There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[Hans Blaster]

We don't know. But certainly its possible. Even todays science acknowledges this.

This thread started with your claim that our "standard" view of human history was flawed because it missed the earlier development of "civilization" (fixed settlements, basically). One branch of evidence brought up fairly early was ancient stone working technology particularly as demonstrated by pre-dynastic Egyptian hard stone vase. These topics are entirely supported or not based on physical evidence behind. Even the related claims of "lost advanced technology" (whether it be stone softening or CNC-like machining) are based on *physical* methods that we either didn't know the ancients had or even we don't have. Again, these are physical technologies, whether we are talking about lathes or anti-gravity lift machines. They are not related to mystical experiences or the like. As such ancient spirituality is *not* relevant to these discussions. There are people who study ancient religion, spirituality, etc., but that is a different topic than what technologies the ancients had. That is why it is not on topic here. Every thread can't be about every thing.

Mind over matter is a real science. But more importantly it is theorised as a real possibility.


Well your wrong on this occassion.

All I know is he selected one example and ignored the rest. Thats not dealing with the evidence. Qoute mining over one bit of my evidence is not dealing with the evidence.

No, 'mind over matter' is motivational speaker pablum and not scientific.

Yes and ideas like consciousness beyond brain and other phenomena can be studied scientifically. I gave you scientific articles on how Information. Knowledge, the Mind or Consciousness are claimed to be fundemental.

I know how desperately you want to overthrow "scientific materialism" and the operational paradigm of science (methodological naturalism), but this just isn't the place. Discussions of the fundamental nature of reality are not on topic for a thread on ancient human civilization. Even if we accepted that claim what would it get you? That we have souls? I don't see how that changes early civilization or stone working technology.

I am saying that the ancients knowledge comes from this aspect of reality through direct experiences with nature and reality.

I would posit that I have at least as much direct experience with nature (and far more knowledge of reality) than even the common folk of Egypt. We must remember the fundamental reality of ancient Egypt (pre-dynastic, 4th dynasty, etc.): It was an urban civilization with extensive agriculture. The whole of the civilization was a bunch of cities and farms squeezed along the Nile River by the vast extents of inhospitable desert. The rulers, priests, stone artisans, and pyramid architects were city dwellers. That is no different that what I grew up in -- surrounded by farms with the occasional bit of woods and nearby cities. If anything I have *more* and more varied access to nature than the typical Egyptian. As for experience with reality, I've seen the rings of Saturn and the organelles of paramecia with my own eyes and no Egyptian (or any ancient person) knew they even existed.

I would check again. We are trying to determine alternative knowledge. Is this not related to science at all. Do behavioural sciences count.

What even is "alternative knowledge". Most of the times I see that phrase it is from people who just don't want to deal with reality. I'm going to give you grace and assume that you are talking about these more speculative theories that your favorite YT channels propose (about ancient megalith builders, advanced machining of vases, etc.) are ONLY going to be demonstrated with actual physical evidence, not any of these mind/behavior things.

The point is if this was a non science topic then how could we ever established alternative knowledge compared to methodlogical naturalism. First we can use some specific examples with the science. The science of observation shows us that the signatures don't match the orthodoxy.

You're not going to get away with rejecting methodological naturalism in the *physical science* section. If that's what you mean by "alternative knowledge" then you are on the wrong sub-forum.

The same science tells us the forensics of those marks. This then gives evidence that some other knowledge and tech was used. The science even tells us the possible method or what it took to make the mark. The science shows us that melting or softening stone takes a particular knowledge. It verified that the stone was melted and softened.

Science is all over this topic.

It certainly is, but the things you just wrote are a literal rejection of science.

I don;t want a thread on simulation theory. I used the example to show that there are even ideas within science that propose alternative realities and knowledge.

Good because simulation theory is dumb and not part of science. It is the kind of nonsense whipped up by rich tech bros while high.

 

[stevevw]

This thread started with your claim that our "standard" view of human history was flawed because it missed the earlier development of "civilization" (fixed settlements, basically). One branch of evidence brought up fairly early was ancient stone working technology particularly as demonstrated by pre-dynastic Egyptian hard stone vase. These topics are entirely supported or not based on physical evidence behind. Even the related claims of "lost advanced technology" (whether it be stone softening or CNC-like machining) are based on *physical* methods that we either didn't know the ancients had or even we don't have. Again, these are physical technologies, whether we are talking about lathes or anti-gravity lift machines. They are not related to mystical experiences or the like. As such ancient spirituality is *not* relevant to these discussions. There are people who study ancient religion, spirituality, etc., but that is a different topic than what technologies the ancients had. That is why it is not on topic here. Every thread can't be about every thing.

And I explained this several times. I did not begin with the physical sciences. It was more philosophical about how the orthodoxy was flawed. Thats a epistemic issue of philosophy of science and not physical science.

