Fascinating!

[cladking]

This is ironic, since I simply quoted your own words. How do you expect others to understand your fragmented, disjointed, and ambiguous sentences, when even you can't understand your own words? It would seem that it is you that should keep up with the meaning and understanding of your own words. In real time.

You want objective evidence? Let's start with a simple experiment to demonstrate if we can consciously control our organs. I want you to place an apple and a flower on a table near you that is within your line of sight. Now I want you to completely cover your eyes so that no light can enter it. Now look in the direction of the table that the apple and flower are on. Tell me what do you see? For normal humans, the answer is nothing but darkness. Now I want you to consciously focus really hard, to see the apple and the flower on the table(not in your mind). Anything? I want you to consciously try to extend your lens, rods and cones, and your optic nerve past the blindfolds, and then tell me what you see? Can you now see the table, apple, or flower? Again, humans will only see darkness. What does this experiment tell us? Sight is a passive process, not an active process. Therefore we don't have active, or direct control over our visual receptors, or the visual network(other than mechanical). This experiment can be modified to demonstrate that we don't any active or direct control over other visceral organs as well(liver, heart, lungs, kidneys, etc.). What experiments would you have me do, that would support your assertion/implication that we do have direct control over these organs? I can understand not knowing the difference between Broca's area and Wernicke's area because of your poor understanding of science. But even a child would understand that he can't consciously control anything that he can't even be aware of. This is not just ignorance, this is a lack of common sense.

You have a startling lack of experience. I imagine you're young and just never paid much attention to anything but what they taught you in school. There's nothing really wrong with either of these things but for someone truly enlightened it's unexpected. Schools today when they aren't busy indoctrinating tend to teach to the tests and have no time for the things that broaden horizons. If you had ever been in a cave you'd know what real blackness is. All you've done here is define "opaque". I'm sorry that solid objects can vary between freely allowing light and even very thin sheets stopping all light but this is the nature of reality. No, I don't understand it better than anyone else but it does kindda support our belief that atoms are far apart doesn't it?

There are numerous ways to experience the means to gain control over organs but I prefer not to delineate any of them because all say too much but I did mention "phantom itching" something which should put one in mind of the TYPE of experience necessary. I can't tell you what it feels like to regulate my heart because I just do it. It's a stupid human trick I taught myself as a child. There are stupider things but if you can't even understand something this simple you'd just scoff at any of the others. Suffice to say that the Egyptians believe we all have nearly 200 different senses. Some of these are defined limitedly.

Unfortunately, this is all just gibberish and half-truths. You have never supported any of your claims with testable, falsifiable, reproducible, or observable evidence.

I'm sorry you still can't find any words for "belief" or "thought" or found a logical reason that we all engage in circular arguments but this is REALITY.

I have hundreds of perfectly good experiments that can show that I'm right but most of them involve Egyptologists who ONLY care about parsing that language they never noticed breaks Zipf's Law.

 

[cladking]

Unfortunately, this is all just gibberish and half-truths. You have never supported any of your claims with testable, falsifiable, reproducible, or observable evidence. Can you give me an example of just one of the experimental evidence you've mentioned?

This is the only kind of evidence that really matters because everything else is strictly belief. I am telling you that ALL EVIDENCE, ALL LOGIC, AND ALL EXPERIMENT support my theory. It's just this simple. Yes, when you get down to the brass tacks of reality nothing is so simple. There are minor inconsistencies. I'm always finding more of these inconsistencies and trying to resolve them. I often can resolve them and I often tweak my theory to conform to these facts. I VERY RARELY mention any of them specifically because I know people will latch on but even more I'm using them as a check to see if anyone is paying attention. Pretty much no one is because nobody has pointed one out in a very long time. If you can find such an inconsistency I'd be EXCEEDINGLY INTERESTED because it could disprove my whole theory and I could spend my efforts elsewhere. Even if it's minor it could be one I hadn't thought of. Frankly it would be nice to see someone actually considering what I'm saying.

What predictions can you make based on your beliefs about reality? Lets hear them.

You couldda asked this a long time ago.

I campaigned for years to get infrared testing done on G1 because the Pyramid Texts very clearly says the second Sphinx is subsumed under the NE corner and this is supported by the gravimetric scan. Literature says this second Sphinx they actually called the "Mafdet Lynx" ("lynx is probably a bad translation for "mongoose") is surrounded by high walls on which are inscribed their version of the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" that they called the "Book of Thot" (the book of human progress). My interpretation suggested there would be a hot spot in the fall "exactly" the height of the "3b3w" (the height the water sprayed)(81' 3") at the base from the NE corner. Instead they found the hot spot twice this distance (~161' 4"). This error explains more evidence for how the pyramid was built.

