Fascinating!

[ecco]

I presented ample evidence and if this is ever recognized or challenged I have a very great deal more which I can bring forward.

I challenge. You asserted...

"our ancestors never fell prey to animals of the time" because they had a metaphysical language that used the exact same logic as mathematics.
​

You have presented no evidence to support that contention or any other assertion you have made.

 

[ecco]

All animals are scientists and directly model reality in their brains.

That comment is beyond woo.

 

[ecco]

So what you seem to be implying is that a myth from 2000 years after the great pyramids were built should take precedence over the words of the builders?

So, you still can not support that there are Adam & Eve constellations. I'm not surprised.

There is no writing on papyrus from before the great pyramid building age other than isolated scraps of lists.
This is the vast bulk of all the writing that survives in Ancient Language
https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

I've read every single word that survives from Ancient Language hundreds of times

Are the words from the Ancient Language that you have read hundreds of times the words in the link you provided? I would think not, since the link goes to translations and you have stated you read the original Ancient Language.

 

[ecco]

No. That is what YOU said.

I said, "Of course some animals always fall prey to predators but humans had complex language and science to tell each other how to avoid it."

because our ancestors had consciousness (ancient science) to protect themselves from predators or neighboring people who would eat their lunch.

 

[cladking]

I challenge. You asserted...

"our ancestors never fell prey to animals of the time" because they had a metaphysical language that used the exact same logic as mathematics.
​

You have presented no evidence to support that contention or any other assertion you have made.

I'll need you to tell me what post you believe that was in.

Please read my responses to you in the future.

 

[cladking]

Are the words from the Ancient Language that you have read hundreds of times the words in the link you provided? I would think not, since the link goes to translations and you have stated you read the original Ancient Language.

I have NEVER made such a statement. What I have said countless times is that NOBODY can translate Ancient Language because it can't be translated.

Anyone can state any nonsense they want in our language but AL by definition agreed with physical law and had a single meaning. It is impossible to translate. The closest we could come would involve a flowchart or logic chart but it would be harder to interpret for most individuals than the writing itself.

I deduced the meaning from existing translations by solving word meanings in context. But what you must realize is that understanding author intent gives me insights into "translations" that linguists don't have. Simple words like "^^^^" are representative and are shadows in the sand. They are shadows of pyramids. But it is many other things too because ancient people existed in four dimensions and saw reality from all of them simultaneously. Ancient Language will never be translated for humans but it would be simple enough for a digital computer some day. "Stable and enduring" wasn't merely the nature of the "djed" but the desired nature of the ankh (life) which it controlled. This stuff really isn't complex but one must cast off a lot of assumptions to see it.

 

[cladking]

Regarding your post 304.

What you quoted is not a sentence. Things that aren't sentences have no meaning in modern or Ancient (Language). I only write in sentences unless something is preceded and/ or followed by "..."

I simply NEVER said "our ancestors never fell prey to animals of the time" because they had a metaphysical language that used the exact same logic as mathematics." THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID.

Remember #275? Read my responses because I'm not always willing to repeat myself.

 

[cladking]

So, you still can not support that there are Adam & Eve constellations. I'm not surprised.

At this point it would be a waste of my time. You are taking no heed of the literal meaning of what I say.

I never said anybody was remembered by a "constellation". There is little evidence what constellations were seen by ancient people anyway. Some are believed to be known but there is little actual evidence since no such records survive.

Individuals were remembered by individual stars and not "constellations". I probably shouldn't have said that "Adam" was remembered by "Orion" since this is just a modern translation of the specific mnemonic by which he was remembered. I myself caused much of the confusion and wrong deconstruction. Sirius for "Eve" is pretty likely (nearly certain) but the best guess for "Adam" is probably Rigel which is a star in what we call "Orion".

I can suggest that you read the PT and see how I came to such a conclusion. I would be happy to put in the work to justify my belief if you are sincerely interested.

 

[ecco]

Are the words from the Ancient Language that you have read hundreds of times the words in the link you provided? I would think not, since the link goes to translations and you have stated you read the original Ancient Language.

I have NEVER made such a statement.