I mentioned that it was a natural extension that looking at specific examples like the vases may help show that there is lost advanced knowledge and tech. We have probably dedicated most of the thread to this. Though there is a large chunk on what exactly is that knowledge and tech which is epistemics. They cannot be seperated when your talking about what the knowledge and tech represents as far as the epistemics. How they came to know.

But all along I was saying that we can go over specific examples forever and this won't really settle whether there was advanced tech and knowledge. I have shown several examples that support lost advanced knowledge and its been rejected.

So therefore we come back to the actual possibility in the first place of whether such alternative and advanced knowledge is possible and how knowledge can be arrived at through other means besides material reductionist science.

No, 'mind over matter' is motivational speaker pablum and not scientific.

See this is where we disagree. We have evidence of mind over matter. Is that not science. I mean we live that just about every day.

I know how desperately you want to overthrow "scientific materialism"

Material science describes a certain aspect of reality. I never said that it is unnecessary or needs to be eliminated. Just the belief that its the ontological truth for everything.

and the operational paradigm of science (methodological naturalism), but this just isn't the place.

That you call it an operational paradigm shows that its but one paradigm in how we see the world, nature and reality. Therefore its the very place to discuss these other paradigms if we are to truely work out what is knowledge.

Discussions of the fundamental nature of reality are not on topic for a thread on ancient human civilization.

Isn't it ironic. The one and only paradigm that the ancients existed in is being disregarded and thus leaving just one option but methological naturalism and materialism by extension when being used to dismiss the alternative knowledge.

You have more or less done exactly what I am pointing out is the problem with material science being used this way. That is dismiss all other ways of knowing in a thread that is seeking to understand those alternative ways and demand only one way of knowing. Thus begging the question.

Even if we accepted that claim what would it get you? That we have souls? I don't see how that changes early civilization or stone working technology.

No I am thinking more fundementally. That people stop trying to force their epistemic and metaphysical beliefs on others. Admit that there is a good possibility that there is this alternative knowledge such as belief, souls and spirituality or consciousness beyond brain.

Or at least admit that they have no way of disproving it and be open to the possibility. INstead of dismissing this out of hand.l Thats the honest approach anyway without the preconscieved beliefs in pushing material naturalism over all else.

This would completely change the thread to something more reasonable.

I would posit that I have at least as much direct experience with nature (and far more knowledge of reality) than even the common folk of Egypt.

The problem is and your not getting this is that its not just about contact or observational science. Its actually experiential and direct which requires the openness to what is beyond the material to even enter that space. If you could call it space.

You disbelieve so you already have an epistemic and ontological blinker and wall to even enter that domain.

We must remember the fundamental reality of ancient Egypt (pre-dynastic, 4th dynasty, etc.): It was an urban civilization with extensive agriculture. The whole of the civilization was a bunch of cities and farms squeezed along the Nile River by the vast extents of inhospitable desert. The rulers, priests, stone artisans, and pyramid architects were city dwellers. That is no different that what I grew up in -- surrounded by farms with the occasional bit of woods and nearby cities. If anything I have *more* and more varied access to nature than the typical Egyptian. As for experience with reality, I've seen the rings of Saturn and the organelles of paramecia with my own eyes and no Egyptian (or any ancient person) knew they even existed.

Except and this is not just for the Egyptians. But the entire paradigm and worldview that the ancients were immersed in was transcedent. It was either through deep beliefs in transcedent aspects or spirits or gods. Or some sort of meditation. mind states that transcedended the material world.

This is what I mean by material science looking from the outside in. The ancients having an experiential immersion in nature and reality became part of what scientists today are looking at from the outside.

They actually experienced or came closer to the actual nature naturalism is trying to understand. Its more a experience or mind state that allows the knowledge rather than intelligence building through the acciquistion of knowledge.

Reminder. This is spectualtion. It is my attempt to explain how the ancient mindset and knowledge was that brought them this advanced understanding. The physical out of place examples are the results. But its not just physical.

What even is "alternative knowledge". Most of the times I see that phrase it is from people who just don't want to deal with reality.

Yes this is the atheistic and materialistic view of alternative knowledge. Because the only true knowledge is material ie matter, particles, forces and fields. There is nothing else and even the alternative knowledge is the byproduct of the material.

I'm going to give you grace and assume that you are talking about these more speculative theories that your favorite YT

What is YT lol.

channels propose (about ancient megalith builders, advanced machining of vases, etc.) are ONLY going to be demonstrated with actual physical evidence, not any of these mind/behavior things.

Yes those specific investigators mainly look at the physical evidence of out of place stuff. But that also includes maths and geometry and other ideas about transcedent beliefs that were associated with some of those practices. You cannot seperate them out as this is part of how they claim to have achieved their knowledge.

You're not going to get away with rejecting methodological naturalism in the *physical science* section. If that's what you mean by "alternative knowledge" then you are on the wrong sub-forum.

No I am not rejecting methodological naturalism but its abuse. Its use to snuff out alternative knowledge. Thats when it becomes a belief and not science.

