Would you mind giving us a demonstration?
Please translate this pieceof Egyptian writing. Or if not a translation, tell us what it means.
The writing is from thousands of years after the great pyramids were built so is irrelevant.
You linked to a reference to a book about philosophical Metaphysics.
Had you bothered to read the actual book, you would have noted that the book discusses the way that philosophical conjecture, (including Metaphysics), shaped a lot of thought and set the basis on which the separate discipline of Science arose.
What you will not find is a claim that there is a “metaphysical science,” because that is simply a poor misunderstanding of your own, (much as you apparently misunderstand much (most?) of the ancient Egyptian language that you purport to translate).
I was asked how a stone can avenge a geyser.
Now I’ll ask you how a beam of light can impregnate a woman. Please keep it logical and within the confines of known physical law as expressed in biology and physics.
And, strangely enough (:rolleyes:), the overwhelming majority of people, today, (Trinopus, a handful of Buddhists, and the odd Platonist excepted), have the same basic belief. Your claim that Cogito, ergo sum is the basis of modern thought is without foundation.
Leaving aside the fact that there was no such “ancient science,” the first axiom of everyone who has not chosen to ponder the existence of reality is that it exists.
Your corollary, however, is simply something that you wish the ancients had practiced. There is no evidence, (and certainly no evidence that you have presented), that Ancient Egyptians went around creating theories to be tested against observation. You are, again, engaged in projecting your own wishful thinking back onto a people whose thoughts you claim, without evidence, to present.
cite?
It can’t.
Are you conceding that the Ancient Egyptians were religious, or…?
Wasn’t this in a episode of Super Chicken?
The irony is strong with this one.
Hmm. With all this “fall from grace” stuff about losing natural language and the superior ancient science, a thoughtooccurred to me : cladking, do you think WE are stinky footed bumpkins?
Yes. Of course.
I don’t think we fell from grace however. There are certainly some distinct and important advantages to everyone being a scientist and being on the same page. More importantly, perhaps, is people had a far easier time of seeing through other people’s eyes and seeing other perspectives. But the primary advantages were in communication. It’s really a moot question anyway since the ancient language is impossible to resurrect in humans. No human could possibly even begin to use a metaphysical language with the extensive knowledge we have today. I believe there may be a way to use computers to do it though. I believe AI is a dead end because there’s no such thing as intelligence and never was. What we are calling AI is in actuality just trying to teach confiused language to a computer. Even if we succeed, which is possible, it might merely be another confused voice with a unique perspective. I believe machine intelligence is in the future and this is one of the three or four greatest threats to the continued existence of the human species; we will simply become obsolete since even the stupidest machine intelligence would surpass ours.
There’s nothing wrong with being a stinky footed bumpkin if we are making the world a better place and having fun, but it would be better if we knew it and tried to overcome it. Part of being human is knowing yourself and part of knowing yourself is understanding history and the nature of humanity. I believe redeveloping ancient science might be important in this and in getting modern science past its current hurdles.
Knowledge has always had useful applications in the past and this will forever remain true. It’s not only the predictive capabilities of theory but real world practical applications. We’ve come a very very long way from true science in the last half a century. I suppose it started with the nonsense from Freud and has just grown increasingly worse. It probably didn’t help that Egyptologists were already saying it mustta been ramps and from there any sort of strange ideas might be born. Maybe if he stayed away from his sister in law in 1899 the 20th century wouldn’t have been quite the disaster it was.
All of my best friends are stinky footed bumpkins. None tiptoe in corpse drippings mind you but they mostly accept they are descended from people who did. …So it goes.
You’re treating this concept as though Descartes invented it. All he did was verbalize an idea that is widespread. The Buddha and most other people share aspects of this belief because this is how we experience reality. When we seek something fundamental to ourselves we think of language, we think of our thought.
Current beliefs simply allow no science before modern science. Beavers invented dams by studying their own genes, man invented cities by trial and error, and rabbits run from foxes because of instinct. It all makes perfect sense to us.
Since they practiced no experiment then it must follow they employed trial and error. Apollo I was rocket science but the great Pyramid just a culmination of trial and error.
Dams, huh? Cool.
Did they use PCR or RFLP analysis for that?
One would assume visceral analysis.
Again with the stinky feet!
So the beavers crapped themselves doing visceral analysis of their genes.
Nobody expected this.
You should probably let that part drop, it’s yet another strawman. You keep representing it as some general admission for people not to step in corpses, and representing that as a self-evident absurdity, but that’s not what it says. For the benefit of everyone else:
721a. To say: The Great One is fallen on his side;
721b. he who is in Ndi.t stirs;
721c. his head is lifted up by Rē‘;
721d. his abomination is to sleep, he hates to be tired.
722a. Flesh of N.,
722b. rot not, decay not, let not thy smell be bad.
722c. Thy foot shall not pass over, thy step shall not stride through,
722d. thou shalt not tread upon the (corpse)-secretion of Osiris.
723a. Thou shalt tiptoe heaven like Śȝḥ (the toe-star); thy soul shall be pointed like Sothis (the pointed-star).
723b. Soul shalt thou be and soul thou art; honoured shalt thou be and honoured thou art.
723c. Thy soul stands there (like a king(?)) among the gods, like Horus who lives in ’Irw.
The “thy” is the pharaoh (more specifically his flesh), not Joe Egyptian, and it expresses the hope that his body would remain free from putrefaction, while his soul went to heaven and stood among the gods.
Like I said before, your constant use of this kind of crap is the main reason I reject your whole theory…theories with anything real behind them don’t have to be presented like this.
Now, I think that was in an episode of The Angry Beavers.
I did not imagine the Super Chicken and the [del]Geezer[/del] Geyser episode though.
I don’t know if anybody else has noticed, but since his start in this thread about 900 posts ago cladking has not veered the slightest degree from his beliefs. A quick search shows that in years of posting across the internet he has never said, “You may have a point. I’ll look into that.” Not for the least significant issue. Fundamentalist theologians show more intellectual curiosity. He is the immovable object and logic and knowledge and facts are resistible forces splashing against him. He is the rock so heavy that God can’t lift it, a perfectly reflective wall of resolute ignorance that facts bounce off without affecting him at all.
It is pointless to continue to argue with him, but the advantage, versus most conspiracy theories, is that if we stop his ideas are so very crazy, poorly explained, and incoherent that he has not managed in all these years to develop a following, nor will he. I mean, Ancient Aliens wouldn’t even touch this shit.
You are the one that started this digression with an absurd claim that quoted Descartes. Even in the West he was preceded by Augustine’s Si dubito sum..
No one experiences reality by doubting their own existence and constructing a proof or an axiom that establishes their reality.
That is nonsense.
There was little to no science before modern science because there was little to no science before modern science.
Your beaver analogy is an utter failure. First, what beavers do in constructing dams would be engineering, not science. And beavers have never studied their own DNA. Second, trial and error is not science. It can be a legitimate method to increase or gain knowledge, but it is not science. You are back to torturing English in ways that demonstrate you do not understand it while you then claim to understand Ancient Egyptian.
Science requires observation, proposed explanation, and examination of the success or failure of the explanation. It requires prediction. Beavers do not predict what their dams will do and you have just acknowledged that the Ancient Egyptians Practiced no experimentation.
Utterly unpersuasive.