Ancient Reality

[cladking]

If you have not visited the pyramids yourself and physically inspected them, you are in no position to make up hypotheses just from photos. These things have been pored over by archaeologists for over a century. What evidence do you have that there was a "different kind of stone" used. Have you read this somewhere? Are there analyses you can cite that show this?

I believe you are wrong on countless levels. I believe I know more relevant facts about the pyramids and how they were built than any three Egyptologists put together.

This different stone was found by Dr Franc Zalewski in 2017 but Egyptologists have ignored it just as they ignore all the physical evidence. Dr Zalewski was almost less generous to Egyptologists than I am saying that Egyptologists didn't see these despite walking by them every day because they weren't looking for them. By the same token the hot spot I PREDICTED would be on the east side wasn't seen by them either and after it was shown in an infrared photo they simply ignore it.

Ignoring reality and not being able to see it at all is hardly unique to Egyptology. It is the human condition for Homo Omnisciencis but it WAS NOT for Homo Sapiens who were known as Nephilim and went extinct about 1400 BC. They saw reality directly rather than through the kaleidoscope of models and beliefs as we do. All the facts and all the evidence agree with me and most are whistling past the graveyard.

https://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/5a3c5c46482c9.pdf

 

[exchemist]

I believe you are wrong on countless levels. I believe I know more relevant facts about the pyramids and how they were built than any three Egyptologists put together.

This different stone was found by Dr Franc Zalewski in 2017 but Egyptologists have ignored it just as they ignore all the physical evidence. Dr Zalewski was almost less generous to Egyptologists than I am saying that Egyptologists didn't see these despite walking by them every day because they weren't looking for them. By the same token the hot spot I PREDICTED would be on the east side wasn't seen by them either and after it was shown in an infrared photo they simply ignore it.

Ignoring reality and not being able to see it at all is hardly unique to Egyptology. It is the human condition for Homo Omnisciencis but it WAS NOT for Homo Sapiens who were known as Nephilim and went extinct about 1400 BC. They saw reality directly rather than through the kaleidoscope of models and beliefs as we do. All the facts and all the evidence agree with me and most are whistling past the graveyard.

https://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/5a3c5c46482c9.pdf

So no evidence of your idea but just unsubstantiated assertions, some of them barking mad. I thought as much.

Enough of this tomfoolery.

 

[cladking]

So no evidence of your idea but just unsubstantiated assertions, some of them barking mad. I thought as much.

Enough of this tomfoolery.

You can't even be bothered to open a link?

Part of the problem is having to spoon feed people.

Read the link!

 

[exchemist]

You can't even be bothered to open a link?

Part of the problem is having to spoon feed people.

Read the link!

[click]

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've made up no terms. TELL ME what you BELIEVE I made up and HOW it impacts my argument!



NO! I am merely stating what I BELIEVE separates us from Ancient Language speakers. If you don't agree then you need to address MY ARGUMENT, NOT THE WORDS!!!

We have two speech centers and one is in a different place in each individual. My argument is that this is acquired by babies who must unlearn the natural human language in order to acquire our modern confused languages. My argument is that ancient people didn't need (or have) the second speech center. A great deal of logic supports this contention. There is no evidence that contradicts it. Address the argument, not repeat what you believe or how I CHOOSE MY WORDS!!! If I'm in China and someone asks me where Nashville is I say it's in the center of the country. I don't care if it's down US-41 or Tennessee. These are mere words. I try to choose words that show what I'm thinking not words that you would use.



You're trying to be obtuse. Every human is as different as a bee and an elephant. Ancient people used to share a reality.



I understand your frustration but there's little I can do about it. I believe if you just suspend your doubt for a moment and read what I write it will actually make sense.

I believe that while we're each very different there are many beliefs we tend to share. I'm simply saying many of the fundamental beliefs are false. Humans are not "intelligent". We mistake our beliefs and models for intelligence. We mistake technology for knowledge and we mistake science for understanding and we mistake religion for truth. Reality is fixed but our understanding of it is highly incomplete and much of what we do "know" is distorted by belief and poor modeling. No individual bee, ancient human, nor scientist can see reality but rather every individual catches glimpses of it. Science, modern science, sees many details but we still lack the overall framework. We have a puzzle with many pieces filled in but no edge pieces and the picture is hazy. Since religion is based on ancient science they have the entire framework but a lot fewer pieces with every piece clear.