Sure you did. (My Emphasis)

I've read every single word that survives from Ancient Language hundreds of times and there are no words for "belief" or "thought" and it breaks a bevy of linguistic laws.

So, again...Are the words from the Ancient Language that you have read hundreds of times the words in the link you provided? I would think not, since the link goes to translations and you have stated you read the original Ancient Language.

What I have said countless times is that NOBODY can translate Ancient Language because it can't be translated.

Then what is the translated stuff in your linked page all about?

Then what did you read the Ancient Language from?

 

[ecco]

What I have said countless times is that NOBODY can translate Ancient Language because it can't be translated.
...
It is impossible to translate.
...
I deduced the meaning from existing translations

If it couldn't be translated, what existing translations did you use to deduce its meaning?

 

[ecco]

I never said anybody was remembered by a "constellation". ...
Individuals were remembered by individual stars and not "constellations". I probably shouldn't have said that "Adam" was remembered by "Orion" since this is just a modern translation of the specific mnemonic by which he was remembered. I myself caused much of the confusion and wrong deconstruction. Sirius for "Eve" is pretty likely (nearly certain) but the best guess for "Adam" is probably Rigel which is a star in what we call "Orion".

So, in a nutshell your comment below ...

The two most prominent stars are logically the first important people and the attributes assigned these individuals are consistent with our understanding of adam and eve. It's also logical that the two most prominent stars would be the most likely to be remembered.

...was baseless.

 

[ecco]

to Dan From Smithville:

You're taking this too literally.

to ecco:

You are taking no heed of the literal meaning of what I say.

Maybe the problem lies in your writing.

 

[cladking]

If it couldn't be translated, what existing translations did you use to deduce its meaning?

All of them in English.

Keep in mind though that this includes several who are usually dismissed by linguists such as Morrow, Harvey, Budge, and Horapollo. It also includes historical accounts and other sources such as the Hermetic Texts and even (to a very small extent) the Bible. It includes the Coffin Texts and its translations and Breasted's translation of the Palermo Stone. It includes some written in other languages such as various translations of translation, especially Sethe (who might have done the best job of all). It includes some of Maspero and Oakley as well as Allen, Faulkner, and Schmakov. It includes some Raw texts and transliteration of original material. I've done hundreds of thousands of google searches and I can assure you almost none of them were to find Egyptological opinion about anything at all. Some Egyptological opinion has been quite valuable to me but most of the detective work was scientific and reverse engineering various artefacts. I seek principally original sources and literal translations along with the scientific data necessary to solve the language.

I'm sure I've said this before but the Pyramid Texts is almost everything because other writings of Ancient Language were loved to death. There is almost nothing EXCEPT the PT and Egyptologists believe it to be silly incantation. I don't even understand why they bother to study it at all if they believe it's incantation. Do they believe they can reinvent ancient magic?

Modern beliefs are unfounded in science or logic. They have been inherited with language and Egyptologists are chiefly responsible. They refuse to systematically apply modern science and knowledge to understanding ancient people.

 

[cladking]

Maybe the problem lies in your writing.

I'm quite aware this is part of the problem. I think a lot like ancient people so I talk a little like them.

I mean what I say literally except where it's obviously poetic, hyperbolic, or a turn of phrase. Always there is some level of literal meaning. I speak in tautologies not because I have all the answers but so anyone can see where we disagree. I'm well aware it's often ineffective and some individuals will be completely lost but it's the only way I think and the only way I know how to (try to) communicate. Unlike most people I know that communication typically breaks down anyway and with the unusual things I'm saying it's even more likely to fail. We each deconstruct everything differently. There is no way around this.

Another problem is I see reality not from a religious or scientific perspective but from a metaphysical one. I am a nexialist but rarely explain my deductions. I leap to intuitive conclusions using facts and logic that aren't always apparent.

But I'm always willing to explain, elaborate, or rephrase something.

If you just take this literally you can't get too far from the intended meaning. How ironic that this is exactly the same thing that is true for the PT. We see symbolism and superstition everywhere but they didn't even have words for any such thing and Egyptologists NEVER EVEN NOTICED.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

There's a great deal of irony here.

