Science cannot solve the final mystery

[atanu]

You seem to be less relevant than ever.

Possibly, I only seem so but you are not relevant. I cannot see relevance of your posts to the OP.

 

[ecco]

I'm just going to ignore your diatribe about "metaphysics" but I'm still going to use the word the same way I always have.

I don't think of "evidence" the same way you do either.

Oh goody. Let's all use any words in any way we want to. That means I can call someone an idiot when it is my objective to show how intelligent he really is.

 

[ecco]

Several geologists told me there was no such thing as a cold water geyser,

Really? You actually know three real geologists? And all three of them told you something wrong about geysers. Maybe it's just me, but that just sounds like another of your unsupported and unsupportable assertions. You try to prop yourself up by disparaging make-believe scientists.

 

[ecco]

Do you have any idea why most people need to hold the phone to their left ear?

Yes.

 

[ecco]

or why only humans are intelligent?

..That's too funny.

 

[cladking]

Oh goody. Let's all use any words in any way we want to. That means I can call someone an idiot when it is my objective to show how intelligent he really is.

Well, feel free to call me an idiot.

Older dictionaries used "metaphysics" to mean exactly how I use it.

But that is irrelevant because every word means exactly what the user believes it means and because there is NO OTHER WORD THAT MEANS THE BASIS OF SCIENCE.

EVEN IF THERE WERE NO WORD TO MEAN THE "BASIS OF SCIENCE" IF I WAS THE FIRST THEN I GET TO MAKE UP MY OWN WORD.

This is the type of semantical argument I encounter everywhere. People don't want to talk about what science means and how we know what we know. They want to hit everyone over the head with what they know when the other person doesn't accept all his premises, assumptions, and beliefs. Rather than consider an argument you argue the words. Usually when people stop with the semantics they start with calling me an idiot.

How ironic most of them are much more idiot than I.

 

[gnostic]

Ancient Language was formatted differently than later language even though it used the same vocabulary. Later people thought "metaphysics" (heka) must be magic so that's how they translated it. Egyptology (which quit pretending to be a science) also doesn't know what metaphysics is and they mistranslated it exactly the same way.

Egyptology has never been called “science”, and don’t require to be peer reviewed scientifically in the same ways as physics, chemistry or biology, especially concerning translations of Egyptian hieroglyphs or hieratic.

And it is just the ancient Egyptian language. The studies of other ancient languages don’t require scientific peer review.

So you keep bringing up peer review in this thread as well as your other thread Ancient Reality, is nothing more than strawman argument.

There are always hits and misses when it comes to translating any ancient texts.

And often, when translating, direct translating is impossible, when translating texts from ancient sources to modern languages. Translators often have to use less direct translations in order to convey the original contexts of the texts as fully as possible.

And from what I can gather, English isn’t an easy language to translate to; most people prefer translating ancient languages to German or to French.

And nothing in translations, particularly in philology, is absolute.

Do you really think that any competent translators don’t know that?

And I don’t dispute that might be problems with translations, because they do commonly occur.

With Egyptian hieroglyphs, there have been some introduction of new and modified hieroglyphic symbols, from Old Kingdom hieroglyphs to Middle Kingdom or from OK to New Kingdom, and that’s to be expected. But overall the hieroglyphs have been static. The changes or additions didn’t affect the hieroglyphs to the extent of being incomprehensible to the later periods.

You have claimed that language has change, and therefore contexts have changed. I don’t think the changes were as drastic as you seem to think.

And if you read the Pyramid Texts, the word Egyptian word heka (heca) or the transliteration “ḥk3w”, appeared frequently passages relating to the gods’ divine powers, “magic”.

For you to say “heca” or “heka” means “metaphysics”, doesn’t make sense in the contexts of PT’s verses.

For instance in the PT of Unis (5th dynasty), utterance 156, it say “Great in Magic” is used several times in this single verse:

He has come to you, Great of Magic: he is Horus, encircled by the aegis of his eye, the Great of Magic.

