There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw · 2025-12-02T03:03:03-0600

sjastro said:
As usual you just don’t get it.
Technological progress prior to the advent of Methological Naturalism occurred by accident such as the Kahun Medical papyrus pregnancy test, or through inspiration or creativity which has a physical basis using the analysis of Einstein’s brain as a reference.

Ok so you are saying all knowledge comes from the physical and naturalistic processes and there no such such thing as any transcendent knowledge like spirituality or consciousness beyond the physical brain.

sjastro said:
Do I need to remind you the point of this nonsensical thread is the ancient Egyptians possessed hi level technologies which is now due to some deep connection with nature where you cannot explain how the technologies emerged let alone evidence of their existence?

Maybe thats why your having trouble as its not just about Egyptian advanced knowledge and tech but the giant flaw in the history told by orthodoxy. So thats more about philosophy.

We went into some specific examples that may support that advanced knowledge. But we could also go into other examples all around the world. This also includes the cognitive evolution going back 300k rather than 50k. How discoveries like GT are pushing back the timeline and changing the level of knowledge the ancients had.

But its every bit philosophy, epistemics and culture as the specific examples. Even more so related to how we see knowledge.

Your also forgetting that my attempt to explain how the ancients gained advanced knowledge is spectulation. In fact its more about philosophy, epistemics and metaphsyics than the hard sciences like physics.

sjastro said:
Now we have colorblind Mary as a philosophical argument which is irrelevant as it deals with subjective experience and whether physical knowledge captures consciousness and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual evidence of the technologies used by the Egyptians in manufacturing and construction.

As I said if the ancients had a more direct experience in nature and reality then they would have gained a deeper knowledge of nature and relality. Just like Marys experience of Red could only come from her subjective experience. So to is the deeper knowledge of reality.

In fact even science supports the idea that Mind and consciousness are fundemental and not objective physical reality. So if the ancients were more in tune with this fundemental reality. Then they also gained knowledge of fundemental reality from the bottom up and not the top down worldview.

sjastro said:
Get over it, the evidence clearly shows the Egyptians used tooling as discovered by the archaeologists not your deluded, cognitive dissonant and confirmation bias relying on pseudoscience sites and amateurs claiming to be experts on Egyptian manufacturing.

This seems a blantant falsehood and demands evidence. The evidence does not clearly show what tools were used. There is absolutely no evidence showing how the large granite blocks, and boxes were made. There is absolutely evidence for machining.

No one has given any evidence for the contrary. Some have made claims but have not shown evidence. In fact the evidence they have shown was defeated. There certainly is not clear cut evidence.

sjastro · 2025-12-02T06:42:41-0600

stevevw said:
Ok so you are saying all knowledge comes from the physical and naturalistic processes and there no such such thing as any transcendent knowledge like spirituality or consciousness beyond the physical brain.

Maybe thats why your having trouble as its not just about Egyptian advanced knowledge and tech but the giant flaw in the history told by orthodoxy. So thats more about philosophy.

We went into some specific examples that may support that advanced knowledge. But we could also go into other examples all around the world. This also includes the cognitive evolution going back 300k rather than 50k. How discoveries like GT are pushing back the timeline and changing the level of knowledge the ancients had.

But its every bit philosophy, epistemics and culture as the specific examples. Even more so related to how we see knowledge.

Your also forgetting that my attempt to explain how the ancients gained advanced knowledge is spectulation. In fact its more about philosophy, epistemics and metaphsyics than the hard sciences like physics.

As I said if the ancients had a more direct experience in nature and reality then they would have gained a deeper knowledge of nature and relality. Just like Marys experience of Red could only come from her subjective experience. So to is the deeper knowledge of reality.

In fact even science supports the idea that Mind and consciousness are fundemental and not objective physical reality. So if the ancients were more in tune with this fundemental reality. Then they also gained knowledge of fundemental reality from the bottom up and not the top down worldview.

What a complete load of nonsense.
You are using philosphopy as an obfuscation tactic because you have zero evidence of advanced technologies being used.

stevevw said:
This seems a blantant falsehood and demands evidence. The evidence does not clearly show what tools were used. There is absolutely no evidence showing how the large granite blocks, and boxes were made. There is absolutely evidence for machining.

No one has given any evidence for the contrary. Some have made claims but have not shown evidence. In fact the evidence they have shown was defeated. There certainly is not clear cut evidence.

If this advanced technology existed why have contemporary 'primitive tools' been found along tomb depictions of their use when they would been superceded by this advanced technology which does not leave a shred of evidence.

Why is it that experimental archaeologists have been able to reproduce the signatures you claim can only be done with this advanced but unknown technology?

The sheer stupidly of your argument is that these inconvenient facts have been raised a number of times only to ignored and responded to with the low brow argument by repetition fallacy.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-02T10:48:06-0600

stevevw said:
Ok so you are saying all knowledge comes from the physical and naturalistic processes and there no such such thing as any transcendent knowledge like spirituality or consciousness beyond the physical brain.

Not that there is no such thing, just that there seems to be no need for it.

stevevw said:
Maybe thats why your having trouble as its not just about Egyptian advanced knowledge and tech but the giant flaw in the history told by orthodoxy. So thats more about philosophy.

We went into some specific examples that may support that advanced knowledge. But we could also go into other examples all around the world. This also includes the cognitive evolution going back 300k rather than 50k. How discoveries like GT are pushing back the timeline and changing the level of knowledge the ancients had.

