• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fascinating!

cladking

Well-Known Member
so.....an ancient man sees lightning…..
but not having words for it...…

Modern humans have a distinct language from all other life. It is distinct because it is not tied to reality and knowledge. Human language became too complex to maintain its ties to reality so it had to be abandoned about 2000 BC and replaced with modern languages.

The ancients understood quite a bit about electricity. They knew it caused water to decompose, lightning, and nerve impulses. They knew it was conducted by metal and they knew the approximate speed. But most importantly they couldn't say anything about it that wasn't true or that was sincerely stupid like modern people do. They shut down swimming pools in steel frame buildings because the head of some association doesn't understand how lightning works. The educational system has failed and most things said about nature by people now is false.

324a. To say: N. is a heart-beat, son of the heart of Shu,
324b. wide-outstretched, a blinding light.
324c. It is N. who is a flame (moving) before the wind to the ends of heaven and to the end of the earth,
324d. as soon as the arms of the lightning are emptied of N.

This makes no sense to us because we deconstruct it.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Human language became too complex to maintain its ties to reality so it had to be abandoned about 2000 BC
not sure if I can buy that

there may have been difficulty of expression as a new discovery overwrites a previous belief.....
but language is far more complex now than ever
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
not sure if I can buy that

there may have been difficulty of expression as a new discovery overwrites a previous belief.....
but language is far more complex now than ever

Ancient Language was simple. Just like the language that operates the internet very few words were needed. It wan't complexity which was needed to keep it tied to reality it was definitions and axioms. Language was metaphysics itself. It was a perfectly natural language just like all animals used but then an INDIVIDUAL (Adam?) was born with a mutation that tied the speech center more closely to higher brain functions. This allowed a complexity not possible in ANY OTHER ANIMAL. This complexity was able to pass complex knowledge from generation to generation and homo sapiens were born. But this initial complex language was still quite simple from our perspective. Using it was complex but the language itself was simple.

It can't be deconstructed like we do so one would experience it nearly like understanding the other guy's thoughts. They'd simply know what each other were thinking by means of sound and the voice box/ ear. They wouldn't experience thinking like we do so they had no words for "thought".

Our language gets more complex all the time as we address the causes of miscommunication. We have hundreds of thousands of words and more are added all the time.

Ancient Language was simple. They merely said exactly what they meant but they used a different kind of formatting tied to reality. They used words that were representative rather than symbolic and their words couldn't be defined or they'd be deconstructed. Instead their words were all NAMED (Adam named the animals).
 

ecco

Veteran Member
"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?

You are engaging in semantics and word play again. The word "translation" has numerous meanings and YOU CHOSE THE ONE FOR THIS CONVERSATION AND THEN CHANGED IT!!!


I'll be polite and say that your above comment is incorrect. However, I'll give you an opportunity to show where I used "translation", or any of its derivatives, to mean anything other than definition 1...
translation
noun
trans·la·tion | \ tran(t)s-ˈlā-shən , tranz-\
Definition of translation


1: an act, process, or instance of translating: such as
a: a rendering from one language into another also : the product of such a rendering

Then we can again address "what existing translations did you use" and how could you have read translations of writings that could not be translated?
 

ecco

Veteran Member

Maybe it will inspire you to make a relevant comment or an argument.
You keep wanting to drift all over the place. I'm finished going in circles with you. Address my comments in post # 344. Then we can move on and you can address...

"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?​
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but I use a 70 year old unabridged dictionary and it has hundreds of words to define "translation" and many definitions. I use an old dictionary because the educational system has failed and they now put illiterates in charge of writing dictionaries.

You are still playing word games. You are now pretending the word has only one meaning.

Please proceed without me.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member

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

This is a simple concept. I use all published translations of everything that might have been written in Ancient Language and I've read them many times.

Maybe you can't appreciate how little exists in AL because you never even opened the link I provided twice.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Every single word in the English language has many different definitions and each is expressed in words that also have many definitions. You do realize also that everybody has his own unique definitions for every word and a long list of connotations for words?
More nonsense. If I call you a liar, the moderators would get upset with me because they understand the common usage of the word "Liar", just as I do and just as you do.


