There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw · Tuesday at 3:03 AM

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 · Tuesday at 6:42 AM

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 · Tuesday at 10:48 AM

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 · Tuesday at 2:54 PM

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

stevevw · 2025-12-04T04:14:08-0600

sjastro said:
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

This is double stanbdards. You demand peer review and make people jump through hoops with demands of independent evidence. Then post a list of claims without any link or evidence at all let alone peer review and celebrate it a winner.

Just shows how willing some are to accept stuff without evidence. So long as it fits their beliefs.

I can play this game and make up stuff in a table.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-04T06:34:05-0600

stevevw said:
This is double stanbdards. You demand peer review and make people jump through hoops with demands of independent evidence. Then post a list of claims without any link or evidence at all let alone peer review and celebrate it a winner.

Just shows how willing some are to accept stuff without evidence. So long as it fits their beliefs.

I can play this game and make up stuff in a table.

He could just say the table came from "transcendent knowledge" then you wouldn't need any evidence.

sjastro · 2025-12-04T06:53:46-0600

stevevw said:
This is double stanbdards. You demand peer review and make people jump through hoops with demands of independent evidence. Then post a list of claims without any link or evidence at all let alone peer review and celebrate it a winner.

Just shows how willing some are to accept stuff without evidence. So long as it fits their beliefs.

I can play this game and make up stuff in a table.

Here is the table again with the relevant references.

Parameter	What It Shows	Archaeological Evidence	Implication (Supports Conventional Tools)	References (Full Titles)
1. Surviving Tools	Direct physical proof	Copper chisels, stone hammers, dolerite pounders, bow drills, tubular copper drills, flint blades, polishing stones	Demonstrates the tool types available and used — no unknown tech required	Denys Stocks, Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology (2003); Ian Shaw & Paul Nicholson, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology; A. Lucas & J.R. Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries
2. Workshop Assemblages	Context evidence	Giza, Saqqara, Deir el-Medina, Aswan, Hierakonpolis tool kits and debitage	Confirms how tools were applied in situ	Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization; Dieter Arnold, Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry; Shaw & Nicholson; Lucas & Harris
3. Unfinished Artifacts	“Frozen moments”	Partially carved granite statues, bowls, obelisks	Shows step-by-step stages	Shaw & Nicholson, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology; Dieter Arnold, Building in Egypt; Lucas & Harris
4. Quarry Tool Marks	Traces of stoneworking	Dolerite pounding pits, copper chisel marks, wedge holes	Matches known tools—no anomalous machining	James Harrell & Per Storemyr, “Ancient Egyptian Quarries”; Clarke & Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry; Lucas & Harris
5. Drill Holes With Spiral Grooves	Rotary abrasion signature	Spiral striations produced by quartz sand + copper tube drills	Matches experimental results; not high-speed machinery	Denys Stocks, Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology; Lucas & Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries
6. Bow Drill Evidence	Attested drilling method	Bow drills from tombs; depicted in Old Kingdom scenes	Explains small holes and vessel hollowing	Clarke & Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry; Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Rekhmire; Lucas & Harris
7. Tubular Copper Drills	Core drilling method	Copper tubes + granite/limestone cores	Replicated experimentally	Denys Stocks, Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology; Dieter Arnold, Building in Egypt; Lucas & Harris
8. Microstructure of Tool Marks	Reveals tool motion/hardness	Microscopy of abrasion, crushing, quartz scoring	Consistent with pounding + abrasive sand	Denys Stocks, Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology; Harrell & Storemyr, Ancient Egyptian Quarries; Lucas & Harris
9. Dolerite Pounding Depressions	Distinct from carving	Large bowl depressions at Aswan quarries	Demonstrates manual pounding	R. Engelbach, The Quarries of the Western Nubian Desert; Harrell; Lucas & Harris
10. Sand Abrasive Residues	Confirms abrasives	Quartz grains embedded in grooves	Matches known sand-abrasive technique	Lucas & Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries; Denys Stocks, Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology
11. Relief Cutting Evidence	Explains arcs & shapes	Chisel, drill, abrasion marks	No anomalous cutting forces	Clarke & Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry; Shaw & Nicholson; Lucas & Harris
12. Overlapping Drill Holes	Curve-cutting technique	Holes drilled then chiseled out	Known ancient method	Denys Stocks, Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology; Lucas & Harris
13. Tube Drill Diameter Limits	Realistic tool sizes	Copper tube drills 1–10 cm; no micro-drills	Supports conventional methods	Denys Stocks, Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology; Shaw & Nicholson; Lucas & Harris
14. Experimental Archaeology	Replication validates methods	Granite cutting & drilling reproduced with known tools	All marks reproducible with Egyptian tools	Denys Stocks, Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology; Dunnell (experimental reports); traditional stonemasonry trials; Lucas & Harris
15. Tomb & Temple Depictions	Visual tool records	Scenes showing bow drills, pounders, chisels, saws	No depictions of unknown tech	Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Rekhmire; Naguib Kanawati, Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology; Lucas & Harris
16. Stratigraphic Context	Correct dating	Tools found in Old & Middle Kingdom layers	Confirms tools existed when monuments were built	Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt; Dieter Arnold, Building in Egypt; Baines & Malek, Atlas of Ancient Egypt; Lucas & Harris
17. Lack of Advanced Machinery Residues	Negative evidence	No alloys, bearings, lubricants, or high-speed wear	Strong argument against machinery	Lucas & Harris; Denys Stocks, Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology
18. Consistency Across Sites	Uniform tool marks	Same marks at Saqqara, Giza, Aswan, Luxor, Sinai	Shows widespread craft tradition	Harrell & Storemyr, “Ancient Egyptian Quarries”; Lucas & Harris
19. Material Science Limits	Quartz > granite hardness	Quartz abrasive Mohs 7, granite 6–7	No exotic materials required	Lucas & Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries
20. Cultural Continuity	Skills evolve gradually	Gradual refinement from Old → New Kingdom	No sudden advanced technology	Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt; Dieter Arnold, Building in Egypt; Ian Shaw, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt; Lucas & Harris