This same “Great of Magic is used a number of times, sometimes associated with Horus, a couple of times to Seth, and sometimes they attributed to the pharaohs themselves.

If heka means “metaphysics”, then every times heka are mentioned, then the translation - “Great of Metaphysics” - don’t make sense.

Second.

You say the meanings have changed later - “Ancient Language was formatted differently than later language even though it used the same vocabulary.”

But the Pyramid Texts is “earlier”, not “later”.

There are texts, dated to around the same period as the PT, from the 5th dynasty, eg Giza writing board, South Saqqara Stone, and the Royal Annals (one of the fragments is the famous Palermo Stone). While the PT are funerary texts, these other writings are political (list of rulers, hence most of these are like king list”), so there are no heka.

And there are not a whole lot hieroglyphic texts before the 5th dynasty.

And since that is the case, your claim that heka equals “magic” in LATER periods are wrong. They existed earlier.

Your claim is wrong. You are not thinking logically.

So the only way you can demonstrate where heka means “metaphysics”, not “magic”, is to show sources earlier than the Pyramid Texts.

 

[tas8831]

Possibly, I only seem so but you are not relevant. I cannot see relevance of your posts to the OP.

That is because I am responding to the cladking's writings which are all over the board.

 

[gnostic]

Older dictionaries used "metaphysics" to mean exactly how I use it.

But that is irrelevant because every word means exactly what the user believes it means and because there is NO OTHER WORD THAT MEANS THE BASIS OF SCIENCE.

EVEN IF THERE WERE NO WORD TO MEAN THE "BASIS OF SCIENCE" IF I WAS THE FIRST THEN I GET TO MAKE UP MY OWN WORD.

Seriously, there are more to the word metaphysics than just what is given in any dictionary. And the older dictionaries are often outdated.

And you keep repeating the same motto, ad nauseam, "BASIS OF SCIENCE", even with caplock on, doesn’t help your claim.

How many times will you use "BASIS OF SCIENCE", before you give it up, and approach from a different direction?

Metaphysics being a “basis of science”, doesn’t mean metaphysics is science.

The fact that metaphysics don’t put much emphasis on scientific or empirical evidence, only demonstrated that metaphysics isn’t science.

And btw

This is the type of semantical argument I encounter everywhere.

You have been playing game all along.

 

[cladking]

Thank you for taking the time to think about what I'm saying.

And nothing in translations, particularly in philology, is absolute. Do you really think that any competent translators don’t know that?

Yes, of course.

But in the case of the PT no knowledge of any sort is transmitted to the reader through the current translations. Everytime you think you've learned something about ancient religion and magic it will contradict itself. It is wholly inconsistent to modern language speakers. Even the experts can't agree on the most basic ideas like what is the "ankh" or "eye of horus". Word origins and the nature of sceptres and icons can not be deduced so Egyptologists have no idea what any of the sceptres were for or why their crazy "religion" needed dozens of them.

And I don’t dispute that might be problems with translations, because they do commonly occur.

The problems must be extreme for no sense at all to come from the writing.

How can it be possible for a language to exist with no words for "belief", "thought", "category", or "assumption"!!!!!!!!?

These aren't minor omissions but enormous holes in the thought of people who use the language. Obviously they lacked belief and didn't make assumptions. They didn't organize their knowledge into categories and didn't even think in such a way as to experience the self (indirectly).

These differences are night and day but Egyptologists never even noticed so of course they also didn't notice nothing written in Ancient Language makes sense. It doesn't make sense because when Ancient Language is parsed it loses its meaning.

And this is why the Bible and other holy books look like they do; they are interpretations of things written in a language that can never be translated because it is fundamentally different.

And if you read the Pyramid Texts, the word Egyptian word heka (heca) or the transliteration “ḥk3w”, appeared frequently passages relating to the gods’ divine powers, “magic”.