It certainly is, but the things you just wrote are a literal rejection of science.

Not thats you belief. Your assumption.

Good because simulation theory is dumb and not part of science. It is the kind of nonsense whipped up by rich tech bros while high.

The idea may be spectualtive but the basis is solid science.

 

[stevevw]

Get through your thick skull you have not presented a shred of evidence of anything in this thread that supports your nonsense.

Except for the clear observational evidence of melted, weakened or softened stones. I gave you th evidence you you skipped it. Its easy to claim no evidence when you skip it.

The sheer stupidity is for you give lectures to educated individuals in this thread who at the very least know what evidence means.
Evidence is physical in nature, it is measurable and/or observable not your idiotic definition where it is derivable and interpretable according to one's bias.

So what do you think this is. How is this stupid. It is you I think who is being silly by claiming that this is not evidence for stone melting and softening.

First image vitrified and melted stones at Dun Knock Hill Fort. Image two softened stones showing vitrification and flaking of surface at Cusco. Image 3 melted and fused stones of vitrified ramparts in Scotland. The paper for this was in the video I linked.

So I fail to see how you claim there was no evidence.

Just in case you want to dismiss the above heres some more.

Reproduction of melting behavior for vitrified hillforts based on amphibolite, granite, and basalt lithologies - Scientific Reports

European Bronze and Iron Age vitrified hillforts have been known since the 1700s, but archaeological interpretations regarding their function and use are still debated. We carried out a series of experiments to constrain conditions that led to the vitrification of the inner wall rocks in the...

www.nature.com

When it comes to melted or softened stone in the case of Egyptology there is not a shred of evidence of any physical changes occurring when subjected to petrological testing as shown in my previous post.

Its not just about Egypt. But they definitely had some way of softening stones. Similar signatures are found between the Egyptian stones in walls and the Purvians.

I gave you the paper on the tests which showed that the cast blocks at Menkaure pyramid. They found Diatomaceous Earth (DE) within the mix which was not natural to limestone. Its easy to claim no evidence when you ignore it.

Then theres the scoop marks. You ignored all that evidence. Never mentioned it once. All you did was claim they used bigger pounders without one bit of evidence. Just like the claim that the split the pyramid blocks within evidence. Contradicting your own side that the blocks were hand sawed.

You forget I provided images of softened stones on the Temples around the pyramids and within the cemetaries east and west. You fobbed this off with the stock standard unsupported claim that the Egyptians must have pounded and ground the stone to look like it spread like putty within cracks lol. I guess pounding and grinding can do anything. But you provided absolutely no evidence for this.

So please be consistent and deal with that evidence. Either provide the same level of demands you want of me with peer review or something scientific showing that this was done by grinding or stop making unsubstanciated claims and then have the hide to claim I have provided no evidence. Its easy to make that claim when you ignore or dismiss my evidence.

I have more than provided evidence that the ancients were able to melt, soften, fuse, reconstitute and weaken stones. And I am not going back to reprove what I have already linked that you ignored. If you want to dispute this then find the links as I am not redoing this for the 5th time lol.

If concentrating on Egypt is too narrow by all means supply petrological tests for any of your non Egyptian images showing the rock has been physically changed.
Otherwise as you have demonstrated images are subject to interpretation where bias not evidence is the determining factor.

Already did last post and you ignored it. So please go back and check. As well as what is provided above.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Except for the clear observational evidence of melted, weakened or softened stones. I gave you th evidence you you skipped it. Its easy to claim no evidence when you skip it.

So what do you think this is. How is this stupid. It is you I think who is being silly by claiming that this is not evidence for stone melting and softening.

View attachment 374250 View attachment 374251 View attachment 374252

First image vitrified and melted stones at Dun Knock Hill Fort. Image two softened stones showing vitrification and flaking of surface at Cusco. Image 3 melted and fused stones of vitrified ramparts in Scotland. The paper for this was in the video I linked.

So I fail to see how you claim there was no evidence.

Just in case you want to dismiss the above heres some more.

View attachment 374253

Reproduction of melting behavior for vitrified hillforts based on amphibolite, granite, and basalt lithologies - Scientific Reports

European Bronze and Iron Age vitrified hillforts have been known since the 1700s, but archaeological interpretations regarding their function and use are still debated. We carried out a series of experiments to constrain conditions that led to the vitrification of the inner wall rocks in the...

www.nature.com

Its not just about Egypt. But they definitely had some way of softening stones. Similar signatures are found between the Egyptian stones in walls and the Purvians.

I gave you the paper on the tests which showed that the cast blocks at Menkaure pyramid. They found Diatomaceous Earth (DE) within the mix which was not natural to limestone. Its easy to claim no evidence when you ignore it.

Then theres the scoop marks. You ignored all that evidence. Never mentioned it once. All you did was claim they used bigger pounders without one bit of evidence. Just like the claim that the split the pyramid blocks within evidence. Contradicting your own side that the blocks were hand sawed.