I speak in tautologies to help people understand me. Show one of my tautologies is wrong if you want to argue against me. Don't fixate on words and semantics. There are an infinite number of ways to say anything in modern language but 42 x 10 ^ 806,999 monkeys can find all of them. If you don't understand ask for elaboration.

Believe it or not I don't have too much trouble getting this across in a face to face communication because I can respond immediately to objections and elaborate at any time. This isn't to say many people agree but they understand the argument.



My contention is every experiment and all observation agree with me.

Show me I'm wrong. What experiment shows me wrong? What do you know or believe that says I'm wrong?



I do experiments continually. Anytime I see an opportunity to directly check an hypothesis or make an observation to check hypotheses, I do. Some I've done accidently like the time I created "upside down flies". Obviously I can be wrong about anything at all. But I believe my theory explains reality and the nature of consciousness better than any other of which I am aware.

I am done. I am back to the conclusion I came to before. There is no point in any attempt at a discussion. You believe in your own stories and there is no amount of logic, reason or evidence that will draw you out of that fantasy.

 

[cladking]

[click]

I am done. I am back to the conclusion I came to before. There is no point in any attempt at a discussion. You believe in your own stories and there is no amount of logic, reason or evidence that will draw you out of that fantasy.

So pr0ving I'm right has no effect on anyone's beliefs. It's no matter I predicted phenomena that Egyptologists can't even explain because reality is defined now by Peers and Peers don't believe in Mafdet that still exists and still makes its existence manifests or that there are triangles at the base of the pyramid.

No matter how many times I prove what I'm saying it is ignored because people choose to believe that we are intelligent and the most intelligent define everything that's known so they can't be wrong. Nobody is willing to start again at square 1 even though the world is imploding and we are nearing "Babel 2.0"

People are terrified by the idea we are not the crown of creation and that we use a confused language to build models of what we believe and experience all of reality through these models. It's no matter to people that all observation and every experiment support what I'm saying because the status quo and the idea we're all in good hands is so damn comforting.

There are no "laws of nature" and if there's "God's law" then it is merely that all things follow logic and all life springs from this logic as does all language until the new species, Homo Omnisciencis, arose in 3200 BC.

It doesn't matter if this is hard to accept but it sure matters whether or not we start acting on it in time.

 

[cladking]

1701b. a child; the intelligence of (the dead king) is not.

The Pyramid Texts: The Pyramid Texts: 44. Texts of Miscellaneous Contents, Utterances 607-609 (sacred-texts.com)

This line is most deceptively simple and shows the enormous difference between Homo Sapiens and Homo Omnisciencis.

At two years of age children grow many millions of new connections in their brains. This used to be necessary to learn Ancient Language which required a sort of four dimensional thinking since it was metaphysical and followed no "train of thought". These connections facilitated the child's ability to acquire the simple language that involved and reflected virtually the entire brain.

Now days children are different. They must first acquire language with which they are taught everything and build models of what they believe. Most of these connections fall into disuse because they are not necessary to record or utilize modern language. Children must learn morays and various skills through language and these change people. They change people so much we hardly even think of children, especially young children, as people at all.

But Ancient Language speakers were wholly different. Without the second speech center they actually thought in terms of the digital wiring of the brain. As such there was no material difference between any three year old and the adult he became. The only difference was the amount of language he was able to learn. While ancient people didn't believe in "intelligence" any more than I do they saw a difference between a child and an adult and we misinterpret and mistranslate this difference as "intelligence". The difference was the amount of language acquired.

I believe no modern person, even a child, could make such a statement as above because it is alien to the way we think and alien to our species.

I don't know how Egyptologists missed everything but they did. They missed that ancient people had no abstractions whatsoever of any sort and didn't have a word for "think" or "believe". They had no taxonomies and the vocabulary breaks Zipf's Law. As they busily neglected to apply modern scientific knowledge to understanding the pyramid builders they also neglected to note the numerous differences in the way we and they spoke and thought. They missed linguistics and they missed the origin of PIE. They were so busy pounding square ramps into round eyes of horus they never noticed they were using poor methodology and foregoing modern science.