"Heka" is in reality the source of the "gods" because "gods" were in point of fact specific theory. The gods were powerful in reality and heka was powerful and this is why they often spoke of "words of power" and "words of the gods". Words had real power which is the source of our confusion that magic words can be said over something.

Part of what makes all this so difficult to see is that it's all hidden behind most of our ongoing "confusion" because the modern world is built on the remnants of Ancient Language and ancient science. If we were aliens or had no ties to the ancient ways this would all be obvious.

For you to say “heca” or “heka” means “metaphysics”, doesn’t make sense in the contexts of PT’s verses.

I believe it does but when I have time I'll go back and look again. Very very few words were used incorrectly in the PT other than "osiris" and "atum" which were often interchanged because they were the same thing in different times. Some concepts get muddied up because all the words around them are misinterpreted. But, the PT makes literal perfect sense and despite the belief of Egyptologists, there are no grammatical or spelling errors. It's a very remarkable work. But it is not magic and it's not religion. It is merely a book of the rituals read to the crowds at the w3g-festival held each year while most of these rituals were only read when the king was cremated at this time. They practiced regicide and services were held on the "days between the years" at the w3g-festival which marked the beginning of pyramid building season. This is part of the reason the kings are so closely associated with pyramids. Since they were mnemonics they were tied to individual kings.

 

[cladking]

You have been playing game all along.

And now you're right back to playing semantics.

When word definitions are part of your thinking then you are playing semantics. Arguments that hinge on the definition of words are by definition, "semantical" and have no relevance except to comedians, who make their living by highlighting the differences between modern language and "digital reality". Take my wife, please.

All dogs bark.
Sycamores have bark.
Tulips are sycamores.
Dogs are tulips.

You can't argue against barking dogs by pointing out that tulips have bark.

You can ignore the function and nature of consciousness until tulips have evolved into dogs but we'll still not understand the big questions or see that change in species is not the result of evolution.

(see what I did there? I made a semantical argument in that last sentence as a sort of aside)

 

[tas8831]

last reply to you for a while. Your weaseling and dissembling and diversionary antics are boring and tedious.

No. We see what we expect.

So you ARE changing your tune but not admitting it. Got it.

This is the human condition and the reason we have seven billion languages and seven billion religions.

Wow, totally cool insights...

So, in the end, you confuse and conflate Wernicke's and Broca's area, or just don;t know which is who. You definitely do not understand basic brain anatomy. You don;t read your own links. You don;t read the posts that you respond to. You change your claims as you see fit, then get indignant that someone is still considering your earlier iteration of said claims, etc..

I've changed nothing. My theory grows and evolves as I get more input but the fundamentals are not changed. I can go back and read something I wrote when I first started and find it essentially the same despite the errors and omissions and the naivety displayed in it.

Is that your position? I mean, I could go back and quote you saying pretty much the opposite, but I don;t have the time to wade through your meandering stream-of-consciousness yammering.

I mean, are you really now going to pretend that you accept and understand where Broca's area and Wernicke's area are and what they do? Because that is VERY different from your previous verbal vomiting on the subject.

The one by the inferior frontal gyrus is Broca's Area, an area that you were quite fond of until you learned that it was not where or what you thought it was. No it is not needed, according to you.

No. It was not needed by Homo Sapiens, it is certainly critical to Homo Omnisciencis.

We are Homo sapiens. There is no such thing as Homo Omnisciencis, that is just part of your fantasy world. Surely, you have never presented actual evidence of any sort for any such thing.
And too bad you capitalized Omnisciencis - I had hoped you might have learned something, but it was silly of me to think you actually read what I write.
Had it been your habit of doing so, you might not have continually made a fool of yourself in these threads.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior PRIMARILY causes speciation, which is "sudden."

It is my contention that "all" evidence supports my theory. It's your job to show at least one experiment that falsifies it. I don't mind if you can't do it.