We can't build a thinking machine but we think we can understand our own thinking machines because researchers have run electric currents through some of its pathways. We don't even have a theoretical framework for building a thinking machine and many experts agree that if we could build a model of the brain it wouldn't work. We wouldn't know where the on switch was.

Yet we are willing to live our lives around the beliefs generated by neuroscience.

A butterfly in China can literally cause a hurricane a week later on the other side of the world but we don't have free will! Just because the butterfly doesn't know the results of its action doesn't mean there are no results or that it can't try to cause results or to determine how such results occurred.


Of course you can control your organs. Humans can learn to do almost anything. It's a matter of free will.

What we call the "mind" is the entire body and its nervous systems. It is various consciousnesses wired together but we are generally unaware of any but the one that we experience in our head and is a vector sum total of the "mind".

There is no irony here, except the one that exist in your mind. There is a difference between thinking/consciousness and the mapping of somatomotor pathways, by stimulating its fibers. One is illusionary, and the other is not. One is demonstrated directly and the other indirectly. There are many different theories and models that can explain how information is collected, stored, retrieved, and used by the brain. There are many models that explain the properties of cognition, memories, and consciousness.. We also can see how the brain is directly effected by trauma, disease, visual and audio cues, language, drugs, or in its unconscious state. Even if a thinking(conscious) machine was built that could pass the "Turing Test", it would never have any experience of its own reality or being.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine/executive-systems-of-the-brain/memory-lesson/v/information-processing-model-sensory-working-and-long-term-memory

No idea what a butterfly has to do with hurricanes, or our "free will". But I suppose it is just another one of your intellectual self-indulgent distractions that you assert without evidence.

Of course we DO NOT control our organs. Of course having "free will" also, does not control our organs. Just try and think a minute. If we had control of our organs, what happens when we stop controlling them? What would we need our autonomic nervous system for? Also, since our subconscious and unconscious minds, make up the bulk of our states of alertness(90%), does this mean that our organs can only be controlled 10% of the time? Add to this, that not all areas of the brain are active at once, and not all the time(10-15%). This means that having conscious control over any of our visceral organs, sensory organs, or our endocrine and exocrine glands, would have been an evolutionary mistake.

What we call the "mind" is the entire body and its nervous systems. It is various consciousnesses wired together but we are generally unaware of any but the one that we experience in our head and is a vector sum total of the "mind".

Conflating "mind" with body is silly. The mind is an illusion created by the mental activities of the brain. Trying to suggest that the physical neural receptor connected to involuntary organ systems also have some kind of a mind, only demonstrates your poor understanding of the nervous system or its physiology. So what is the physical evidence that supports your conclusion? We are certainly aware of where parts of our body are at all times(proprioception). And we are aware of our visceral organs indirectly(referred pain). My advice is that you should actually learn more about the reality that you clearly don't understand, before you force-fit it into the reality that you think you do understand.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Much of everything we do is habit. This certainly is true of most speaking. We don't invest much thought in everything we do. Many of my posts pretty much write themselves but might require a few moments to reword or expand on something I've written before. The brain is a busy place and we don't reinvent ourselves every time we decide which pocket in which to carry our wallets.

Humans suppress instinct and tend to act on their beliefs rather than trust instincts. Of course more basic functions are largely instinctual.

Most people think babies are idiots or barely conscious. When I was young such was the common wisdom. I believe it's much more true that babies simply have yet to learn how to process the huge amount of data that is reality. Much of it is acquired through AND WITHIN language (confused language) . Before this they are much more adept at processing emotional "input" and learning to interact with others (their parents) to get their needs met. Usually some life long personality and character traits are visible in babies.

Babies are born with natural language but it's highly rudimentary. This language is not reinforced because it has been forgotten. I believe they babble largely to try to open up a dialog but, no doubt, it's in part to exercise their voices and wiring. Babies are incapable of learning much science until they are two and this is when they begin growing billions of connections in their brains for the usage of Ancient language. Instead they must unlearn the natural language and begin growing a broccas area to create an interface between the digital speech center and the higher brain functions that begin operating on modern language. As they age most of these new neurons will fall into disuse. If they had instead learned Ancient Language they'd be thinking in three dimensions and would not have a broccas area. We are for all practical differences a different species than the ancients. Anatomically the difference is subtle but the effect is on every individual and is massive.