You forget I provided images of softened stones on the Temples around the pyramids and within the cemetaries east and west. You fobbed this off with the stock standard unsupported claim that the Egyptians must have pounded and ground the stone to look like it spread like putty within cracks lol. I guess pounding and grinding can do anything. But you provided absolutely no evidence for this.

View attachment 374255

So please be consistent and deal with that evidence. Either provide the same level of demands you want of me with peer review or something scientific showing that this was done by grinding or stop making unsubstanciated claims and then have the hide to claim I have provided no evidence. Its easy to make that claim when you ignore or dismiss my evidence.

I have more than provided evidence that the ancients were able to melt, soften, fuse, reconstitute and weaken stones. And I am not going back to reprove what I have already linked that you ignored. If you want to dispute this then find the links as I am not redoing this for the 5th time lol.

Already did last post and you ignored it. So please go back and check. As well as what is provided above.

How is Broborg evidence of ancient technology or lost knowledge, it's not that old it is from "vendeltiden" 550 ce to 800 ce. The area have been continuously inhabited all the way to today. There were furnaces in use at that time that where hot enough, it is also the conclusion of the article.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This was as far as I got, I've got other things to do and your whole post is a mess.

Yes this is the atheistic and materialistic view of alternative knowledge.

Not "atheistic". Atheism is the rejection of gods, not the supernatural. (It's too bad you aren't arguing with the me from 30 years ago.)

Because the only true knowledge is material ie matter, particles, forces and fields. There is nothing else and even the alternative knowledge is the byproduct of the material.

That isn't what I am saying.

What is YT lol.

For someone who gets most of their "ideas" from YT videos, you seem rather oblivious to it.

Yes those specific investigators mainly look at the physical evidence of out of place stuff. But that also includes maths and geometry and other ideas about transcedent beliefs that were associated with some of those practices. You cannot seperate them out as this is part of how they claim to have achieved their knowledge.

Putting some "fun math" into the design of an object does not qualify as "transcendent knowledge". It is just math. Could it be a signal that they knew math we didn't know they knew? Absolutely. But that doesn't embue it with magical properties. (I thought "lost knowledge" was the whole theme of your thread.)

No I am not rejecting methodological naturalism but its abuse. Its use to snuff out alternative knowledge. Thats when it becomes a belief and not science.

Not thats you belief. Your assumption.

For someone not rejecting methodological naturalism, you certainly spend a lot of words rejecting methodological naturalism and confusing science with belief. (If "alternative knowledge" is real, then it will be "knowledge" (just like with medicine). As it stands this "alternative knowledge" you present is nothing but wild-eyed speculation.

The idea may be spectualtive but the basis is solid science.

"Simulation theory" is speculative and it is not science, certainly not "solid science."

 

[sjastro]

Except for the clear observational evidence of melted, weakened or softened stones. I gave you th evidence you you skipped it. Its easy to claim no evidence when you skip it.

So what do you think this is. How is this stupid. It is you I think who is being silly by claiming that this is not evidence for stone melting and softening.

View attachment 374250 View attachment 374251 View attachment 374252

First image vitrified and melted stones at Dun Knock Hill Fort. Image two softened stones showing vitrification and flaking of surface at Cusco. Image 3 melted and fused stones of vitrified ramparts in Scotland. The paper for this was in the video I linked.

So I fail to see how you claim there was no evidence.

For the millionth time you half wit these are not examples of vitrification or melting, they are pictures of rocks and a wall.
For example this is the level of evidence you should supply.

The obsidian rock has not been vitrified but a rapid cooling igneous rock which produces the glassy amorphous state one would expect from vitrification.

Just in case you want to dismiss the above heres some more.

View attachment 374253

Reproduction of melting behavior for vitrified hillforts based on amphibolite, granite, and basalt lithologies - Scientific Reports

European Bronze and Iron Age vitrified hillforts have been known since the 1700s, but archaeological interpretations regarding their function and use are still debated. We carried out a series of experiments to constrain conditions that led to the vitrification of the inner wall rocks in the...

www.nature.com

If you possessed the intellectual capacity and honesty you would have not cherry picked images and ignored the very laboratory tests that were required to verify vitrification had occurred.

For this study, vitrified rocks obtained from the Iron Age Broborg hillfort site were compared to laboratory-heated rocks of various types. X-ray diffraction (XRD), optical microscopy, and analytical electron microscopy—scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with backscattered electron (BSE) or energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) plus electron probe microanalysis-wavelength dispersive spectroscopy (EMPA-WDS)—were used to study the samples in this work.

Why did you exclude the most important images in the Nature report showing the laboratory testing of the hillfort samples?

If you had read the report, fire whether it was by accident or design was used to vitrify the rocks which is a far cry from some advanced technology such as the use of radioactive polonium expounded by one of your so called experts.

Its not just about Egypt. But they definitely had some way of softening stones. Similar signatures are found between the Egyptian stones in walls and the Purvians.