Wow, so you mean one can just make assertions and it if someone else does not disprove it, even though ZERO corroborating or supporting evidence ha been provided, then the assertions stand as fact? Cool!

Ok, let me try - the pyramids were built by the Transformers.
And don't forget - I retain the right to just ignore anything you present as I reiterate my 'facts'!

FACT!

My theory is just looking at all the same facts and evidence from a different perspective.

Facts like Broca's area is not in the inferior frontal gyrus? That there is a 'bifurcated speech center' in the 'middle of the brain'?

Yeah, well see - those are NOT facts. Those are assertions premised on your ignorance, that your ego will not allow you to acknowledge.

Unlike Peers, I can be wrong about anything at all.

True, and in pretty much everything you've claimed about biology, you have been.. Of course, I cannot know what you actually mean by "peer" since you have refused to define it for me despite my asking your a dozen times. You know, it is one of several straightforward, simple questions that you just omit from your replies. Because you are a disingenuous person.

Only consensus is believed to be reality today. Peers created the heavens and the earth in the last century and a half. Bully for them.

And the 'poor pitiful me' whining of the Dunning-Kruger effect martyr.

Sad and tedious.

Weird how you've totally ignored this:

cladking:
Your assumptions are riddled with errors and half facts.

Really?

And you know this because of your extensive self-education?

Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.

Otherwise this will just be chalked up as Cladking Unsupported Fantasy Assertion (aka lie) #261,​

So, I guess I chalk that up as indicated?

 

[Riju]

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”


Relativity, the Absolute, the Human Search for Truth: Nobel Laureate and Quantum Theory Originator Max Planck on Science and Mystery

It sounds convincing. An ego self is part of nature. It is a product of nature.

 

[cladking]

It sounds convincing. An ego self is part of nature. It is a product of nature.

Indeed, unless I'm right that the ego is really the product of language.

 

[cladking]

I mean, are you really now going to pretend that you accept and understand where Broca's area and Wernicke's area are and what they do?

The latter is the speech center and the former is the translator, I believe.

I've seen no evidence to the contrary and my evidence and logic still stand. Unlike those probing the broca's area with electrical charges, I could be wrong.

 

[tas8831]

Ugh... OK, THIS is the last reply for a while.

"Isn't this the EXACT SAME THING that would occur if it were merely a translator?"

No.

So you not only know exactly what the broca's area does but also how it works, serves consciousness, and how it would work if it were a translator as I suggest.

I never said a thing about "serves consciousness" and I explicitly DISAGREED with your rambling about a 'translator' - which you never expanded on so I have no idea what you mean.
YOU have never documented anything about Broca's area "serving consciousness" or "acting as a translator".
Why on earth should anyone just accept your assertions at face vale when you can;t even spell the names of these structures?

Yet, you don't have a working definition of "consciousnes",

Irrelevant - do YOU? Nope.

don't know at what age the area arises

We are born with it, Genius - it is an ANATOMICAL structure. It may not yet be developed to a point that is if active or fully functional at birth, but it is there. Just like you have 4 limbs at birth yet cannot walk or crawl.

, and probably don't understand any of the distinctions between analog/ digital brain and an analog reality.

I don;t care about your fantasies, that is true.

Look, nobody likes to be shown to be wrong in public, but to deny, over and over (or just ignore) your many errors does NOT make you look like some kind of un-recognized genius.

Since you have no understanding of consciousness you can't compare the types of consciousness in each part of the brain but you state positively the broca's area can't be a translator.

You have no understanding of consciousness and no understanding of anatomy or physiology - by your own admission.
Since you have never defined "translator" in this context, you cannot explain anything at all.
You are rambling to cover up your inability to present supporting evidence for your claims.
As usual.

This is remarkable. Homo Omnisciencis is so powerful.

More fantasy nonsense.

Why can you not admit that you have been flip-flopping on Broca's area/Wernicke's area, and that you ignored a refutation of your claim in the very link you provided to "support" it?