When the hot spot I predicted was found an urgent call went out not to engineers or scientists to explain it but to Egyptologists. Of course they can't but I knew in advance this would be exist and they know it. I also predicted a hot spot below the chevrons at the entrance and a tunnel going straight in that were found and confirmed by muon imaging. Indeed, I can pretty much tell you most of the results of the testing but they refuse to release any data that doesn't support their beliefs and these results only fit my beliefs in ancient scientists and stinky footed bumpkins. They have apparently stopped all testing after taking my suggestion to look inside the hot spot using a boroscope. There appears to be a guide for one shoved in the biggest hole where Mafdet's body heat is seeping out of the pyramid. I know what's inside ofg here and Hawass kind of suggested it's exactly what I predicted though he never admitted using a boroscope. He suggested that there is a natural fissure just inside. I believed it was more like a passage but it looks like I was wrong.

My theory has been explaining just about everything they've found since I've been watching. Of course I didn't predict things like a cistern that could only be filled by running water in a desert but it is only explicable in terms of my theory.

It is true that what people believe in can affect what people do. But all beliefs are conceptual, not perceptual. You can believe anything you want about the physical world, but it will never change the fact that a rock will always have the properties of a rock, regardless of your beliefs.

You think submarines can't fly and there's only one definition or understanding of "rock"!!! Our minds and beliefs don't directly affect reality but reality rarely directly affects our minds because everything is filtered through our beliefs and thoughts first. How can you be blind to this?

I am telling you that our consciousness doesn't work like all other consciousness any longer. There was a time that people saw reality directly and didn't even have words for "belief" or "thought". There were no words to try to explain the concept to them and they'd never understand. This is a good thing since if they did understand they might kill you as a mental defective. They could have no beliefs without thought and no thought without beliefs. They used a language that resonated with nature and their digital higher brain functions. We don't have digit higher brain functions because we have to translate reality itself into models and beliefs.

Is this really that complicated? What words would you use to get this across? Why do you think I'm talking about religion even after I repeatedly say that religion is a confused version of ancient science? Why do you think what I say contradicts reality? What experiment or logic says I'm wrong about anything?

Please tell me what scientific Theory was derived from observations only? I know of none.

E#very single Egyptologist believes ancient people were moribund changeless stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps. They will consider no evidence that doesn't support this. They will brook no dissent among the peers. This is in no way limited to Egyptology. Much of science is in a shambles because of a failed educational system and a belief that there is not always a need for data or scientific foundation.

Obviously every scientist is no fool and there's certainly real science taking place in almost every field. But ask yourself this simple question; how is it even possible no infrared imaging was made on any great pyramid until more than a century after its invention and 75 years after it was commercially available! Egyptology just doesn't care about no stinkin' data and now nearly four years aftyer they finally gathered the data that even a tourist could have found, they still won'ty release the data because they have said it doesn't conform to current beliefs. OF COURSE IT DOESN'T CONFORM TO CURRENT BELIEFS because all current beliefs are wrong and the data will fit my theory. This is why I wanted the tests in the first place. There are many more tests that will prove me right like finding copper hydroxide in protected areas north of the pyramid. Ancient science left plenty of clues that can be interpreted by modern science. But even without this testing the means that were really used to build the pyramids are right in plain sight but can't be seen because of our beliefs.

There are only two perspectives.

ROFL.

Curious how modern people think infinity is real but can't see there are an innumerable number of perspectives from between any other two perspectives. Reality is so impossibly complex that a new math is needed to convey it. Indeed little numbers don't even really exist at all and are merely concepts and symbols. There are no two things alike so what is the use for "2"? Our belief in "2" allows us to count rabbits and not see even one of them.[/QUOTE]

 

[cladking]

Anyone that claims that beavers invent dams, by using beaver science, has more imagination than logic. But when someone tries to defend this claim, by implying that beaver's actually know what is the best habitat to invent, then they are using only their imagination. This would create a slippery slope to claim that all species must also invent their own habitat, using their own science? This would be sheer nonsense. Especially in the absence of any evidence supporting species(other than man) creating their own habitats.​

I never really thought of it this way before but your words led me to see that each species' science is really a part of their niche. Beavers won't survive in the desert but they also won't do well in swamps. Without trees and moving water their science is of little utility. An animals "niche" is largely determined by its science and language so a broad based change in niches will lead to bottlenecks and a new science (consciousness) suited to the new conditions.

