The Gods Are Mad

[Analogue Boy]

I’m a bit stuck on your earlier statement that ‘everyone was a scientist’ and your claim of ancient 3D thinking and today’s 2D thinking.
Could you elaborate please?

 

[Analogue Boy]

Ancient people didn't think like us. When we deconstruct their words they do not make sense. When they said "bring me the boat that flies up and alights" what they meant was literally bring me the literal boat that literally flies up and literally alights. Egyptologists had virtually no chance to understand such enigmatic meaning. But the literal meaning, what they actually said, is my theory. This theory is consistent with the physical evidence and the "laws of nature" and it makes accurate predictions. It explains almost all of the physical evidence. These are all of the hallmarks of real science ancient or modern.

I’m having trouble with this too. The human brain has remained pretty much the same size, cognitive function must have been similar although culture, myth and religion my have coloured the language back then. My problem lies in what you’re trying to say today. Admittedly, I come from a modernist viewpoint and regard the Book of the Dead as a lucrative insurance policy covering everything from weighing of the heart to a windscreen stone chip as part of a cover policy ensuring a lucrative market for a people who only had papyrus and ink and a living to make.

Also. Could you elaborate on ‘the Laws of Nature’ you’re referring to?

 

[mummyknave]

I’m a bit stuck on your earlier statement that ‘everyone was a scientist’ and your claim of ancient 3D thinking and today’s 2D thinking.
Could you elaborate please?

Essentially my contention is that language is effectively the operating system of all life!

We can't see this because we can't see the nature of our own thoughts. Our thoughts "just happen". I think therefore I am. We think linearly in a single dimension with one thought arising naturally from the preceding one. Our consciousness and experience are the self evaluation of the causes and effects of this progression. We experience "consciousness" through understanding our thinking and beliefs. We invent numerous filters through experience, belief, and scientific learning to cope with our environment and others of our species. We experience consciousness as thought because this is the very nature of modern language.

But understanding how ancient people thought is far more difficult. To a tiny extent I might be more able to do this than most because I'm a generalist who pays little attention to taxonomies to understand reality. Taxonomies are the words we use to classify things according to what I believe are superficial similarities. For instance I don't believe in mammals or animals or most taxonomies except the type that are like mathematical concepts where every thing fits cleanly in a single category. The ancients were the same way; they hardly employed taxonomies and few such words survive.

But they also had no words for thought!!! Think about this a moment. We have thousands of words to describe "thinking" or are necessary to their definitions. Obviously, ancient people didn't "think" at all like we do. To them their consciousness was experienced in such a way that they couldn't see they were thinking at all.

Getting past this point will probably require the reader to begin understanding the nature of a metaphysical language.

It was Ancient Language which was metaphysical in nature because all human knowledge was encoded within it.

Rather than "thinking" in their beliefs as we do, their "thought" was a part of all human knowledge. They still had emotions and all human characteristics because they still had an amygdala but their brains and the operation of their brains mirrored the wiring of the brain and the whole of human knowledge. They experienced life as an individual but this individual was a part of a whole.

Adding knowledge to metaphysical language was rather simple and natural. It was simple because it was added a piece at a time as it was observed over 40,000 years of human progress. They started with simple concepts derived from observation and builtr on this. One of the first great discoveries probably dating back nearly 40,000 years is that the same sun came "up" each day. This too was recorded in language as the concept of "khephri" in the Egyptian dialect. No doubt this was discovered by simply observing the exact same sun spots at dusk and dawn. "N3h-kau" was the concept of the hydraulic cycle and is virtually defined in the PT "he is dried by the wind and then comes into being as rain from the coils of "nehebkau" (clouds). Words in metaphysical language are representative rather than symbolic like ours. This is why meaning is always literal. They didn't really use "turns of phrase" or "poetic licence" as we do. They spoke in tautologies (as I am prone to do).

Every word represented something and had only one single concrete and fixed meaning but every thing had three words. These three words fit into three categories of words. The first category defined the subject of a sentence. No matter where it appeared in the sentence it was the subject. The second category defined the perspective or action. And the third category was the object of the sentence; what happened. Osiris in his name of seker tows the earth by means of balance simply means the subject is what moves the earth and how. It is the water that comes up from the ground as water sitting in the counterweight that lifts the earth using the counterweight that is in balance with the earth. This can't be translated and no clean translation will ever exist. Subject words are what I call the scientific category and all natural forces (gods) fall into this category. Additionally there are several thousand scientific words to represent objects and other theory. Everything that was understood had a scientific word.