There is no "experiment" that allows a neouroscientist to run a current through a caveman's brain to see the effect. We can't examine the broccas area of a pyramid builder or deduce how he thought. If these were possible then we would see this. But, again, we don't even understand our own consciousness well enough to even define it so how is real science (not the Look and See crap) going to understand the consciousness of a brain turned to dust?

There is no such thing as a "confused language", or "emotional input", especially when used in the same context with newborns. There are no early character or personality traits at this stage. There is only instincts, physical reflexes, genetic bonding recognition, and the foundation for pattern recognition. Babies begin to learn languages while they are still in the womb. They recognize sound patterns, cadences, inflections, and the rhythms of their mothers. Studies suggest that the sound patterns of human languages are the product of an inborn biological instinct, very much like birdsong. Therefore, language is more instinctive than learned. Also, it is NOT Broca's area of the brain that is concerned with the comprehension and development of language. It is Wernicke's area that is responsible for the development of language. Broca's area is concerned with regulating the sequence of sound activation via our motor cortex, and in the production of speech and writing. These functions are clearly demonstrated whenever these areas were damaged. There is also NO metaphysical "ancient language" that must be unlearned before the primary language can be learned. What objective evidence can you posit to support this claim? It is also highly unlikely that babies are consciously exercising their speech apparatus as a precursor for dialog with their parents. Where is the evidence? Clearly you have a very poor understanding between the development of the spoken language, the comprehension/understanding of language, the physiology of speech, and the development of the written language.

Suppressing our instincts, is not the same as suppressing our actions, behavior, responses, thoughts and beliefs. What is the conscious mechanism that directly suppresses(forcibly put an end to) our evolutionary hardwired instincts? How do we voluntarily control these genes? Regarding our past ancestors(not ancients), it is the passing on their adaptive genes that will ultimately produce changes throughout the population. I'm afraid science will continue to do more than just "look and see" to find answers to natural phenomena. Anything would be better than to simply create the answers from our imagination.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Our brains do not use binary logic because they are programmed by analog language. Natural languages, animal languages, and Ancient Language are all digital languages (I believe). Certainly my understanding of AL suggests its digital or, at the very least, compatible with digital processing.

We don't have a very good definition for consciousness because we can't get there from here. We can't see it well from the inside with a digital brain using an analog processing language. We can, however, extrapolate what is apparent and say that it is the quality that nature provides for individuals to survive. All consciousness is individual just as all ideas are individual. We can make more inferences about its nature by simply observing that ancient people didn't experience thought or even realize there was such a thing as "logic"! This implies that the sensation of "thought" is a product of the effects of analog language on a digital brain. I believe it's the comparison of digital input to our beliefs and models. When we compare what we see to our models we experience "thought" but thought is by no means consciousness, merely its experience. So until they learn language babies don't "think" but they still have a fully functioning brain (consciousness) and can use it for survival.

People have got to lose this idea of collective consciousness and that species exist. These are artefacts of language and do not reflect any reality as deduced from logic or shown by experiment. All consciousness is individual and it changes with experience and it changes as we sleep. Parts of the healthy brain are always active as other parts sleep. At death it no longer functions or will ever function again.

I understand these things aren't obvious but if you look I've said many times they aren't obvious only because of the way we think and when it comes to thinking humans are the odd man out because we use modern language which is unlike other languages.

"Logic" is what makes mathematics work when it is quantified. It is what makes animal consciousness work. It is what wired all consciousness. It is the very foundation of reality that we mistakenly believe is governed by "laws". Humans used to be logical but the language needed for it became too complex as we learned more and more.

I'm afraid this is becoming pointless. I not only provide the logic, the evidence, but also the why's and the how's. You seem to always respond with you own made-up, obfuscated answers, that may seem logical to you, but have no meaning for me. You seem incapable of addressing any of my points, or provide evidence to support your own claims. There is not much I can say to anyone who has chosen not to listen.