I don't take kindly to being accused of lying by "make up stuff", in fact this is all about psychological projection since you have been caught out lying on subjects such as Old and New Kingdom obelisks. While you have a propensity for dishonesty don't expect others to follow your example.

Now I would ordinarily ask what you think constitutes evidence but since your response has degenerated into personal attacks I don't hold much promise of reading a coherent and ad hominem free reply.

sjastro · 2025-12-04T07:13:45-0600

On the subject of peer review here is a breakdown of the references in my previous post.

Short answer: Most, but not all, are peer-reviewed.
Below is a precise breakdown so you know which sources are peer-reviewed academic publications, which are scholarly but not peer-reviewed, and which are field-standard technical works used by Egyptologists.

✅ Peer-reviewed sources (academic / university-press / scholarly reviewed)

These do undergo academic review or are published by major university presses or academic journals.

Peer-reviewed books or monographs

Barry Kemp — Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization (Routledge)
(Academic peer-reviewed monograph)
Ian Shaw & Paul Nicholson — Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (Cambridge University Press)
(Multi-author academic volume; chapter peer review)
Dieter Arnold — Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry (Oxford University Press)
(Major academic monograph)
Baines & Malek — Atlas of Ancient Egypt (Oxford University Press)
(Scholarly academic publication)
Ian Shaw — The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford University Press)
(Edited academic volume; chapters peer-reviewed)
Harrell & Storemyr — publications on quarries
- Many appear in peer-reviewed journals, e.g. Journal of Archaeological Science, Egyptian Archaeology, Archaeometry.

Peer-reviewed articles

Harrell & Storemyr, “Ancient Egyptian Quarries” (various articles in academic journals)
Experimental archaeology studies published in academic venues (some by Stocks, others by independent researchers).

Scholarly but not formally peer-reviewed

These are highly authoritative, widely used by Egyptologists, but are technically not peer-reviewed in the modern journal sense.

Reference books / authoritative field manuals

A. Lucas & J.R. Harris — Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries
- Gold-standard technical reference since 1926
- Extensively revised by Harris
- Not peer-reviewed, but professionally edited and academically authoritative
Clarke & Engelbach — Ancient Egyptian Masonry (1930)
- Classical technical treatise; no peer-review process at the time
R. Engelbach — The Quarries of the Western Nubian Desert
- Highly respected archaeological monograph; not peer-reviewed in the modern sense
Norman de Garis Davies — Tomb publications (e.g., The Tomb of Rekhmire)
- Egypt Exploration Society publications
- Extremely scholarly, but not formally peer-reviewed
Kanawati — Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology
- Scholarly fieldwork monographs; not technically peer-review journal publications
Denys Stocks — Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology (2003)
- Fully academic but not issued through a peer-review academic journal
- It is, however, standard in the field and cited in university research.