I gave you the paper on the tests which showed that the cast blocks at Menkaure pyramid. They found Diatomaceous Earth (DE) within the mix which was not natural to limestone. Its easy to claim no evidence when you ignore it.

Then theres the scoop marks. You ignored all that evidence. Never mentioned it once. All you did was claim they used bigger pounders without one bit of evidence. Just like the claim that the split the pyramid blocks within evidence. Contradicting your own side that the blocks were hand sawed.

You forget I provided images of softened stones on the Temples around the pyramids and within the cemetaries east and west. You fobbed this off with the stock standard unsupported claim that the Egyptians must have pounded and ground the stone to look like it spread like putty within cracks lol. I guess pounding and grinding can do anything. But you provided absolutely no evidence for this.

View attachment 374255

So please be consistent and deal with that evidence. Either provide the same level of demands you want of me with peer review or something scientific showing that this was done by grinding or stop making unsubstanciated claims and then have the hide to claim I have provided no evidence. Its easy to make that claim when you ignore or dismiss my evidence.

I have more than provided evidence that the ancients were able to melt, soften, fuse, reconstitute and weaken stones. And I am not going back to reprove what I have already linked that you ignored. If you want to dispute this then find the links as I am not redoing this for the 5th time lol.

Already did last post and you ignored it. So please go back and check. As well as what is provided above.

You are an illiterate fool, I have supplied you with peer reviewed articles for Egyptology showing melting did not occur.
Your psychological projection has reached absurd heights, you have have consistently ignored the refuting evidence but project your behaviour on others.

 

[Ophiolite]

For example this is the level of evidence you should supply.

View attachment 374264​

At the risk of going off topic, the image on the left would not be the sort of evidence I would wish to use for any purpose. It is labelled as a granite, but its appearance counts against this. Granite is primarily made up of feldspars and quartz. These have low-order interference colours under polarised light and these should dominate the image. Moreover there is no evidence of the twinning one would expect of the plagioclase feldspars and crystal shape is atypical. Micas, an important minor constituent of granites, are also seemingly absent. In contrast several of the crystals have interference colour, shapes and character associated with pyroxenes. This is certainly an igneous rock, but it is not a granite.

Note: it is some decades since I've had occassion to examine rocks in thin section, but petrography was one of my favourite aspects of practical geology. Nevertheless, I considered two alternative explanations that might justify the identification as granite. First, birefringence colours are increased in intensity if the thin section thickness is too great. Against this explanation, a) one does not publish or work with thin sections not prepared to exacting measures and the crystal shapes are abnornal for granite. b)If the micrograph was photographed in uv light then unusual colours might be produced, but in that case the image would be properly identified as taken in that uncommon way.

 

[sjastro]

This is an image of a basalt boulder on my property which on a superficial level exhibits 'melting' to a far greater level of detail than any of @stevevw images.

It highlights the problems of presenting images solely as evidence.
The melted appearance is based on well understood chemistry, the basalt boulder is mainly composed of hematite which can undergo hydration where mainly hematite (Fe₂O₃) is converted into goethite (FeO(OH)), ferrihydrite (Fe(OH)₃), or intermediate amorphous iron oxyhydroxides forming a dark vitreous (shiny) layer.

The hydrated compounds can only be identified by tests such as X -Ray diffraction and Transmission Electron Microscopy.

 

[sjastro]

At the risk of going off topic, the image on the left would not be the sort of evidence I would wish to use for any purpose. It is labelled as a granite, but its appearance counts against this. Granite is primarily made up of feldspars and quartz. These have low-order interference colours under polarised light and these should dominate the image. Moreover there is no evidence of the twinning one would expect of the plagioclase feldspars and crystal shape is atypical. Micas, an important minor constituent of granites, are also seemingly absent. In contrast several of the crystals have interference colour, shapes and character associated with pyroxenes. This is certainly an igneous rock, but it is not a granite.

Note: it is some decades since I've had occassion to examine rocks in thin section, but petrography was one of my favourite aspects of practical geology. Nevertheless, I considered two alternative explanations that might justify the identification as granite. First, birefringence colours are increased in intensity if the thin section thickness is too great. Against this explanation, a) one does not publish or work with thin sections not prepared to exacting measures and the crystal shapes are abnornal for granite. b)If the micrograph was photographed in uv light then unusual colours might be produced, but in that case the image would be properly identified as taken in that uncommon way.

Thanks for your input, I sourced the Google image under the search 'Granite cross polarization image', but the greater problem there were no images for vitrified granite so I used Obsidian as an example what a vitrified granite should look like in a glassy amorphous state under a polarizing microscope.
Ironically @stevevw's link to the Nature article provided all the information I needed.

 

[stevevw]

For the millionth time you half wit

Sorry no. You disqualify yourself with this sort of stuff.

 

[stevevw]

This was as far as I got, I've got other things to do and your whole post is a mess.

Not "atheistic". Atheism is the rejection of gods, not the supernatural. (It's too bad you aren't arguing with the me from 30 years ago.)