 

[cladking]

I can agree that lack of any word meaning "belief" is not my best argument that ancient people weren't superstitious but I do believe that it is highly indicative. "Belief" is simply fundamental to our species today so its omission 5000 years ago is a major issue that Egyptology has never addressed.

But the lack of the word still supports my interpretation of the evidence and my understanding of the language. Not having beliefs helps in understanding a language that doesn't even have the word. It also doesn't have words like "pretend" or "suppose". "Opinion", "faith", and "creed" are all lacking. We would be virtually tongue tied without such words and Egyptologist can use one or another in sentence after sentence sometimes in describing these people they believe are highly superstitious. The irony is sublime.

Anyone trying to follow the argument can come back to this issue later and will likely agree that these omissions virtually arise to the level of proof. They spoke in tautologies and known theory because no one cared about "beliefs" and they lacked the word AND THE REFERENT. "Belief" simply wasn't possible if you think in digital language. What does a bird need with belief?

They lacked all abstract words!!!

This shows that they did not, could not, engage in inductive reasoning. All their knowledge was discerned through deductive reasoning.

It's simply impossible to have inductive reasoning without words for "belief", "thought", "taxonomies", synonyms, and reductionistic words. "Inductive reasoning" is based on taxonomies and they had no taxonomies and no words for "taxonomies" like "category" or "type".

Much of my problem here is that modern people can't even imagine a world with no inductive reasoning. They can't imagine not being able to induce even the most fundamental thing like "my car is broken > auto mechanics make cars go > my mechanic can fix my car > I'll put it in the shop. This simply isn't how they thought and they never thought like this. Their writing clearly shows EXACTLY how they did think but we can't see it. Ironically they didn't experience thought either since if you use deduction to think rather than the comparison of perception to models, you don't experience "thought" at all which is why they HAD NO WORD FOR "THOUGHT".

We can't think like an Egyptian. Egyptians thought much like babies or animals except that they had extensive knowledge and a process for acquiring it that was language itself.


The perception of reality is wholly different when you see only the little bit you know instead of everything you believe!!!!!!!!! Ancient people had a distinct reality from anybody alive today and they shared this reality through Ancient Language. When they named reality ("amun") "The Hidden" they meant it literally. Reality ("amun") could be seen only in glimpses and out of the corner of the eye. It was fleeting and ever changing but human knowledge reflected what was known and what was comprehendible. Reality was reflected directly in the human brain because language was a reflection of this brain and a reflection of reality itself. Ancient Language was a one way mirror that observed the brain. But reality could still be seen with enough light shown on it through observation and deductive logic.

We are a new species which could never have arisen without first having agriculture and cities. We have lost touch with the past because we necessarily engage in circular reasoning and use poor methodology like semantics and inductive reasoning to look at our ancestors. Once you assume that ancient people were superstitious and ignorant versions of Egyptologists then you are lost. Once you assume they were just like us then you'll never find their reality because their reality was nothing like ours.

 

[cladking]

There are perfectly natural reasons modern languages speakers can't see that there are no abstractions in Ancient Language. Our words like our thought are analog and symbolic rather than ancient words which were representative and digital. We naturally deconstruct their words exactly as we would deconstruct them if someone today first uttered them. We virtually live in an abstract world and when we see terms concerning "Goddesses" and placing hearts into bodies our minds automatically puts it in terms we understand; hyperbole, abstraction, metaphor, and symbolism. The "Goddess" Nephthys can't place a heart into a body with any sort of literal meaning in our reckoning.

1786b. I am Nephthys; I am come, I lay hold of thee; I have put thy heart into thy body for thee.

But they didn't reckon as we do. The "goddess" nephthys is actually just the representation of the action and theory of the counterweight which is the means by which the heart of the pyramid is lifted into a "living" mnemonic by which the king Khufu will be remembered forever. We've forgotten the very nature of Khufu but Ancient Language speakers never forgot until the last "Nephilim" died circa 1400 BC.