When children are two years old they start growing millions of connections in the brain. These were needed to understand and manipulate Ancient Language so now the majority of them simply atrophy or otherwise become unused. It is this interconnectedness in the brain that gives Ancient Language its three dimensional characteristics; thought proceeds from all different directions. This is the power animal use to survive. It is three dimensional consciousness that confers the ability to survive and this is how humans survived before modern science and the invention of agriculture. It is how humans invented agriculture and agriculture is how we survived what we remember only as the "confusion of tongues".

 

[mummyknave]

I’m having trouble with this too. The human brain has remained pretty much the same size, cognitive function must have been similar although culture, myth and religion my have coloured the language back then.

It's not the human brain that has changed.

It is the operating system. In many real senses you could say that ancient people employed a digital operating system. Each neuron is only a "0" or a "1" and the wiring was a determinant of which fired and which didn't just like a computer using a program except language was that program.

Modern language is in real ways an analog system but unlike a pendulum clock or other analog systems tied to reality, such as a pendulum, our analog system is tied only to modern language. Our words are all defined in terms of other words and every word has many meanings.

We operate on beliefs. We see only what we believe and eventually become our beliefs. We experience our consciousness as thought but there was NO WORD THAT MEANT THOUGHT OR BELIEF in Ancient Language. They experienced their consciousness as knowledge and the ability to manipulate and harness language.

problem lies in what you’re trying to say today. Admittedly, I come from a modernist viewpoint and regard the Book of the Dead as a lucrative insurance policy covering everything from weighing of the heart to a windscreen stone chip as part of a cover policy ensuring a lucrative market for a people who only had papyrus and ink and a living to make.

There is a discontinuity between the time when the Pyramid Texts were first being written before 3000 BC and the book of the dead which arose in ~1800 BC. This was the mother of all discontinuities because Ancient Language failed when it became overly complex. As knowledge increased arithmatically the complexities of language increased geometrically until nobody could use it.

This discontinuity is invisible to us because we simply translated the Pyramid Texts in terms of the book of the dead. We believe it's the same magical and religious nonsense and we translated it accordingly.

Also. Could you elaborate on ‘the Laws of Nature’ you’re referring to?

The "laws of nature" are the product of modern science. It is state of the art in science. It is the theories that constitute the whole of modern science.

I don't believe that nature obeys any laws at all. Nature is merely the expression of the logic of which it is composed. People think that these laws are mathematical but the reality is that "mathematics" is a contrived system of quantifying this logic. So the laws of nature are mathematically consistent but the reality is they merely reflect the exact same logic which also is reflected in natural constructs like a flower or the wiring of the human brain.

 

[mummyknave]

I’m a bit stuck on your earlier statement that ‘everyone was a scientist’ ...

All Ancient Language speakers had to understand reality as determined by ancient science and expressed as Ancient Language to even function in the world. They simply couldn't speak if they didn't understand. Of course the real complexity for most individuals would be in learning the "names" of things. Rather than defining ANY word they were "named".

https://kevinmichaelconnor.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/the-hundred-names-of-sekhmet/

Some things that were well understood had thousands of names and the word represented all these names. There were no "definitions" of any sort. The more names an individual knew and understood the more learned he was and more likely to be able to make invention or new connections through new observation. By the time Ancient Language was beginning to be not understood (~3200 BC) by significant numbers of people there were likely some half million names known and even most "prophets" and other professionals wouldn't know and understand all of them.

But, then, they'd always know when they didn't understand because the speaker's words would make no sense. They could ask for clarification, elaboration, and explanation. Modern people sometimes converse on two topics and never even notice. Confusion reigns.

It was impossible to think in modern language and not be both a scientists and a metaphysician. Some were adept (sia and hu) and some were not. But all saw the reality from the perspective of a(n ancient) scientist.

Very few modern people are "true" scientists simply because they don't think about meaning of experiment, its relation to human knowledge, and metaphysics. Very few scientists are competent metaphysicians. You'd be amazed how many times I've had to define "metaphysics" for scientists. "Metaphysics" is the basis of science and the means by which it operates. Modern scientists are so busy learning about new experiment and other such things they simply don't have much time to think about what it means.

Ancient people had a scientific perspective because none other was possible.

 

[stu neville]

Very few modern people are "true" scientists simply because they don't think about meaning of experiment, its relation to human knowledge, and metaphysics. Very few scientists are competent metaphysicians.