 

[cladking]

I'm afraid this is becoming pointless. I not only provide the logic, the evidence, but also the why's and the how's. You seem to always respond with you own made-up, obfuscated answers, that may seem logical to you, but have no meaning for me. You seem incapable of addressing any of my points, or provide evidence to support your own claims. There is not much I can say to anyone who has chosen not to listen.

No, what you are doing is repeatedly telling me I'm wrong, repeating the textbook answers of Look and See Science, and ignoring my argument, evidence, and logic. You seem to think I don't know how modern beliefs arose nor that I am aware of them. Repeatedly I mention evidence and repeatedly you simply ignore its existence because it doesn't fit your beliefs. It doesn't fit your interpretations. It can't be incorporated into what you believe is scientific theory. You can ignore a sabre toothed tiger outside the cave but it will still get you in the end.

You simply can't see my argument and you think you can gently point me in the right direction by telling me what's real.

We also can see how the brain is directly effected by trauma, disease, visual and audio cues, language, drugs, or in its unconscious state. Even if a thinking(conscious) machine was built that could pass the "Turing Test", it would never have any experience of its own reality or being.

Somehow I'm put in mind of a tribe of primitive savages with a truckload of iPhones trying to figure out what they do and how they work. "Look and See Igor, when I hit it with a rock here it won't even shine any more".

You say it wouldn't experience consciousness and ignore the fact I presented PROOF that ancient man didn't experience consciousness (at least nothing like we do).

Modern people are wholly and utterly blind to anything that doesn't suit their BELIEFS. But you can't see this either because you've read books with all the current theory and the results of Look and See Science. You see this instead.

Are you really completely unaware of chaos theory? I suppose even many scientists still refuse to see that reality isn't a giant clockwork that is explained by Newtonian harmonics. Very few people seem to be able to see the true complexity of reality and how it unfolds. They get hung up on "easier" answers like "infinity" or "God's will". At least the religious people can more easily see what they can't comprehend.

 

[cladking]

Of course we DO NOT control our organs. Of course having "free will" also, does not control our organs.

You really just don't get it.

A beaver will never need to know how long a year or a second are. They used their science to invent dams because that's what they need. Humans had complex language which allowed the accumulation of knowledge across generations. The need for such time keeping arose in humans. Even bees "keep time" in a sense because they must know the direction of the rising sun. This it five sentences already and you'l ignore each one with a blanket "no, it isn't".

Having free will allows us to do anything we want. Consciousness is free will and is the means all individuals survive. Forget "species". Whether an individual survives the next few seconds rarely has anything whatsoever to do with what species it is. It is a thousand times more likely to have to do with how tasty it is. It is related more to misadventure than Darwinian fitness. But you won't see this last sentence either because it is heresy and anti-Darwinian nonsense. It simply doesn't matter that it is obviously true because you already have a framework for seeing your own reality. You see reality from your models which are really just beliefs because they have never stood up to actual experiment. You have a perspective formed of beliefs, experimental results, and the definitions and axioms that underlie them. You've never even considered that definitions are arbitrary, contrived, ephemeral, and they impart a perspective. You may not be familiar with the axioms and seem not to even be aware of chaos theory. You can't see that your interpretations are all driven by your beliefs and your perspective might be very poor.

You've never tried to control your organs. You've never experienced phantom limb itching. You've never turned your ability to observe inward to see what you're thinking or how.

I said it before but I'm very well aware that my hypotheses are not supported by the beliefs of scientists but I believe they are supported by experimental results, logic, and many of those pesky little facts that people keep tuning out. I believe my "theories" better explain all the evidence and are far more logical. Ultimately these hypotheses are more a perspective than anything else.

 

[ecco]

If it couldn't be translated, what existing translations did you use to deduce its meaning?

All of them in English.

"All of them in English" does not answer the question "what existing translations did you use".


Nevertheless, how could you have read translations of writings that could not be translated? Are you going to deny you said this?

What I have said countless times is that NOBODY can translate Ancient Language because it can't be translated.

Anyone can state any nonsense they want in our language but AL by definition agreed with physical law and had a single meaning. It is impossible to translate.