Not peer-reviewed (but academically credible / professional)

These are technical reports, stonemason reproduction experiments, etc.

Practical stonemasonry replication reports
Non-journal experimental archaeology reports
Some excavation reports (pre-peer-review era)

In Egyptology, many foundational works (including Lucas & Harris) come from periods before “peer review” was standard.
Despite this, they are accepted, authoritative, and relied upon by Egyptologists worldwide.

⭐ Bottom Line

Around 50–60% of the references in the table are from peer-reviewed or university-press academic sources.
The remaining references are foundational, authoritative Egyptology works that are not peer-reviewed in the modern context, mostly because they predate widespread peer review.

Hans Blaster · 2025-12-04T09:32:35-0600

stevevw said:
This is double stanbdards. You demand peer review and make people jump through hoops with demands of independent evidence. Then post a list of claims without any link or evidence at all let alone peer review and celebrate it a winner.

Just shows how willing some are to accept stuff without evidence. So long as it fits their beliefs.

I can play this game and make up stuff in a table.

No one is asking *you* to do peer review. We want peer reviewed *SOURCES*.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-04T10:25:32-0600

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.

Are you still into proving that? Why do you even want to?

stevevw · 2025-12-04T17:58:24-0600

BCP1928 said:
Are you still into proving that? Why do you even want to?

Trying to prove this by what measure. Thats sort of the point. That you want this verified by material science and because it cannot be verified its all fake.

The reason why its important to acknowledge that there is alternative and what we would consider advanced knowledge is because epistemically it shows that there is more than one way to gain knowledge about the world and reality for that matter.

Once this is accepted then people will stop before they make absolute claims that there is only one way to understand reality. They will be open to the possibility that there may have been ancients who had knowledge beyond what methological naturalism can explain.

But if you reject this out of hand then this is already being biased and narrow minded which is more about belief than reality.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-04T19:06:26-0600

stevevw said:
Trying to prove this by what measure. Thats sort of the point. That you want this verified by material science and because it cannot be verified its all fake.

The reason why its important to acknowledge that there is alternative and what we would consider advanced knowledge is because epistemically it shows that there is more than one way to gain knowledge about the world and reality for that matter.

Once this is accepted then people will stop before they make absolute claims that there is only one way to understand reality. They will be open to the possibility that there may have been ancients who had knowledge beyond what methological naturalism can explain.

But if you reject this out of hand then this is already being biased and narrow minded which is more about belief than reality.

I don't reject it out of hand. I just don't see the point of it. Look, this is a question which has been considered by philosophers, theologians, anthropologists, psychologists, neurorophysiologists etc. for the past couple of thousand years without convincing resolution. I think there is no point at all in us debating it here. But my question remains, what good would it do? Suppose you demonstrated that there was consciousness beyond the brain. What then?

Hans Blaster · 2025-12-04T19:28:58-0600

stevevw said:
Trying to prove this by what measure. Thats sort of the point. That you want this verified by material science and because it cannot be verified its all fake.

The reason why its important to acknowledge that there is alternative and what we would consider advanced knowledge is because epistemically it shows that there is more than one way to gain knowledge about the world and reality for that matter.

Once this is accepted then people will stop before they make absolute claims that there is only one way to understand reality. They will be open to the possibility that there may have been ancients who had knowledge beyond what methological naturalism can explain.

But if you reject this out of hand then this is already being biased and narrow minded which is more about belief than reality.

What is the alternative to actual science? Please be specific how it applies to Egypt, particularly with pre-dynastic vases, pyramid construction, and stone cutting/quarrying as these are the topics that have come up most often and from which you complain about our use of "material science".

stevevw · 2025-12-05T00:13:15-0600

BCP1928 said:
I don't reject it out of hand. I just don't see the point of it. Look, this is a question which has been considered by philosophers, theologians, anthropologists, psychologists, neurorophysiologists etc. for the past couple of thousand years without convincing resolution. I think there is no point at all in us debating it here. But my question remains, what good would it do? Suppose you demonstrated that there was consciousness beyond the brain. What then?

If there was such a thing a phenomena of consciousness beyond brain then it opens the doore for understanding fundemental reality more fully. That will lead to further discoveries based on the expanded possibility.

In fact consciousness as fundemental has been posed as the best fit for the data.

