three dimensional geometry. Our euclidean systemn is essentially founded on the point with three rays to define other spatial dimensions so is one dimensional. The Egyptians might have used a spherical geometry based on the the one thing they knew; the earth. They said that "inertia" embraced all things which might imply much more than merely that they knew we are hurtling through space. They never drew maps and the like which might be because they saw all things from all perspectives. This is speculative but these people didn't think like us and they did use a sort of layered or multi-dimensional language.

This is merely pure logic; if you don't know what intelligence is in humans it is probably impossible for a human to recognize intelligence anywhere. It seems very probable that the very nature of intelligence varies between species. Human intelligence is founded largely on language since humans largely use language to think. No animal can pass learning to its offspring without either example or complicated language. Other animals have neither. It is readily apparent humans misapprehend the nature of intelligence. We can't measure it and can't define it in mathmatical terms. It's easiest to think of it as the abilty to learn and manipulate knowledge but it's far more complex and has hundreds of facets. Dinosaur intelligence would be different and equally complex.

It seems ironic that a concept that will be seen as obvious even with our highly limited current knowledge in fifty years is seen as speculative today. This post was an attempt to make the point that great cities and great pyramids didn't suddenly arise in a vacuum of knowledge and as a result of shamans, ignorance, and superstition. People needed real world knowledge to succeed far more in ancient times than they do today. Where it failed as a post it might succeed as a thread. The fact is that much of modern science could be deduced from observation and logic alone. This is a far more tedious means to invent knowledge but it is the direction even modern science has been heading. We might be nearing the point at which experimental science hits a roadblock and it could be the same or similar problem the ancients faced. Why else switch to logic,math, and thought experiments unless there is a problem developing experiments? I will defend this and expound on any point if anyone is interested. I'll also defend any points in my overall thesis which is a work much longer in process. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72011-epistemology-science-and-technology/ There is good reason to believe that the ancients were scientists. Imhotep had a title that could be translated as "Chief of Observers". Each of the pyramids employed a couple of "Prophets" whose job was to make predictions about best practices. All of the evidence for the builders of the great pyramids indicate these people were highly trained and sophisticated. They had good health care that even included brain surgery (a few appear to have survived). It is nothing but interpretation that paints any of the ancients as beinfg superstitious or religious. These are modern constructs founded on assumptions and some of these assumptions I've already debunked (such as ramps). I've already shown that the assumption that there was no change in the culture between the great pyramid building age and the middle dynasty is absurd, baseless, illogical, and incorrect in all likelyhood. At some point in time there were highly primitive people but this probably disappeared almost immediately when language arose 40,000 years ago. Magic and religion couldn't protect people against predation and disaster but observation could and these observations were announced far and wide and passed down to children. All of history falls into place and makes perfect sense once it's realized that the language actually did change and the old science was utterly lost except for fragments of its metaphysics in modern religions. Cavefolk were far more interested in knowledge than charms and beliefs.

Human intelligence is grossly exaggerated. Nearly 50,000 years of human advancement and most individuals can't answer questions about even the most basic science. Even those who can answer questions can do so only because they have been educated in science and not because they are intelligent. It is not intelligence that created technology, it is language. This leaves us to try to fathom the nature of intelligence in animals without even an understanding of what it means to be that animal. Feline metaphysics are very different than canine. We understand none of their languages except for a single word here and there. If we did understand a species and its language we might see they are not stupid as it appears by their poor usage and understanding of human languages. If we don't truly understand what intelligence in humans is then we can't understand it in other species. Perhaps no other species has the ability to pass down complicated ideas to off spring other than through example. This is extremely limiting to the species but does not necessarily reflect at all on true intelligence.