We will never understand the ancients so long as we parse Ancient Language and assume the people were just like us except they talked funny. They only talked "funny" because their language can not be deconstructed. Every word had a single meaning and was representative and digital. They saw all of reality from the inside but sometimes used an external perspective. They never saw any of reality like a blue print as we do; from infinite distance. Their reality was different so they had different words, different language, and different means to study and understand it. This doesn't mean their understanding and theories were all necessarily correct. Their understanding of change in species, for instance, was just as dependent on assumptions as ours. Their understanding of evolution was primitive but it allowed them to invent agriculture and it explains how termites and other species have made fantastic invention including agriculture. We don't even have a proper definition for consciousness so how can we see ancient people had a DIFFERENT CONSCIOUSNESS than ours. All we can do is model their consciousness. We can't think like an Egyptian because there is nobody capable of reinforcing the language with which we are all born. babies babel seeking feedback and instruction but we can't be there to teach them because our natural language is lost. As soon as we teach a child to speak he has lost the ability to go back and relearn the natural way to think. Modern knowledge has become far too complex for anyone to communicate or think metaphysically anyway. Metaphysical language works for primitive people and oak trees but it will not work for us.

 

[cladking]

Most people are well aware that kids are different than adults because we remember being kids and remember how we thought. It has been described as "being closer to the divine" and in many other ways. I think kids use more deduction because they aren't good at induction yet and that they think more with their amygdales and other parts of the digital brain and less with the almost completely analog higher brain functions. We don't treat kids like other people and don't think of them as "people" because they are different. Neither to us nor to children would this line make any sense; 1701b. a child; the intelligence of (the dead king) is not.

They mustta been referring to another species than ours.

 

[Kooky]

So who were the last of these Nephilim?

 

[cladking]

So who were the last of these Nephilim?

I'm not sure even a bible scholar could give you a good answer to your question and I've not studied it at all. My impression is the last enclave of "Nephilim" were in the Jordan area circa 1400 BC but like much stuff from the Bible this may be wholly unsubstantiated and or unsubstantiatable. I would guess the very last Ancient Language speakers (homo sapiens) were families within a few decades after the demise of the last enclave. There are some clues in the Bible and I followed those but that's about it. I seriously doubt there were any that survived into the 14th century BC.

In case you missed it I date the "tower of Babel" that changed the official language to modern languages to about 2000 BC. This is based on quite a few bits of information but there is no high quality evidence to my knowledge and this is based principally on the advent of recorded history. Before 2000 BC history was recorded in Ancient Language so has become lost. After 2000 BC there are scattered bits of history implying it was recorded in a language that could be translated into English.

I'm not entirely sure exactly when homo omnisciencis arose. Of course this is largely a semantical question because the first individuals to communicate in pidgin ancient language would have every defining characteristic of omnisciencis. These people were mostly all dullards not to be able to understand Ancient Language back when it was still so simple. They would have known they were none too bright especially with everyone else calling their language "confused" and having no understanding of science whatsoever. Even in those days though they would have discovered inductive logic which would become important over time. I can hardly imagine what it was like living with people who were in all measurable ways superior to me. Of course by 2000 BC there were lots and lots of very bright people who were simply never exposed to Ancient Language so never learned it. I wonder what the sapiens thought of them? The Bible suggests that people believed they were like grasshoppers in the eyes of the Nephilim. This is probably not really accurate because the Nephilim were well aware there was no such thing as intelligence and it was only language and its great power and knowledge that really differentiated the two species. The Nephilim probably had a reasonably good understanding of the physical differences and certainly knew it was language related. The sapien science more than anything had a good understanding of the brain that generated it. It didn't understand all the processes involved but it knew it as a "black box" problem.

The relationship of these species would have been very interesting by the time they were interdependent right up through the formal demise of Ancient Language. After this I doubt they got along well and probably avoided one another. Once we open the time capsule a great deal more can be deduced about the relationship. While sapiens didn't really think they still had a consciousness into which we can make deductions.

It appears the pidgin languages from which all modern languages evolved gave rise to the invention of writing in 3200 BC and the last Ancient Language speaker likely died late in the 14th century BC. History began in 2000 BC because of the collapse of AL. The Bible and much of the ancient writing is an attempt to preserve this knowledge and Ancient Language. These attempts are everywhere from alchemy which tried to save ancient chemistry to astrology that was an attempt to preserve ancient astronomy. All attempts failed but the past is still intricately and intimately tangled up with the present. We simply can't see it because we can see only what we believe and we believe we are the pinnacle of creation and ancient people were savage, superstitious, ignorant, and primitive.