Your evidence being...? The point about metaphysics being that many may participate in one or other facet of it without even realising they're doing so.

You'd be amazed how many times I've had to define "metaphysics" for scientists. "Metaphysics" is the basis of science and the means by which it operates.

Is this something about which you've conversed with many scientists, then? What's their usual understanding of the term 'metaphysics' and in what way do you reframe it?

 

[Coal]

The only thing about metaphysics is that it deals entirely with abstract concepts such as identity, being, time, and knowing. Naturally, none of it can be proved or verified, although it can all be debated ad infinitum, with the extra bonus that one never has to (or can) prove or verify any of it. Better than working in McDonalds I guess. Some might say.

 

[mummyknave]

Your evidence being...? The point about metaphysics being that many may participate in one or other facet of it without even realising they're doing so.

This is far easier to see from my perspective.

Many scientists sound far more like mystics to me because of this perspective. I don't want to single anyone out but the fact is very few Egyptologists can talk about anything, especially regarding pyramid construction, without invoking the strength and unity achieved by their mutual superstitions. Everywhere I hear nonsense like petrified wood being carved into a sink and called wood that looks like stone instead of what it really is; just the opposite.

There was a popular brain "teaser" going around the net some time back about whether or not an airplane could take off from a conveyor belt running in the opposite direction. Of course it can but more than half of aviation engineers answered wrongly and even 4% of physicists missed it. An ancient Egyptian would have gotten it right if he understood your terms; all ancient Egyptians. My experience was that even with careful and accurate explanations more than half of the people who missed this question could not be convinced they are wrong. This is because people who think in modern language (like all scientists) have difficulty maintaining a single perspective and thinking of more than one thing at a time.

I probably shouldn't say this but Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein were the two best metaphysicians of the 20th century and even Feynman sometimes sounded just a little mystical. This isn't to say he can never be proven correct, merely that he invoked unknown factors into explanations and understandings.

Is this something about which you've conversed with many scientists, then? What's their usual understanding of the term 'metaphysics' and in what way do you reframe it?

I've not spoken to as many as you might think. My experience is that most specialists are of little "utility" to me. For the main part they mustta missed the day that they were taught about whatever subject on which I need help. I've read a little bit but mostly this is just observation from anecdotal evidence.

I am referring to only ONE definition of metaphysics. The other is irrelevant. If I EVER mean the other definition I will be sure to point it out.

 

[stu neville]

This is far easier to see from my perspective.

I had a feeling it might be.

I've not spoken to as many as you might think. My experience is that most specialists are of little "utility" to me. For the main part they mustta missed the day that they were taught about whatever subject on which I need help. I've read a little bit but mostly this is just observation from anecdotal evidence.

Actually I'm not all that surprised. Of the ones to whom you have spoken, though, what do they make of your observations about the shortcomings in their methodology and overall ethos?

I am referring to only ONE definition of metaphysics. The other is irrelevant. If I EVER mean the other definition I will be sure to point it out.

Are there two? You could argue there are more dependant upon context alone, but definition itself is wholly dependant upon context. As a soi-disant metaphyscian you surely must see that, and as such metaphysics itself becomes defined by the frame in which you view it, or indeed by which anyone does. Thus a scientist may, justifiably, view your definition as valid for you but another (entirely, different, entirely subjective) definition as equally valid for them.

 

[mummyknave]

I had a feeling it might be.

I have no delusions. Even back when I thought I was a scientist I was really more a metaphysician. While I have no expertise in any science the fact is I'm still the only individual who has ever had two metaphysics. The ancient scientists couldn't imagine how to perform experiment and today's scientists can't imagine how to develop theory from logic.

Actually I'm not all that surprised. Of the ones to whom you have spoken, though, what do they make of your observations about the shortcomings in their methodology and overall ethos?

Most of them are mostly dumbstruck. Very few understand what I'm on about.

A few understand because they understand prediction is the hallmark of theory and literal interpretation of ancient writing makes predictions.

But make no mistake; there is no flaw in their methodology. Some do it wrong and use poor methodology but that often gets caught in the peer review process in the hard sciences. It often gets by in the "soft sciences". The primary problem is not in methodology and results it's in misinterpretation and the unfounded extrapolations that constitute model formation. This is experimental result framed such that it can be understood by the human mind operatiung with modern language.