If there is to be any theory of everything then it has to include subjective consciousness.

stevevw · 2025-12-05T00:51:16-0600

Hans Blaster said:
What is the alternative to actual science?

Just like we can gain knowledge of the world through an experience of color that science cannot tell us with all the information about how the physical processes work.

All direct experiences with the world contain such knowledge. Being direct knowledge this means listening and taking more seriously what the observer and subject is saying about their experiences. Its all there except the materialist worldview will dismiss all this as imagination, coincident, and delusion.

Hans Blaster said:
Please be specific how it applies to Egypt, particularly with pre-dynastic vases, pyramid construction, and stone cutting/quarrying as these are the topics that have come up most often and from which you complain about our use of "material science".

I have already done this. I hypothesised that if we humans can gain a deeper knowledge of reality such as a 'Red Experience'. Then because the ancients were more immersed in the phenomenal realm of direct experiences and the transcedent aspects that stem from phenomenal beliefs.

Then this brought deeper knowledge and insights about nature and reality. How it worked. Just like another species that in part of nature and does not rationalise it comes to gain knowledge of how nature works. So to did the ancients.

That means they knew how to work with stone for example. Knew what changed its makeup. Such as chemistry and physics. So it was not that they may have needed modern day machines to make these machine like cuts or precision works. But that they knew how to manipulate the material itself.

Thus there was no need for machines as conventional tools would suffice. Because the material was now like putty or weaker that it was like working with wood for example.

This is one idea. Another may be that they also had some form of power. Be it through some sort of manipulation or concentration of the natural physics of nation that they understood. Which may explain who there are many alignmemts with location and dimensions. Maybe to do with acoustics.

But this may have allowed either some sort of weakening of granite or some sort of mechanism was used (not necessarily like modern machines). Maybe a process that involves the boxes in the pyramids. Or some sort of electrodes that created some sort of piezoelectric effect.

But this is all spectualtion. But something along these lines. The point is that if modern science is trying to understand fundemental reality and if consciousness is involved. If the ancients were more conscious then today and lived by direct experiences with nature.

Then it makes sense that they came across some deeper understanding of nature and reality that could only come from a direct subjective experience. Just like the knowledge that comes from a 'Red Experience'.

But remember that this should not be viewed through the lens of modern material science or methological naturalism for obvious reasons. This is a completely different paradigm lens in how reality is known.

Similar to the difference between for example an 'Information' paradign of reality as opposed to the physical aspect that is the result or reflection of that information basis. Its more or less understanding reality in the deeper sense as to how it is reflected in the material dimension.

If the ancients understood the basis of the material reflections of the physical world. Then they understood how it worked fundementally and could manipulate it. Sort of Mind over Matter. Except the Mind or direct conscious experiences gave knowledge rather than any power of the mind over the physical world.

Thats the best I can do. I am sure there better ways of explaining this with some of the emerging proposals. But a lot is unknown and that is why the more data the better. Much has only been discovered recently with modern tech and its interesting that its taken modern tech to discover it.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-05T09:06:36-0600

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.

Why would I say that? I explicitly said that the question is unresolved and I take no position on it. But that's typical of you--if we don't immediately embrace whatever off-beat theory you happen to be pushing, we must be trying to deny it--usually for wicked materialist reasons.

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.

And that supports your contention that there is a kind of knowledge that doesn't depend on our physical senses exactly how?

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.

What's the difference between fundamental reality and objective physical reality? :scratch:

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.

All science is based on personal experience. Without personal experience there would be no science. The purpose of science is to understand objective reality and how it brings about personal experience. Science is carried by personal subjective experience. Observation with our natural senses to start with, then we extend the range of our senses with microscopes, telescopes, other kinds of instruments. But it is all still based on our personal subjective experience.

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

inquisitive

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

✅ Peer-reviewed sources (academic / university-press / scholarly reviewed)​

Peer-reviewed books or monographs​

Peer-reviewed articles​

Scholarly but not formally peer-reviewed​

Reference books / authoritative field manuals​

Not peer-reviewed (but academically credible / professional)​

⭐ Bottom Line​

I march with Sherman

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

I march with Sherman

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

✅ Peer-reviewed sources (academic / university-press / scholarly reviewed)

Peer-reviewed books or monographs

Peer-reviewed articles

Scholarly but not formally peer-reviewed

Reference books / authoritative field manuals

Not peer-reviewed (but academically credible / professional)

⭐ Bottom Line