If everyone can make up their own definitions then you would have to agree that submarines can fly higher than the moon.

It is always each person's job to try to deconstruct the meaning of a sentence. Trying to understand why I chose a specific word is your job and not mine.

More of the same nonsense. People who write books hire editors to try very hard to make sure that their words mean the same to all reasonably intelligent readers. If you don't care to make your writing clear to everyone that is your problem.

Actually, I think all your above commentary is just to distract from the fact that you cannot make a clear cogent argument because you keep contradicting yourself.


I'll ignore the rest of your post.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
People who write books hire editors to try very hard to make sure that their words mean the same to all reasonably intelligent readers. If you don't care to make your writing clear to everyone that is your problem.

Yet you personally, can not even stick to the same definition of "translation" that you introduced.

Every sentence can be parsed in an "infinity" of ways and it's not uncommon to see people conversing on two different subjects without realizing it.

Ever here of chinese telephone? Look it up.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
You can not predict where it will go.
More nonsense. I watched it once and saw where two lines crossed. I predicted they would cross at the same exact spot in all future runs. I watched it a second time and proved my prediction was correct.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Modern humans have a distinct language from all other life. It is distinct because it is not tied to reality and knowledge. Human language became too complex to maintain its ties to reality so it had to be abandoned about 2000 BC and replaced with modern languages.
There are over 6,000 spoken languages. Each varying in the number of words, definitions, context and connotation. Which language are you referring too?

The ancients understood quite a bit about electricity. They knew it caused water to decompose, lightning, and nerve impulses. They knew it was conducted by metal and they knew the approximate speed. But most importantly they couldn't say anything about it that wasn't true or that was sincerely stupid like modern people do. They shut down swimming pools in steel frame buildings because the head of some association doesn't understand how lightning works. The educational system has failed and most things said about nature by people now is false.
What are ancients. People of 100 years ago? A 1,000 years? 10,000 years? 300,000 years? What did people of 1,000 years ago understand about electricity that is greater than what we understand today? How does the ignorance of a few mean that knowledge is not possessed by others?

I know that the ancient Faraday understood more about electricity than I do. Does that mean that his understanding is barred from me? Does it mean that others do not know as much or more than he does.

Our knowledge is built on existing knowledge.

If ancient cultures did not have a word for belief, it does not mean that they did not have beliefs.

. To say: N. is a heart-beat, son of the heart of Shu,
324b. wide-outstretched, a blinding light.
324c. It is N. who is a flame (moving) before the wind to the ends of heaven and to the end of the earth,
324d. as soon as the arms of the lightning are emptied of N.

This makes no sense to us because we deconstruct it.
It makes no sense to me out of context. Even with context, it may still not make sense, being formed from some irrational basis I am not privy to.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
If everyone can make up their own definitions then you would have to agree that submarines can fly higher than the moon.

They already can. They can because our language is so confused.

The moon doesn't "revolve around the earth" as most peoples' models say but rather it is an exceedingly complex path that essentially goes around the center of balance (maat) of the earth/ moon system. As such the moon is always a fixed distance from this point but it causes tides on the earth which lift the oceans and the submarines they contain. In reality the submarines fly higher than the moon (which is relatively inelastic) twice per day.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
More nonsense. I watched it once and saw where two lines crossed. I predicted they would cross at the same exact spot in all future runs. I watched it a second time and proved my prediction was correct.

Very good.

I predicted you'd be the first. :cool:
 

ecco

Veteran Member
This is a simple concept. I use all published translations of everything that might have been written in Ancient Language and I've read them many times.

Maybe you can't appreciate how little exists in AL because you never even opened the link I provided twice.