The fixed speech center is natural to humans (all animals) and the Broca's area is unique to Homo Omnisciencis because we need a translator between the analog brain and the digital speech center.

Bulls$%^. Just more of your repetitive, fantasy bulls%^&.

Broca's area AND Wernicke's area are "fixed" (though they generally switch hemispheres in left-handed people). The anatomical landmarks of Broca's area are even seen in non-human primates.
There is no such thing as "Homo Omnisciencis" but in your and Graham Hancock's dopey fantasies. Nobody will accept your fantasies as having merit until you present EVIDENCE of the sort that sane, educated, experienced people accept as such. This does NOT include your confident reiterations of unsupported assertions, I am happy to say.

Isn't this the EXACT SAME THING that would occur if it were merely a translator?

No, and writing your non-scientific gibberish in ALL CAPS will not make you right.

Look, nobody likes to be shown to be wrong in public, but to deny, over and over (or just ignore) your many errors does NOT make you look like some kind of un-recognized genius.

I still don't believe in "intelligence".

Clearly. Pity that nobody cares.

After you had posted about how YOU had been screaming at people to do infrared scanning on a pyramid.

They finally did the testing but hate the results so much they won't even show it to Peers. It supports my theory and "no" other.

Right... big conspiracy.

Yup - you keep making errors, refuse to own up to them, then try to hide them by omitting them in your replies or dreaming up some tangential diversion.

I've made countless errors. I believe I've repaired them all.

Not sure how you define "repair" - because it seems to me all you do is ignore the refutations. Like when you denied ever claiming 'behavior' is what drives evolution, and then I easily found like 7 times of you your writing exactly that, and you just deleted all that from your replies. I
So I guess to you, 'repairing' your errors means trying to hide them.

You see, superstar, convolutions leave imprints on the inside of the skull. Not only do early Homo, to include Neanderthals and even earlier ancestors, but also other apes indicate the presence of a Broca's area. Since we ARE Homo sapiens, we have one.

You must be running scared now.

Er... What?

I have no doubt you made that up

You mean like how you've made up pretty much every claim you've made about evolution and brain anatomy? Read it and weep - or more likely, read it and omit mention of it in your reply and then write the same things over and over:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/cp-cah022108.php
Chimp and human communication trace to same brain region

"...Scientists had identified Broca's area, located in part of the human brain known as the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), as one of several critical regions that light up with activity when people plan to say something and when they actually talk or sign. Anatomically, Broca's area is most often larger on the left side of the brain, and imaging studies in humans had shown left-leaning patterns of brain activation during language-related tasks, the researchers said.

"We didn't know if or to what extent other primates, and particularly humans' closest ancestor, the chimpanzees, possess a comparable region involved in the production of their own communicative signals," Taglialatela said.

In the new study, the researchers non-invasively scanned the brains of three chimpanzees as they gestured and called to a person in request for food that was out of their reach. Those chimps showed activation in the brain region corresponding to Broca's area and in other areas involved in complex motor planning and action in humans, the researchers found."​

actual research paper here.

and it's irrelevant anyway since my contention is that this part of the brain is adapted by the individual to use as a translator.

CONTENTION:
con·ten·tion
/kənˈten(t)SH(ə)n/
noun

1. heated disagreement.
   "the captured territory was one of the main areas of contention between the two countries"
   synonyms: disagreement, dispute, disputation, argument, variance; More
   
   
   
2. an assertion, especially one maintained in argument.

Yes, I know all about your assertions.

Show evidence of a speech center in a newborn.

Right after you show evidence that Homo Omnisciencis occurs outside of your fantasy world. Show evidence that here is a "bifurcated speech center in the middle of the brain." Show evidence that an infant decides to grow a Broca's area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior PRIMARILY causes speciation, which is "sudden."

All change in all life is sudden.

So, no evidence of any kind, just an assertion bolstered by your ignorance of population genetics and the like. Got it.

This is why there are missing links; they never existed in the first place.