Of course this involves a great deal of speculation and deduction. My theory can be almost completely correct and I could be wrong about most of this.

 

[cladking]

So who were the last of these Nephilim?

In case you're thinking they never died out, this is very highly improbable. First because it would be virtually impossible for an individual whose thinking is in AL to invent modern science. But more importantly the formatting of modern science and ancient science are incompatible. Ancient science could in theory develop independently and coexist but modern knowledge could not be incorporated without making the language so impossibly complex not even the most powerful computers could reconcile them. Any ancient scientist living as recently as 300 years ago would have abandoned the old ways in favor of modern science. Even if they lived 968 years they'd all be dead by now.

Remember the real power of ancient science was that every man was a scientist and every woman a metaphysician. Millions of people worked cooperatively using virtually perfect communication to create human progress. No matter how advanced ancient science was in 1400 BC it would have made very little progress since.

Sapiens are dead, long live homo omnisciencis.

 

[cladking]

I'm coming to much better understand ancient reality.

Scientific progress was somewhat different than I had imagined. It was less linear than I had initially envisioned and much more occurred early than I had thought possible. When humans acquired complex language they quickly came to understand their physical place in the cosmos through observation and deduction alone. I shouldn't be surprised in light of the feats of many of the animals. Some of this is virtually engrained into consciousness itself. Just as planets follow set forces and motions so too does a brain follow most of the same forces as it develops in utero. Language derived from this is highly effective in communicating new knowledge from generation to generation.

I now believe that much of the reason writing was invented so late is not only that writing is nearly superfluous when communication is near perfect but there were simply very few words until very late in antiquity. And then there's the simple fact that there apparently was writing all the way back to 40,000 years ago when complex language first arose as the result of a mutation in "S3h" (Adam). This writing was never recognized until very very recently.

This is the work of Genevieve von Petzinger.

Most of these can be easily deduced if you know how ancient people thought and I've already deduced five or six after only a few days.

The most interesting is the word for "planet" or, more likely "astronomy". It is the six dots and it represents the retrograde motion of the planet Mars. It is the means by which they understood the nature of the earth orbiting about the sun.

When we catch up with Mars it appears to move backward and grow much larger since we are so close to it.

The human species is truly remarkable. Our adaptability and ability to change are nearly infinite and our inability to see the obvious is no more infinite than it was when the ancients announced "thot has no feminine progenitor". We can each see only from our perspective and we are each a product of our time and place.

 

[gnostic]

The most interesting is the word for "planet" or, more likely "astronomy". It is the six dots and it represents the retrograde motion of the planet Mars. It is the means by which they understood the nature of the earth orbiting about the sun.

What a load of craps.

Neither the Egyptian astronomy, nor the Sumerian astronomy, from the 3rd millennium BCE, say anything about the earth orbiting the sun, and there are no writings prior to 3300 BCE, from Chalcolithic cultures or the earlier Neolithic cultures.

Both Egyptian and Sumerian astronomy only speak of Sun’s movement across the Earth’s sky, hence geocentric planetary motion, not the heliocentric planetary motion. The next 2 millennia, Babylonian astronomy have also supported geocentric model.

The earliest writing of heliocentric concept is found in the astronomy work of Archimedes (late 3rd century BCE), who summarized the lost text of Aristarchus of Samos (early 3rd century BCE). Aristarchus’ heliocentric model was unpopular, and only a few astronomers supported it, before it was revisited by early 16th century renaissance astronomer, Nicklaus Copernicus.

Once again, you are making things up that never happened.

 

[gnostic]

Another thing is that the ancient Egyptian and ancient Babylonians never viewed Earth as a planet.

For instance, in Egyptian creation myth.

Like most ancient myths, they viewed the world covering everything, which they called Nu (or Nun), the primeval water, then a god came into existence, depending on the myth, it was Ra, Atum, Horus, Ptah, depending on the cult centres. But for the sake of convenience, let say the Atum-Ra, because these 2 gods and their myths became entwined early on, at Iunu, or more popularly as Heliopolis.

Atum-Ra created the first land, by causing the mound to rise from the primeval water, with other lands rising around the mound. This mound was Heliopolis itself, a site sacred to both Ra and Atum.