The link you provide was to a translation of an Egyptian test. NOTE: Not to an ANCIENT LANGUAGE text, an Egyptian text.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Every single word in the English language has many different definitions and each is expressed in words that also have many definitions. You do realize also that everybody has his own unique definitions for every word and a long list of connotations for words? It is always each person's job to try to deconstruct the meaning of a sentence. Trying to understand why I chose a specific word is your job and not mine. If you can't deconstruct a sentence so it makes sense why don't you ask for clarification? This is what we are supposed to be doing here; conversing and not looking for key phrases to attack in one anothers posts.
But there is no evidence that people that used languages of fewer words with more limited choice in definition all pictured the same definition when associating the symbol with their internal meaning.



I am not an ancient and I don't speak AL. I am the only individual who understands AL but this is because I've modeled it in my mind. I've created a set of "beliefs" about how the language works so I can process it and derive the meaning. I think linearly just like you and everyone else because I had to unlearn AL as a baby and grow a broca's area just like you.
There were many ancient languages. You keep speaking as if there were one, but there is no evidence to claim that. We cannot say that 100,000 years ago, there was a spoken language, whether it was just one or many. There is no record of the sounds. All that can said of ancient languages is in examination of the written word that first came into the record some 5,000 to 6,000 years ago.

Yes, it's true that I already thought like an Egyptian in some ways but this is because I taught myself generalism (nexialism). The perspective of seeing reality in terms of logic and all science is similar to thinking in AL though there are tremendous differences such as I know that I am conscious because I experience it. They did not experience consciousness so they had no words for "thought" or "believe". Of course they knew they were alive because all life knows it's alive and this is the very basis of language and survival. Instead of trying to see my perspective or understand the words your cursory glance will lead you to say I'm contradicting myself. You could be trying to deconstruct the words to understand my thoughts but you already know I'm wrong and you're right so you won't.
Your perspective is belief and you are asking us to believe with you about many things that you cannot demonstrate to give us reason to believe with you.

As I've said before there is no such thing as "intelligence" as we define it. Well... ...some individuals think faster than others and this will lead more often to correct answers, more knowledge (beliefs), or new insights but this is a tiny part of what creates the event I call "cleverness". There is no condition that we call "intelligent". The belief in "intelligence" is an artefact of confused language that we share.[/QUOTE]That is your opinion. It does not mean that it is a fact. I see evidence that intelligence exists on different levels and some of that intelligence exists with consciousness, but some does not appear to exist with consciousness.


You are ignoring the evidence. You can't see it. People are blind to things that don't fit their belief systems and you believe anything with the word "science" in front of it is gospel and anything with "gospel" in front of it is the musings of sun addled bumpkins. This is your reality and it is the reality shared by large numbers of people who have no clue about epistemology and metaphysics. Indeed, even those who do understand such fields still believe even in untested hypotheses of Look and See Science because they don't realize that perspective and definitions are also relevant to our understanding of everything.
If you cannot see evidence, then it cannot be ignored. Which is it?

I have a belief system. Many on this thread do not. Yet, we can see the same things and understand them. We do it regularly here with regards to issues of science.

I am merely presenting ALL the evidence and a logical means of interpreting it that is consistent with scientific theory. It is wholly inconsistent with most Look and See Science but it is consistent with physical evidence and theory. This offends sensibilities so badly that you can't even deconstruct my meaning from any sentence. You start with the assumptions I'm wrong, confused, and lying and deconstruct them to support these assumptions.
You have presented your belief system. I have seen little evidence, except statements that are factual, but not objective evidence corroborating your belief.

I see nobody responded to my contention that the ability of an individual to survive is more closely correlated to its "tastiness" than its "fitness" or ability to "adapt". Darwin was nonsense in the 1880's and it's nonsense now. Darwin led us down a dark path and used Look and See Science to do it. Now you can't even see the evidence stacked up against it and the continued lack of experimental justification.
I have no idea what you mean. Are you trying to say that an organism has a greater chance to survive because they do not taste good to another organism that would otherwise eat it? That can easily be explained by natural selection and evolution. A random mutation that results in a quality of distaste to a potential predator would increase the fitness of the individual expressing that mutation. The natural selection would preserve it and more offspring on average would result for that line and the mutation would become fixed in the population.