Wow, really?

It might not have to do with developmental processes that do not yield specific pre-determined intermediates as creationists insist the must?

Clueless as to what that refers to? of course you are.

Tell us all, oh master of all reality - what is the "missing link" between a woman of normal human phenotype and her offspring with achondroplasia (dwarfism)? Should there not be an "intermediate", a "missing link" that is intermediate in height? and maybe only exhibiting half the skeletal characteristics?

We just see what we expect and we expect a gradual change caused by survival of the fittest. NONSENSE!

Yes, your layman's interpretation/representation of evolution IS , most certainly, child-like, naive nonsense.

So, we can conclude that you can never present anything other than repeated assertions for your wild beliefs and dopey counterfactual "science."

Got it.

 

[tas8831]

The latter is the speech center and the former is the translator, I believe.

Shouldn't you KNOW by now? You've been pontificating on this for what - years? And you still can't make up your mind about what your own claims are supposed to mean?

I've seen no evidence to the contrary and my evidence and logic still stand.

WHAT EVIDENCE?????

Unlike those probing the broca's area with electrical charges, I could be wrong.

Who is doing that? Have you now gone so far into the crackpot's intellectual gutter that you will lie about actual scientists to prop up your fantasies? For shame!

You present no evidence FOR your claim.

Thus, it can be dismissed as fantasy gibberish.

 

[Audie]

Really? You actually know three real geologists? And all three of them told you something wrong about geysers. Maybe it's just me, but that just sounds like another of your unsupported and unsupportable assertions. You try to prop yourself up by disparaging make-believe scientists.

He could have looked it up faster than it took to get it wrong.
Cold-water geyser - Wikipedia

 

[cladking]

I never said a thing about "serves consciousness" and I explicitly DISAGREED with your rambling about a 'translator' - which you never expanded on so I have no idea what you mean.

2 x 2 is exactly the same as 2 + 2 which is the same as 4 which is the same as the square root of four times the square root of 4.

Normal brains are digital and the human brain was once digital as well. In those days we had a single speech center and it was digital just like the "entire" brain. We used a digital language to describe a digital reality.
Now we use an analog language and analog higher brain functions to describe a still digital reality because reality never changes. Our brains are analog but our speech center is still digital. In order for the language programmed brain to communicate with the naturally digital speech center EVERY INDIVIDUAL must learn analog language. This is made possible by each individual placing this learning in the brain; the broca's area hence this area works as a "translator" between the acquired analog brain and the digital speech center.

We can't even ask the right questions to understand any mystery that involves consciousness because we can't see the true nature of consciousness from an analog perspective. We can't see the very nature of consciousness has changed with the advent of analog language. We can't see the role of consciousness because we can't see it. The concept of "I think therefore I am" is the greatest piece of illogic ever devised by the mind of man. How are we to understand anything if we are looking at it from the vantage of seeing our beliefs?

I'm merely suggesting we need to cut to the chase because it might otherwise be centuries until science discovers this stuff directly. It required a circuitous route in order for me to stumble on it.

 

[cladking]

Chimp and human communication trace to same brain region

"...Scientists had identified Broca's area, located in part of the human brain known as the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), as one of several critical regions that light up with activity when people plan to say something and when they actually talk or sign. Anatomically, Broca's area is most often larger on the left side of the brain, and imaging studies in humans had shown left-leaning patterns of brain activation during language-related tasks, the researchers said.

"We didn't know if or to what extent other primates, and particularly humans' closest ancestor, the chimpanzees, possess a comparable region involved in the production of their own communicative signals," Taglialatela said.

In the new study, the researchers non-invasively scanned the brains of three chimpanzees as they gestured and called to a person in request for food that was out of their reach. Those chimps showed activation in the brain region corresponding to Broca's area and in other areas involved in complex motor planning and action in humans, the researchers found."
actual research paper here.

Very good. This is actually an argument against my theory.

I'll need to investigate it.