Ok then atheism and materialism. Whatever it is that you believe lol when you knock down everything from belief in God, gods, spirits and consciousness beyond brain as Woo.

That isn't what I am saying.

Then what are you saying. When its suggested these ideas you categorise them as psuedoscience or some other myth or imagination or unreal belief. Thats the arguement you use. We can only use material science and all else is Woo.

For someone who gets most of their "ideas" from YT videos, you seem rather oblivious to it.

You Tube lol. I thought it was something to do with oung Earth like YE lol. OK you are triggered by YT.

Putting some "fun math" into the design of an object does not qualify as "transcendent knowledge". It is just math. Could it be a signal that they knew math we didn't know they knew? Absolutely. But that doesn't embue it with magical properties. (I thought "lost knowledge" was the whole theme of your thread.)

Its not just math. To you it is math. But to ancients this is far more than math. It has a spiritual or trasncedent aspect relating to nature and reality itself. All these symbols and geometry reflect nature and reality.

For someone not rejecting methodological naturalism, you certainly spend a lot of words rejecting methodological naturalism and confusing science with belief.

If there is a need when material science is being used to beat down alternative knowledge. Then yes you have to spend a lot of time dispelling dogma.

I am not confusing methological naturalism as belief but the use of it to beat alternative beliefs as unreal.

(If "alternative knowledge" is real, then it will be "knowledge" (just like with medicine). As it stands this "alternative knowledge" you present is nothing but wild-eyed speculation.

Is the knowledge that comes from belief in God spectualtion.

"Simulation theory" is speculative and it is not science, certainly not "solid science."

So what about all the other ideas like the Holographic universe, the Multiverse, and the Braneworld.

10 wild theories about the universe

Why is the universe the way it is? Scientists have explored many ways to explain the cosmos, leading to some crazy-sounding ideas.

www.livescience.com

 

[sjastro]

Sorry no. You disqualify yourself with this sort of stuff.

If you provide me with an intelligent reason how everything I have said over this entire thread has refuted your personal based opinions with evidence, has been ignored and turned into me ignoring your opinions then I will apologise.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok then atheism and materialism.

No. Not about "atheism" at all. Non-belief in gods has nothing to do with this topic or my position.

Whatever it is that you believe lol when you knock down everything from belief in God, gods, spirits and consciousness beyond brain as Woo.

Woo is you word, but none of that stuff is relevant here.

Then what are you saying.

What I was saying is that I am not claiming that all knowledge is about the fundamental physical forces. But... here we are discussing physical systems and objects. I'm not interested *ON THIS SUB-FORUM* about things that are not physical. No "spiritual" no "transcendental" no "feelings".

When its suggested these ideas you categorise them as psuedoscience or some other myth or imagination or unreal belief. Thats the arguement you use. We can only use material science and all else is Woo.

Is "woo" you favorite (science board) persecution word? All of us methodological naturalist not willing to tolerate your made up nonsense.

You Tube lol. I thought it was something to do with oung Earth like YE lol. OK you are triggered by YT.

I am not "triggered", I just don't find argumentum ad YT to be very compelling. You clearly do.

Its not just math. To you it is math. But to ancients this is far more than math. It has a spiritual or trasncedent aspect relating to nature and reality itself. All these symbols and geometry reflect nature and reality.

Math is just math. Sure someone might find it important or even "enlightening", but that doesn't make it anything more than math.

If there is a need when material science is being used to beat down alternative knowledge. Then yes you have to spend a lot of time dispelling dogma.

If you expressed less dogma, I'd have to dispell less of it.

I am not confusing methological naturalism as belief but the use of it to beat alternative beliefs as unreal.

Evidence, facts, and physical plausibility. That's all I ask from anything presented here.

Is the knowledge that comes from belief in God spectualtion.

If it has evidence, then your "belief" is irrelevant.

So what about all the other ideas like the Holographic universe, the Multiverse, and the Braneworld.

10 wild theories about the universe

Why is the universe the way it is? Scientists have explored many ways to explain the cosmos, leading to some crazy-sounding ideas.

www.livescience.com

Lot's of nonsense in that article. (also not the topic.)

 

[stevevw]

How is Broborg evidence of ancient technology or lost knowledge, it's not that old it is from "vendeltiden" 550 ce to 800 ce. The area have been continuously inhabited all the way to today. There were furnaces in use at that time that where hot enough, it is also the conclusion of the article.

It doesn't matter. The claim was there was no evidence of vitrified rocks. Here we have evidence using heat. It was claimed there was no evidence.
I have presented evidence from 1,000s of years earlier of stone softening, melting and casting.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A bit more from the earlier post...

[A reminder: The text that this post of yours responds to was about Egypt being an urban agricultural society.]

Except and this is not just for the Egyptians.

The text you are responding to absolutely was about just the Egyptians. Why is it when we try to get specific you slip right out and alter the premise to suit your own preferences. Sigh.