You can't simply ignore all the other possible events that are also inherent in natural systems. I seriously don't think you fully understand the underlying significance of the Chaos Theory. That is, beyond your over-simplistic misrepresentation.

Reality is impossibly complex. Nothing has a single causation. But this fact doesn't affect the reality that a butterfly flapping its wings in China DOES ALWAYS HAVE a profound effect in the future. Everything has a profound effect in the future. Even the specific electrons that are flowing through your monitor matters because every electron is different. If you get a heavier one instead of a light one it will cause two galaxies to collide in a billion years.

It's not my fault reality is so complex.

It would also seem that your understanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and de Broglie's equation, is just as weak as your understanding of the Chaos Theory. Maybe you can explain why our observed classical reality, does not appear to behave in the same way as the quantum reality. In one sense, we are connected in a sea of quantum waves. Our classical reality is governed by the four(or five) forces of nature. It is these forces of nature that are governed by the rules of Quantum reality.

I'm not up on all the more current physics. I don't believe it is relevant unless you know of an experiment that contradicts my theory.

Finally, my world is much simpler than the quantum world you are trying to conflate.

​

This isn't my fault either.

They started teaching me metaphysics in second grade but I got a lot of it at home even earlier.

Now days it seems no one even cares. No one even knows what they know.

Of course the chief problem is simply language that makes people take reality at face value; it is because it is because it is because it is because it is because it is because it is. It doesn't matter how anything came to be because it is what it is. So most of us and most scientists are more interested in what it is than understanding their own understanding. So Look and See Science was born and "peer review" was added to reality itself. Egyptologist don't care about testing and nobody noticed that "science" oscillates as fast as some pendulums.[/quote]

 

[cladking]

This is ironic, since I simply quoted your own words. How do you expect others to understand your fragmented, disjointed, and ambiguous sentences, when even you can't understand your own words? It would seem that it is you that should keep up with the meaning and understanding of your own words. In real time.

This is nonsense.

You said;

It is arrogance and dishonesty to assume that if people can't agree or understand your claims, that it is "because you've read books with all the current theory and the results of Look and See Science".

I said;

I don't know what this means.

I never said what you claimed I said. I don't know why you'd suggest I'm arrogant or dishonest. There are many reasons people don't understand. Most of those who do understand are taking a wait and see posture because the ball is in Egyptology's court and they are studiously pretending nothing is going on.

I'm not claiming to be smarter than anyone else and have some insight into God or Reality. I am merely suggesting I've stumbled on a new perspective that is ancient science and this perspective shows the nature and flaws in modern language. I am saying that BELIEF impedes the ability of ALL MODERN humans to see reality. Beliefs can even hide the existence of reality that ancient science called "amun" which mean "The Hidden". They couldn't see all parts of amun and some of us don't even believe in amun!

Amen.

 

[cladking]

I guess that science and experience are always teaching us that reality often isn't like it appears to be. We see pendulums with apparently equal lengths and then the mathematical and logical patterns they weave and think there must be unseen forces at work. We see double pendulums and the chaos they create and think there must be some means of predicting or quantifying their behavior. Soon enough many people come to believe that reality is unique to every individual. They believe amun doesn't exist so therefore God does, or can't. You are what you believe so choose your beliefs carefully.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Context must be deduced from available evidence. This evidence includes a lot of things that are normally brushed off as irrelevancies. One of these "irrelevancies" is the people said they used a cool effervescent column of water in funiculars to build pyramids and there is extensive physical evidence they did exactly this. One of these "irrelevancies" is that the linguists in charge of engineering at Giza never noticed the language broke Zipf's Law. One of these "irrelevancies" is that there is foreign sand at a couple of pyramids and vaterite behind the walls in the Great Pyramid.

If you pick and choose what evidence you see you can support any argument at all. This is EXACTLY how all humans live their lives and become their own circular argument.

Are up claiming the pyramids were built using Perrier?

 

[cladking]

Are up claiming the pyramids were built using Perrier?

There is still Perrier here.

There is water that fizzes under the G2 causeway. There is a thick dust that settles on it which I believe are insects that have decomposed anaerobically. There even appears to be a primeval mound with a ben ben on it growing in the walls of the Sphinx Temple.