Which is evidence that they knew what they wanted to achieve before they figured out how to to it--which is exactly the same way modern technology advances.

stevevw said:
But its every bit philosophy, epistemics and culture as the specific examples. Even more so related to how we see knowledge.

Your also forgetting that my attempt to explain how the ancients gained advanced knowledge is spectulation. In fact its more about philosophy, epistemics and metaphsyics than the hard sciences like physics.

As I said if the ancients had a more direct experience in nature and reality then they would have gained a deeper knowledge of nature and relality. Just like Marys experience of Red could only come from her subjective experience. So to is the deeper knowledge of reality.

In fact even science supports the idea that Mind and consciousness are fundemental and not objective physical reality. So if the ancients were more in tune with this fundemental reality. Then they also gained knowledge of fundemental reality from the bottom up and not the top down worldview.

This seems a blantant falsehood and demands evidence. The evidence does not clearly show what tools were used. There is absolutely no evidence showing how the large granite blocks, and boxes were made. There is absolutely evidence for machining.

No one has given any evidence for the contrary. Some have made claims but have not shown evidence. In fact the evidence they have shown was defeated. There certainly is not clear cut evidence.

Evidence of machining is not the same as evidence for your transcendent knowledge. In fact, it can be seen as evidence against it, as it suggests that the blocks were cut by earthly means, not metaphysics.

sjastro · 2025-12-02T14:54:54-0600

The nonsense perpetrated by @stevevw there is no evidence of the ancient Egyptians using conventional tools particularly during the Old Kingdom is refuted by the following table.

Parameter	What It Shows	Archaeological Evidence	Implication (Supports Conventional Tools)
1. Surviving Tools	Direct physical proof of technology used	Copper chisels, stone hammers, dolerite pounders, bow drills, tubular copper drills, flint blades, polishing stones found in tombs, quarries, workshops	Demonstrates the tool types available and used — no unknown technology required
2. Workshop Assemblages	Context evidence of manufacturing	Finds at Giza, Saqqara, Deir el-Medina, Aswan, Hierakonpolis show tool kits, unfinished objects, debitage	Confirms how tools were applied in situ
3. Unfinished Artifacts	“Frozen moments” of work	Partially carved granite statues, bowls, and obelisks showing intermediate stages	Shows step-by-step stages achievable using chiseling, pounding, rubbing, and drilling
4. Quarry Tool Marks	Direct traces of working stone	Dolerite pounding pits, copper chisel marks, wedge holes at Aswan, Gebel el-Silsila, Tura	Matches tools that were found—no anomalous machining marks
5. Drill Holes Showing Spiral Grooves	Characteristic signature of rotary abrasion	Spiral striations created by quartz sand abrasive + copper tube drills	Matches experimental reproduction; not consistent with high-speed machinery
6. Bow Drill Evidence	Attested drilling method	Bow drills found in tombs; depictions in Old Kingdom tomb scenes	Explains small circular holes and vessel hollowing
7. Tubular Copper Drills	Explains core drilling	Archaeological copper tubes + cores from granite and limestone	Reproduced experimentally to match Egyptian core geometry
8. Microstructure of Tool Marks	Reveals tool hardness and motion	Microscopy shows crushing, abrasion patterns, and quartz-sand scoring	Consistent with pounding stones and sand abrasives, not high-speed cutting
9. Dolerite Pounding Depressions	Mechanically distinct from carving	Aswan quarries show large bowl-shaped depressions where dolerite was repeatedly hammered	Demonstrates long-term mechanical wear, consistent with manual pounding
10. Sand Abrasive Residues	Confirms abrasive technique	Quartz grains embedded in drill grooves and polishing scratches	Matches known Egyptian use of desert sand as abrasive
11. Relief Cutting Evidence	Explains shallow arcs and intricate shapes	Tool marks consistent with chisels, bow drills, and abrasion finishing	No anomalous cutting forces required
12. Overlapping Drill Holes	Technique for cutting curves	Bow drills used to make multiple small holes that were later chiseled out	Archaeologically known method for producing arcs and internal corners
13. Tube Drill Diameter Limits	Confirms realistic tool sizes	Most copper tube drills 1–10 cm diameter; none at “micro” scale	Supports traditional methods; no micro-machining attested
14. Experimental Archaeology	Modern replication validates plausibility	Engineers (Stocks, Dunnell, Denys Stocks, stonemasons) replicated granite cutting, drilling, and vase-making with known tools	Demonstrates all observed marks can be reproduced without advanced technology
15. Tomb & Temple Depictions	Visual documentation of tool use	Old Kingdom scenes show bow drills, pounders, chisels, saws, polishing	No depictions of unknown technologies
16. Stratigraphic Context	Dates tools to correct periods	Tools found in layers matching Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom chronology	Confirms Egyptians had these tools at the time monuments were built
17. Lack of Residues from Advanced Machinery	Negative evidence	No metal alloys, bearings, lubricants, high-speed wear patterns	Strongly argues against machinery of unknown type
18. Consistency Across Sites	Tool marks uniform across Egypt	Same tools used in Saqqara, Giza, Aswan, Luxor, Sinai	Implies widespread traditional craft, not lost advanced tech
19. Material Science Limits	Copper + quartz abrasive is adequate	Quartz abrasive has Mohs hardness 7 → can cut granite at 6–7	No exotic materials needed
20. Cultural Continuity	Skills evolved over centuries	Old to New Kingdom shows incremental improvement	No sudden appearance of advanced technology

Search

Search

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw

inquisitive

More options

sjastro

Newbie

More options

BCP1928

Well-Known Member

More options

sjastro

Newbie

More options

Need help?

Similar threads