But the entire paradigm and worldview that the ancients were immersed in was transcedent. It was either through deep beliefs in transcedent aspects or spirits or gods. Or some sort of meditation. mind states that transcedended the material world.

Based on what evidence? (Subject is EGYPT.) I'm sick of your random assertions.

This is what I mean by material science looking from the outside in. The ancients having an experiential immersion in nature and reality became part of what scientists today are looking at from the outside.

I literally just told you that Egypt was an agriculture and urban culture. How is agriculture and cities "immersed in nature"?

They actually experienced or came closer to the actual nature naturalism is trying to understand.

In what way? Did the Egyptians spend their days hunting on the savanna for meat and hides to sew into simple clothing?

Its more a experience or mind state that allows the knowledge rather than intelligence building through the acciquistion of knowledge.

Reminder. This is spectualtion.

Indeed your response is nothing but speculation. On the other hand the nature of Egyptian agriculture is well established.

It is my attempt to explain how the ancient mindset and knowledge was that brought them this advanced understanding. The physical out of place examples are the results. But its not just physical.

What has that got to do with Egyptian urban and agricultural society?

 

[sjastro]

It doesn't matter. The claim was there was no evidence of vitrified rocks. Here we have evidence using heat. It was claimed there was no evidence.
I have presented evidence from 1,000s of years earlier of stone softening, melting and casting.

As usual you seem to be confused or is it being plain disingenuous?
Here is a map to sort yourself out.

​

Explain how a late iron age site in Sweden is evidence for the vitrification of granite in chalcolithic age Egypt thousands of kilometres away and thousands of years before the iron age?

The main reason why your post doesn't make any sense is by the late iron age furnaces where capable of smelting iron at temperatures of up to 1300° C more than enough to vitrify surrounding igneous rock.
If the Egyptians had the same technology the iron age would have come a lot sooner, metal objects such Tutankhamun's dagger were sourced from iron meteorites as they did not have the technology for high temperature furnaces to produce iron.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

It doesn't matter. The claim was there was no evidence of vitrified rocks. Here we have evidence using heat. It was claimed there was no evidence.
I have presented evidence from 1,000s of years earlier of stone softening, melting and casting.

Everyone knows stone can melt. Just saying stones can melt, is not proof that some ancient culture used it purposefully. What stones in Egypt show vitrification? It happens naturally time to time from lightning strikes or accidental fires.

 

[stevevw]

A bit more from the earlier post...

[A reminder: The text that this post of yours responds to was about Egypt being an urban agricultural society.]

The text you are responding to absolutely was about just the Egyptians. Why is it when we try to get specific you slip right out and alter the premise to suit your own preferences. Sigh.

No it was you who changed the goal posts. I was talking about the Mind/body aspect in relation to transcedent knowledge and you interject agriculture which has nothing to do with this.

You were trying to claim somehow that agricultural knowledge equals or negates transcedent knowledge.

Based on what evidence? (Subject is EGYPT.) I'm sick of your random assertions.

This is the whole point I have been making. You obviously don't believe in transcedent beliefs or knowledge fullstop. So your rejecting this based on your belief. When you ask for evidence you are demanding that the very material method that discounts transcedent knowledge be the only method we should use epistemically. Thats not science. Show me the science that says we must use your method of evidence to prove or disprove transcedent knowledge.

You can't because the method dismisses that epistemics in the first place. But that is not justified scientifically.

As I said there are ways we can know the world and reality besides material sciences. These are the direct conscious experiences whether through phenomenal belief or direct transcedent experiences.

This kind of evidence comes direct from the experiencer. So we look at the ancients and their stories and their culture and beliefs. We look at all this aspect of humans under the heading of religion or belief in transcedent spirits. Whatever you want to call it.

The difference is that skeptics, material science and atheists disregard this as make believe and unreal. Whereas the ancients themselves and many others like those who are open to transcedent ideas see this as evidence.

Now if you disagree then thats a matter of belief because no amount of material science can say one thing about whether its truth or not.

That does not mean its not real and in fact those who believe in this alternative way of seeing and measuring the world claim you have got it back the front. It is material science that is the deluded ones and the transcedent reality is the real stuff lol. And theres not a thing you can do about it.

I literally just told you that Egypt was an agriculture and urban culture. How is agriculture and cities "immersed in nature"?

Its a logical fallacy. Having agriculture does not mean the ancients were not immersed in nature and gained deeper knowledge. Your making an either/or fallacy that either the entire culture is either an agricultural society and has no transcedent beliefs and knowledge. Or vice versa.

I told you that knowledge does not work this way. It may be that only a certain section of that culture possessed that knowledge or that both forms of knowledge were at play at the same time.

We have two different forms of knowledge. Two different paradigms or more at play over time and at the same time sometimes. This is part of the problem. Every time I propose alternative and transcedent knowledge you then bring it back to your material belief about what knowledge is. Thats an epistemic belief and not science itself.