The bizarre red, white, and yellow mineral encrustations here are puzzling, and I cannot explain them. I looked at them as closely as I could, and the more closely I looked the more puzzled I became. They seem to be bubbling up from something, with layers of encrustation being successively deposited on top of earlier layers. Perhaps the ‘efflux of Osiris’ is leaking upwards!

EGYPTIAN DAWN - ROBERT TEMPLE - THE SPHINX AND THE VALLEY TEMPLES AT GIZA

 

[cladking]

Are up claiming the pyramids were built using Perrier?

507c. effervescent, proceeding from leg and tail of the Great (One) who is in splendour.
508a. N. is come to his watercourses, which are in the land of the flood, in Mḥ.t-wr.t,
508b. to the places of satisfaction, with green fields, which are in the horizon,
509a. that N. may make green the herbs in both lands of the horizon,
509b. (and) that N. may bring the green to the great eye which is in the midst of the field.

The effervescent water comes from the eye of horus in the midst of the field.

1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses;

The flood is tossed high in the air (81' 3" to be exact).

1944a. + 2 (Nt. 777). The time of inundation comes, the wȝg-festival comes, to the uplands, it comes as Osiris.

There is only one way to say this; Egyptologists' reading comprehension is nearly nonexistent. The Pyramid Texts says one single thing and they see the opposite.

The geyser was "atum" and was known as "osiris/ n". The scientific term was "D3.t" (duat).

 

[cladking]

1121a. when he ascends to heaven, when he ferries over the vault, for life and joy:
1121b. also when he traverses the foaming sea, destroying the walls of Shu.

Someday I suppose people will clap me on the back and say "good job", and they'll be more sure I'm right than I am.

Perrier destroys limestone walls and foams as it does.

 

[ecco]

...

Someday I suppose people will clap me on the back and say "good job", and they'll be more sure I'm right than I am.

Or, more likely, they'll slap you up the side of the head and say "get real".

 

[cladking]

People resist change. Some resist it until they can't resist it any longer but most people simply never do change.

I've had to make numerous changes to accept this new knowledge but most people will have to make far more and far more important and fundamental changes.

 

[ecco]

... most people will have to make far more and far more important and fundamental changes.

Why would we want to do that? Because you think we should?

I think some people need to rid their minds of woo, but that doesn't mean they will.

 

[cladking]

Why would we want to do that? Because you think we should?

I think some people need to rid their minds of woo, but that doesn't mean they will.

It's ironic that people can accept ideas like the existence of an infinite number of pyramids built by an infinite number of ramps because some cosmologist with a white board finds an equation that suggests it but the concept of one world with a few pyramids not built by ramps is woo.

Reality exists and in order to understand it we must use science and knowledge. If the pyramids were really built with no ramps then, obviously, we don't understand reality. We will be stuck in time until we do.

We are experiencing Ground Hogs Day since 1883 which is fine for most people but I don't like Sonny and Cher.

 

[ecco]

It's ironic that people can accept ideas like the existence of an infinite number of pyramids built by an infinite number of ramps because some cosmologist with a white board finds an equation that suggests it but the concept of one world with a few pyramids not built by ramps is woo.

Reality exists and in order to understand it we must use science and knowledge. If the pyramids were really built with no ramps then, obviously, we don't understand reality. We will be stuck in time until we do.

We are experiencing Ground Hogs Day since 1883 which is fine for most people but I don't like Sonny and Cher.

Your comments regarding pyramids were probably intended for Dan From Smithville, not me.

RE: Infinite Universes. There is nothing in nature for which there is only one. Not one planet; not one star, not one galaxy. So why should anyone suppose only one universe?

 

[cladking]

RE: Infinite Universes. There is nothing in nature for which there is only one. Not one planet; not one star, not one galaxy. So why should anyone suppose only one universe?

I would say that it depends on your perspective. There's only a single consciousness for every individual life-form. Even all snow flakes are different. It's a virtual certainty that every photon and electron is different. We have never observed other universes and we've never observed anything spring into existence from nothing.

Of course you can change your perspective and say knowledge comes to individuals from nothing or only rabbits can breed with rabbits. You can say there are countless trillions of stars. These things are only true because we use words for them. No star is the same as another star. You can't REALLY add apples and oranges and you can't add apples and apples. In the real world all apples are different. Most have fallen to the ground and rotted. Many have grown into apples trees. Some make great applesauce and one even hit Newton in the head.

If there's another universe then where is it? How can a universe originate in an event and what experimental evidence shows it?