Examples exist in the monarch butterfly and the viceroy. They have the ability to sequester environmental toxins in their tissue so that predators find them distasteful. This is coupled with bright color to warn predators of this quality. Not all Lepidoptera have this ability.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I'm sorry but I use a 70 year old unabridged dictionary and it has hundreds of words to define "translation" and many definitions.
Nonsense. If that is true, you should be able to readily post 20 of them.

If you can't post 20 of them...well, I don't have to explain what that would make you, do I?

You are still playing word games. You are now pretending the word has only one meaning.
I'm pretending it has just one meaning? Really? Did you not see where the definition I posted had two meanings:
The act of rendering and the result of the act of rendering.​

That's pretty sloppy reading on your part.

You still have to show where I switched usage and meaning like you accused me of doing.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
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.



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.
"Look and See" science is just you waving your hands at science that does not agree or fit with the novel imaginary view you have been evolving.

All science involves questioning "Looking" and observation "Seeing". Belief merely requires an idea and that it be believed. It does not have to be an idea based in rational thought. It can be anything. Attaching bits and pieces of objective reality to that belief does not make it become true.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Yet you personally, can not even stick to the same definition of "translation" that you introduced.
This is at least the second time that you made that false accusation. Show where I did not even stick to the same definition of "translation".

You won't, because you can't.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
They've been thoroughly refuted. And long ago. many of the claims don't even pertain to how evolution actually works. Yet they are still being repeated and asserted as though they are fresh in some way. That's the issue.
He is trying to substantiate an underlying claim that evolution did not occur by being misleading. The argument over whether Pakicetus was directly ancestral to modern whales is important and interesting, but it does not falsify the evolution of whales. It clarifies that. If he were honest in his pursuit of this, he would acknowledge that fact instead of using it to create a straw man argument.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Show your objective evidence and I have no interest at all in wiki pages or "science" derived from anything other than experiment.

I HAVE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE BUT YOU IGNORE IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. There is no word for "belief", remember. I've cited dozens of facts and have many more to support those but you can't see them so why go deeper into it? Why don't you challenge something you believe is merely assertion? People see the world in terms of their beliefs. This is obviously true but if you challenged it I could provide extensive experimental evidence to show it. Instead you are dismissing what I say and presenting the conclusion of Look and See Science. Darwin was wrong. Why can't you address what I say?



I don't know what this means except you must not understand anything I've said.

I am self taught. I did long ago use scientific text books to aid me but this was before Look and See Science was so commonplace. There was very little soup of the day science until more modern times. I don't read Look and See studies and results because I don't care. I care about theory based on experiment.



YES. REAL THEORY IS SUPPORTED BY EXPERIMENT. What is supported only by observation IS NOT THEORY. It is Look And See Science.

What is so complex about this? Even scientists now days often can't understand what science is and how it works.



MY REALITY makes accurate prediction where Look and See science refuses to even release data because it doesn't agree with their beliefs.



You just said you refuse to try to understand what I'm saying. Or maybe you can't understand such a simple concept as you must assign meaning to every word in this sentence on a real time basis to understand it. It's hard for me to tell when you aren't even trying to keep up.



Because you don't seem to understand the sentence, Habit is the root of most behavior that is encoded in the genes and made manifest by consciousness. Without understanding "free will" which underlies this you can't understand the PERSPECTIVE from which we can more easily see the evidence. As I said many times, it's not that science is wrong, it's that it sees reality from a poor perspective which doesn't include all the evidence and logic. Facts and logic are just tossed aside because they are deemed to be irrelevancies.
You have made a lot of connections that do not appear to exist and have done nothing to establish that those connections do exist. From what I have seen, you have gone out of your way to avoid anything that calls those connections into question or obliterates them. Your personal definition of science that you will not accept is one of those efforts of avoidance. At some point, your definition of look and see science will include a mixture of evidence that shares the single quality of demonstrating the unstable nature of your belief system.
 
Top