Egypt was named the “Two Lands”, and as far as the Egyptians were concerned, the Two Lands was the Earth, and each day, Ra boarded his boat (as the Sun) that sailed across the sky, rising from east to setting in the west.

From the 3rd dynasty, onwards till the end of the Old Kingdom period (with 6th dynasty being the last), the pyramids were built in Saqqara, to represent the primeval mound, and when a king died, he will literally and figuratively ascend to the heaven, boarding Ra’s boat joining the crew, gods and other deified kings.

Of course, a popular Heliopolitan myth, included having offspring and descendants, where his grandchildren, included Nut (sky) and Geb (earth).

 

[cladking]

I'm making a little progress with these but am not completely confident of more than a few. By knowing what concepts existed and how some of them were represented in later times it is possible to deduce the "meaning". For instance the shadow of the hand is the ancient Egyptian concept of "ka" which was the "life's work" of an individual. It was the individual's effect on his entire environment. It is similar to saying "present" at an ancient roll call. The solid hand is the individual's potentiality and similar to the Egyptian word "ba". It represents his capacity, competence, and abilities. It is like saying "I will always have been here". The serpentine shape represents "water" and is derived from "river" whose nature was the first form of water understood by man. It morphed into the Egyptian word for "water" that was "^^^". The circle represents the sun probably. The six dots are "astronomy" that they needed to understand to be successful as hunter gatherers and later needed to build the Great Pyramid which is both a high precision clock and a calendar. The flat line may mean "distance" and is derived from "horizon". Measurement would be important for any of God's creatures. The vertical arrow is likely a vector. Early equations would have been drawn out rather than have what we recognize as math applied to them. It would have represented "force". The "1" might mean "theory". We normally mistranslate this as "god" but ancient people had no words for beliefs or abstractions. It looks much like the Egyptian word that means "theory" and I am presupposing that the most fundamental word in all animal language might not change very much.

I doubt cavemen had more than a couple hundred such words but each "word" (they are representations rather than words per se) is a triad. Each of these words would have had two more that meant the same thing and it was the choice of words in a sentence that determined the meaning. Ancient Language was formatted dissimilarly to our own making them untranslatable. They also would have had a couple thousand adverbs, verbs, and prepositions but there are so few of these symbols that survive and they are each identical it implies only the scientific words are recorded and more than half are unrepresented in caves.

We have a world language and world civilization staring us right in the face but we can't see it chiefly because we believe we are the pinnacle of creation and our ancestors survived through ignorance and superstition.

Remarkable!!!

 

[cladking]

Of course the implication of this is that writing is much more than a mere expression of language just as the ancient Egyptians said many times and that it was invented simultaneously with the rise of complex language 40,000 years ago. This is only logical since there's no reason that representative words can't be depicted in representative "symbols" for the purpose of record keeping and communication. It also implies that this single world language died out without leaving any record in the memory of man. It implies ancient knowledge couldn't even be expressed in any of the thousands of languages that sprang from the destruction of Ancient Language.

But it also implies that the means I came to know this is accurate and linear funiculars were used by observational scientists to build a time capsule and mnemonic that we mistake for a tomb built by stinky footed bumpkins. It implies what we all should have known all along: Good theory makes good prediction. My theory predicts all of this. My theory has predicted most of the science in anthropology for the last 40 years. My theory predicted a hot spot on the east side of G1 at the base and another above the chevrons. M<y theory predicts ancient cisterns at Giza could not be filled by rain but only by steadily running water that was clean instead of the debris washed out of the desert in a rain. By theory explains all the infrastructure around the great pyramids.

It can be called a "rabbit hole" or anything you like but my theory predicts what's going to be found tomorrow while Egyptology can't predict what happened yesterday.

People just can't seem to imagine there are other ways to think and animals and ancient man didn't think like us. They didn't experience thought at all and had no word for it. They said so over and over but we choose to parse a language that can't be parsed. Our language is confused by definition and abstraction so we read this into Ancient Language where no words could be defined and there were no abstractions.

The pyramid builders all thought alike and it was wholly dissimilar to the way any Egyptologist can even imagine. Egyptologists were born without imaginations.

 

[tas8831]

Egyptologists were born without imaginations.

And you're "self taught", right?

It shows.

 

[tas8831]

What a load of craps....
Once again, you are making things up that never happened.

Can you believe he is self-taught?