 

[ecco]

RE: Infinite Universes. There is nothing in nature for which there is only one. Not one planet; not one star, not one galaxy. So why should anyone suppose only one universe?

I would say that it depends on your perspective. There's only a single consciousness for every individual life-form.

You have a knack for going off topic, even when it is a topic you started like multiple universes.

I show that there are no "ones" of anything and you dip into your bag of woo and respond with: There's only a single consciousness for every individual life-form.

I think I'm done wasting my time trying to have a discussion with you.

 

[cladking]

You say there's not one of anything and when I prove there aren't two of anything you call it "woo"!!!

Reality is digital; either it exists or it does not. Your ability to see that from some perspective, no two things exist does not seem to exist. It's a zero. Even you believe there are differences between all these different universes.

I merely maintain that nothing comes from nothing. Reality doesn't spring from an equation on a whiteboard, nor do Alternative Universes.

 

[ecco]

You say there's not one of anything and when I prove there aren't two of anything you call it "woo"!!!

Congratulations on the submission of your "proof".

Please be advised that a statement of woo is not considered "proof".

Reality is digital; either it exists or it does not.

What are you talking about?

Your ability to see that from some perspective, no two things exist does not seem to exist.

What are you talking about?

Even you believe there are differences between all these different universes.

Why wouldn't there be? Planets are all different; stars are all different; galaxies are all different.

Reality doesn't spring from an equation on a whiteboard, nor do Alternative Universes.

You are absolutely correct. What comes from people scribbling on a piece of paper, or a chalkboard, or a whiteboard or a computer keyboard is an understanding of reality. I'm not surprised you didn't know that.

I merely maintain that nothing comes from nothing.

Neither do I. I also do not believe that an omni-all god sprang from nothing and has existed "forever".

Are you or any theists scribbling equations to offer insight as to the origins of your god? No? Hmm.

 

[cladking]

Please be advised that a statement of woo is not considered "proof".

So... ...are you going to suggest there is only one shape for snowflakes? Do you have any evidence and two quarks are identical? Do you have two identical anything?

What are you talking about?

We see reality as being analog. It is not. Ancient people saw it as digital, a reflection of their brains, and observable with simple axioms. Apparently they were right.

Planets are all different; stars are all different; galaxies are all different.

So what now? Are you saying that "stars" has no referent since all stars are different thus it is merely a taxonomic word? A word with no referent wouldn't be necessary if we saw reality digitally. We don't. We see the world in terms of beliefs and models and forget these beliefs are not real and not a reflection of reality.

You are absolutely correct. What comes from people scribbling on a piece of paper, or a chalkboard, or a whiteboard or a computer keyboard is an understanding of reality. I'm not surprised you didn't know that.

So where do all these universes you apparently believe exist originate? Where do they acquire their mass and "laws of nature"? Do some have a "Creator"?

Are you or any theists scribbling equations to offer insight as to the origins of your god? No? Hmm.

Have you been able to define what a Creator needs to know? Can you quantify the equations that make up God? Can you do the math?

 

[ecco]

So... ...are you going to suggest there is only one shape for snowflakes? Do you have any evidence and two quarks are identical? Do you have two identical anything?

Either you have a serious reading comprehension problem or you are intentionally being obtuse. Where did I use the term "identical"? I gave "galaxies" as one example. Did I say I thought galaxies were identical?

We see reality as being analog. It is not. Ancient people saw it as digital, a reflection of their brains, and observable with simple axioms. Apparently they were right.

Apparently, that is nothing more than your unsupported opinion.

So what now? Are you saying that "stars" has no referent since all stars are different thus it is merely a taxonomic word? A word with no referent wouldn't be necessary if we saw reality digitally. We don't. We see the world in terms of beliefs and models and forget these beliefs are not real and not a reflection of reality.

More obfuscation out of desperation? Can't you stick to the topic we were discussing - multiple universes.

So where do all these universes you apparently believe exist originate? Where do they acquire their mass and "laws of nature"?

By the same as yet unknown process that our universe came to be.

Do some have a "Creator"?

Silly boy. If I injected a Creater I would be asked to state where He originated.

Have you been able to define what a Creator needs to know? Can you quantify the equations that make up God? Can you do the math?

A creator needs to know everything and indeed believers believe He does. Many who believer in Him attribute Omni-all qualities to Him. I'll bet that includes you.

I cannot "quantify the equations that make up" a figment of your imagination. There are millions of Christians, I would need to make up millions of equations. Therein is one of the big differences between your mythics and science: e=mc^^2 works across the board.