In what way? Did the Egyptians spend their days hunting on the savanna for meat and hides to sew into simple clothing?

If I knew that I would be famous lol. Some are trying to understand this knowledge such as the tests done on the pyramids and casting of stones and have learn some new tech as a result.

But how can you know if its within a completely different paradigm. Except that the end result is out of place for that time and more advanced.

I look at it this way. Lets say conscieness beyond brain is real. Some scientists say consciousness acts a lot like the quantum physics observations being indeterminant. Anyway that doesn't matter as its a hypothetical.

But if it were the case and as we have acknowledged today that these aspects are within a different realm of knowing such as material science cannot tell us about the experience of the color Red or a sunset or the awe of the night sky that brings transcedent knowledge

Then what would you even look for that was physical to measure. You cannot measure an experience or a conscious state that may bring knowledge in the first place to know.

Thats because its a state of being in that moment and experiencing the phenomena and then the knowledge comes from this. Like the Red experience. It was not until Mary could see colors and then experience Red that gave her the new knowledge of the world with that Red experience.

So if there is other knowledge that comes from direct experiences of nature then how can we measure this. If we cannot measure Marys experience of that knowledge except ask her directly. How on earth could we even measure this kind of knowledge unless we ask the ancients directly.

Indeed your response is nothing but speculation. On the other hand the nature of Egyptian agriculture is well established.

Yes and that comes under a different paradigm from material sciences. I guarentee that the ancients have a different version of what agricultural knowledge means and represents and how they come to know this which is based on a transcedent belief about their immersion in nature.

The use of the seasons, the sun, moon and stars, the movement of nature, the tiny aspects that we miss by dismissing experiences that gives them a deeper knowledge. Because they transcended the surface and material view of agriculture in the material science sense. They had a holistic understanding including the spiritual.

What has that got to do with Egyptian urban and agricultural society?

I explained this above. Go and ask the ancients themselves. Stop forcing your belief about what agriculture means and represents in the transcedent sense for others who hold this alternative knowledge.

Don't you believe the ancients themseves or do you want to force your belief onto them.

 

[stevevw]

Everyone knows stone can melt. Just saying stones can melt, is not proof that some ancient culture used it purposefully.

Are you kidding. I showed clear evidence of human created softened stone. It is supported by the research that these examples are human made and not some accident of nature. You are clearly ignoring the evidence and fobbing it off.

The snake shape is melted into the stone. See those little scoop marks. They are man made and not from grinding. See the glaze this is all over the indent showing the stone was softened and melted to create this into the stone.

Now where have we seen scoop marks before. Oh thats righ on the unifinished obelisk. Another piece of evidence ignored or fobbed off. Lets go through them each and see shall we.

What stones in Egypt show vitrification? It happens naturally time to time from lightning strikes or accidental fires.

Just like the images I gave of clear machine like cuts which were ignored. I gave plenty of examples of melted and softened stone that was clearly not the result of anything natural or from some accidental lightening strike.

What is the use of even discussing this anymore when the evidence is either ignored or fobbed off without the same level of evidence demanded of myself.

For example I linked this example and this is one example they never acknowledge. Its fobbed off as explained by the stock standard answer that everything else is fobbed off in the othodoxy that it was pounded and ground out. Yeah sure the Egyptains just happened to create the exact signature of softened stone that happens to lokk exactly like the stone was softened. A good example of denting the obvious evidence.

If you think it was grounded and pounded to this shape than show me the peer reviewed evidence. Heck show me any evidence that this was the result of being ground and pounded to look like stone that has been softened and leaked between blocks.

So lets do one at a time instead of changing the goal posts and fobbing off the evidence without any support at all. What caused this signature. This is a block from the base of the pyramids in what some claim that some of the blocks were softened or cast instead of being cut or chiselled.

What does that lip represent. Is this some ancient grinding the stone to look that way. Or is this evidence the stone was softened. Its certainly has human intervention. Its not natural. The sharp corner is evidence of this. But why would there be a lip as though the stone was soft and it spread as it hardered under the weight between the blocks. In other words the softened stone spread into a gap between the stones and when they were pulled apart this was found.

If you think this is just one example there are many like this. Did the Egyptians go around creating lookalike signatures that happen to look like softened stone.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Are you kidding. I showed clear evidence of human created softened stone. It is supported by the research that these examples are human made and not some accident of nature.

Link the article then?

You are clearly ignoring the evidence and fobbing it off.

View attachment 374292

The snake shape is melted into the stone. See those little scoop marks. They are man made and not from grinding. See the glaze this is all over the indent showing the stone was softened and melted to create this into the stone.

What snake? Are all three pictures from same place? Can you please give the original picture, it is impossible to zoom in on these. Did those who took the pictures publish their fidings anywhere? So we can read about what analysis was done on the stone. It seems the left picture is from Sacsayhuamán, that place was inhabited when the conquistadors first laid eyes on it, what is the supposed lost knowledge here?