 

[mummyknave]

Are there two? You could argue there are more dependant upon context alone, but definition itself is wholly dependant upon context. As a soi-disant metaphyscian you surely must see that, and as such metaphysics itself becomes defined by the frame in which you view it, or indeed by which anyone does. Thus a scientist may, justifiably, view your definition as valid for you but another (entirely, different, entirely subjective) definition as equally valid for them.

There are effectively an infinite number of definitions of "metaphysics". This is the nature of modern language because words have multiple definitions, shades of meaning, and connotations. Each word is defined in terms of other words with the same attributes. Then each user and each listener has his own definitions. This quickly will devolve into epistemology which is probably the nearest synonym for "metaphysics".

One of the biggest problems for me is not only semantics employed by translators but the semantics employed by Egyptologists to argue against my theory. I speak in tautologies just so my premises are visible and to eliminate semantics.

The point of all my arguments is to show that ancient people were all scientists who used linear funiculars to build pyramids. Everything else is irrelevant. The physical evidence and the logic are all in agreement. I'm trying to communicate ideas and to force Egyptology to perform the science that will prove me right or wrong. They are loathe to do science because everything they've done so far suggests I'm right.

 

[stu neville]

OK - I am going to ask some questions in this post as well as make some observations. To be honest, if it's going to progress much as a thread there are a few points we'll have to clarify.

I have no delusions. Even back when I thought I was a scientist I was really more a metaphysician.

Out of interest, in which branch of science did you practice?

There are effectively an infinite number of definitions of "metaphysics". This is the nature of modern language because words have multiple definitions, shades of meaning, and connotations. Each word is defined in terms of other words with the same attributes. Then each user and each listener has his own definitions. This quickly will devolve into epistemology which is probably the nearest synonym for "metaphysics".

So - you've now moved, in the space of one post, from:

I am referring to only ONE definition of metaphysics. The other is irrelevant. If I EVER mean the other definition I will be sure to point it out.

..which implies two, to an infinite number of definitions (which is correct.) This shifting to adapt to review and query would appear - being constructively helpful, I would hope - to imply that you are still formulating this theory as you go along.

One of the biggest problems for me is not only semantics employed by translators but the semantics employed by Egyptologists to argue against my theory.

Can I ask - are any of these counter-arguments in print? Have you spoken with many Eqyptologists, and have they specifically take the time to explain in what way they argue against your theory?

I speak in tautologies just so my premises are visible and to eliminate semantics.

Unfortunately it has very much the opposite effect. I would suggest you distil your ideas a little more - by all means expand and illustrate when engaged by another to help clarify, but your long explanatory passages actually come over as effectively word-salad. Which is a pity, because:

The point of all my arguments is to show that ancient people were all scientists who used linear funiculars to build pyramids.

..is, actually, an interesting and thought-provoking idea, that as a working hypothesis can be explored on its own.

Everything else is irrelevant. The physical evidence and the logic are all in agreement. I'm trying to communicate ideas and to force Egyptology to perform the science that will prove me right or wrong. They are loathe to do science because everything they've done so far suggests I'm right.

..and this is where, in my opinion, you're going wrong. You yourself are obfuscating your own ideas. Stop trying to gainsay an entire body of work just in order to advance a theory which doesn't need wholesale abandonment of an entire branch of study to explore. I think you've taken the germ of a very interesting idea - the use of funicular tech to construct pyramids - but from that seed have grown an entire jungle of hypotheses based upon hypotheses based upon other hypotheses, and have convinced yourself that the jungle is the only way to prove the viability of the seed. It isn't. Remind yourself of William of Occam, and take that cue to hack back the undergrowth a bit.

 

[Yithian]

As somebody who has studied (academic) metaphysics, it sounds to me that the language you are sketching and labelling 'metaphysical' is more akin to that dreamt of by the Logical Positivists in the first half of the 20th Century and inspired by the earlier Logical Atomists.

 

[maximus otter]

As somebody who has studied (academic) metaphysics, it sounds to me that the language you are sketching and labelling 'metaphysical' is more akin to that dreamt of by the Logical Positivists...

Fourth Bruce: "Bruce here teaches classical philosophy, Bruce there teaches Haegelian philosophy, and Bruce here teaches logical positivism, and is also in charge of the sheep dip."

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/bruceskit.php

maximus otter

 

[Yithian]

Bruce has since left the department.

Winds of change and all that--he's been replaced by Sheila.

 

[stu neville]

Sidebar - the Sheep represented Hiksos, the Bull Apis. Interesting to see how mummyknave views this in a sense of metaphysical one-ness.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Fourth Bruce: "Bruce here teaches classical philosophy, Bruce there teaches Haegelian philosophy, and Bruce here teaches logical positivism, and is also in charge of the sheep dip."

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/bruceskit.php

maximus otter

And the most politically incorrect line in that classic sketch is, of course:

"Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way at all -- if there's anybody watching...... "

Which (in an attempt to steer this thread back towards language) reminds me that the main aborigine language group of Pama-Nyungan constitutes arguably the oldest living (just barely) language and just possibly may give us some pointers as to denisovan and other archaic human languages.
If PIE can be reconstructed to a reasonable degree of certainty from extant European languages, surely some similar analysis could be done to reconstruct the proto-aboriginal language from say 10,000+ years ago?

 

[Xanatic*]

I spoke to someone from Spain today, he confirmed the basque have a story about being from Atlantis.

 

[mummyknave]

Out of interest, in which branch of science did you practice?

I fancied myself a physicist. I was not a "practicing" scientist.

..which implies two, to an infinite number of definitions (which is correct.) This shifting to adapt to review and query would appear - being constructively helpful, I would hope - to imply that you are still formulating this theory as you go along.

I intend one single definition when I use this word ("basis of science").

Can I ask - are any of these counter-arguments in print?

Just on message boards.

Have you spoken with many Eqyptologists, and have they specifically take the time to explain in what way they argue against your theory?

Egyptologists can't address ANY argument that doesn't accept the assumptions.

Unfortunately it has very much the opposite effect. I would suggest you distil your ideas a little more - by all means expand and illustrate when engaged by another to help clarify, but your long explanatory passages actually come over as effectively word-salad. Which is a pity, because:

OK.

..is, actually, an interesting and thought-provoking idea, that as a working hypothesis can be explored on its own.

Thank you. I believe it will be proven in the near future.

..and this is where, in my opinion, you're going wrong. You yourself are obfuscating your own ideas. Stop trying to gainsay an entire body of work just in order to advance a theory which doesn't need wholesale abandonment of an entire branch of study to explore.

I'm accustomed to people repeating the orthodox assumptions as an argument. I acquired windiness.

I think you've taken the germ of a very interesting idea - the use of funicular tech to construct pyramids - but from that seed have grown an entire jungle of hypotheses based upon hypotheses based upon other hypotheses, and have convinced yourself that the jungle is the only way to prove the viability of the seed. It isn't. Remind yourself of William of Occam, and take that cue to hack back the undergrowth a bit.

This theory is simple enough and the undergrowth resulted from trying to address counterarguments.

 

[mummyknave]

As somebody who has studied (academic) metaphysics, it sounds to me that the language you are sketching and labelling 'metaphysical' is more akin to that dreamt of by the Logical Positivists in the first half of the 20th Century and inspired by the earlier Logical Atomists.

Thank you. This is new to me.

I had already adopted these beliefs even before I found ancient metaphysics which would have shared it if ancient people had any philosophy at all.

There were no words to hold the concept of "ideas" or "thought" in Ancient Language. There could be no "philosophy" and they had no words for "philosophy".

 

[mummyknave]

Sidebar - the Sheep represented Hiksos, the Bull Apis. Interesting to see how mummyknave views this in a sense of metaphysical one-ness.

"Second Bruce: That's going to cause a little confusion."

The confusion of language gave rise to "belief" and religion.

 

[mummyknave]

I spoke to someone from Spain today, he confirmed the basque have a story about being from Atlantis.

For what it's worth there also seem to be some similarities with Irish and Hawaiian.

I doubt a direct relationship of any of the three with the pyramids and Ancient Language.

 

[stu neville]

..there were no words to hold the concept of "ideas" or "thought" in Ancient Language. There could be no "philosophy" and they had no words for "philosophy".

Your evidence for this being..(besides your own hypothesis)?

The confusion of language gave rise to "belief" and religion.

..as opposed to theory and imagination? Shades on the same spectrum.

For what it's worth there also seem to be some similarities with Irish and Hawaiian.

Really?

This theory is simple enough and the undergrowth resulted from trying to address counterarguments.

But you're the only one who has allowed it to overgrow to that extent. Honestly - take it back to basics. Occam. Trust me on this, I've been doing it a long time.

 

[mummyknave]

As somebody who has studied (academic) metaphysics, it sounds to me that the language you are sketching and labelling 'metaphysical' is more akin to that dreamt of by the Logical Positivists in the first half of the 20th Century and inspired by the earlier Logical Atomists.

Perhaps I was overly hasty in my last response and in danger of becoming windy;

Many of the concepts of the Logical Atomists would have been virtually axiomatic to the ancients or would spring from their more fundamental axioms. They would have experienced the world as a collection of logic and effects of time. They could not have understood the concept of "laws of nature" because they could not have understood experimental results or their bearing on reality. They would view "experiment" as a parlor trick or a subversion of knowledge and technology.

But each individual would share this perspective. There were no "opinions" in ancient times and they had no word for "opinion".

 

[stu neville]

There were no "opinions" in ancient times and they had no word for "opinion".

..and again, we need proof of this beyond your own hypotheses. You cannot possibly state that the ancient mind - fully as able as our own today - didn't recognise that thought, opinion and sense of self had tangible presence. What if the written language was as discrete from the vernacular as High Latin was from Vulgate?

Australian Aborigines - them again - predate the Ancient Eqyptian civilisations, as did the Mesopotamian, and each clearly understood the nature of concrete and abstract, dream and reality, so on that one I'm afraid I'm calling "outright wrong."

 

[mummyknave]

Your evidence for this being..(besides your own hypothesis)?

None of these words appear in the Pyramid Texts or ANY of the other writing that survives.

..as opposed to theory and imagination? Shades on the same spectrum.

There is a great deal of overlap between "belief" and "theory" today. Phrased more accurately theory is held principally as "belief" among mopst people. This is caused by model formation which is necessary to understand the complexities of most science today. "Belief" is an artefact of modern language which is difficult to see from the perspective of anyone thinking in modern language.

Really?

I believe these associations etc are largely coincidental.

Each of these languages have some strange characteristics and folk lore that can be interpreted to associate them with pyramids.

But you're the only one who has allowed it to overgrow to that extent. Honestly - take it back to basics. Occam. Trust me on this, I've been doing it a long time.

I am trying.

 

[stu neville]

I believe these associations etc are largely coincidental.

Each of these languages have some strange characteristics and folk lore that can be interpreted to associate them with pyramids.

. And the other languages with which each hold a common - entirely disparate, by the way - root?

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

"Second Bruce: That's going to cause a little confusion."

The confusion of language gave rise to "belief" and religion.

Personally, I feel religion is a manifestation of humankind's imperfect attempts to understand creation.
Even today, the moment of universal creation aka the "Big Bang" is poorly understood and is shrouded in mysterious buzz-words such as "singularity".
Our ancient ancestors didn't have recourse to such a scientific lexicon and instead speculated as to gods, fertile Earth-mothers, dream-time animals and such like.

 

[mummyknave]

..and again, we need proof of this beyond your own hypotheses. You cannot possibly state that the ancient mind - fully as able as our own today - didn't recognise that thought, opinion and sense of self had tangible presence. What if the written language was as discrete from the vernacular as High Latin was from Vulgate?

All of these words, every one of them, are simply unattested. There are simply no words to express the concept that we call "thought".

The amount of writing in existence from the pyramid building age is miniscule. Indeed, there is only one single sentence positively identified as belonging to this era or earlier times; "Nefermaat is he who makes his gods in words that can not be erased.". My own opinion is that this is probably a title rather than a sentence.

No "cultural context" whatsoever actually exists. The reality is that a stelae from 19th century BC (1000 years AFTER the first great pyramid) has a list of kings and a list of the names of years, as well as censuses. But there are almost no sentences and what does exist is obviously from later. There is the Pyramid Texts which forms the basis of modern belief. Ironically our oldest version of the PT dates to a full century after the last great pyramid was built. However the PT is obviously far older and more ancient than this and had obviously developed over many centuries. Other than this there are just isolated words in tombs, labels, and the like. There are simply no words that denote or connote "thought". Yes, there are a few that could suggest conclusions of thought to the modern mind. Words like "love", "observation", and "understanding" do exist but I maintain that there are other means than "thought" to arrive at any of these "conclusions". For instance "understanding" is experienced on a visceral level once everything clicks.
I know why Egyptology never noted the absence of such words for "belief' you can't see what you don't expect. I've been at this for many years and it was only very recently that I noticed it!!!

I believe there were two languages at the time but none of these words survive.

 

[stu neville]

Our ancient ancestors didn't have recourse to such a scientific lexicon and instead speculated as to gods, fertile Earth-mothers, dream-time animals and such like

..reminiscent of Douglas Adams on why religion is like puddles:

Imagine a newly formed puddle waking and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.