The Gods Are Mad

[Floyd]

This place doesn't go in for generalised derogatory comments about a whole group of people.

Apart from people from Welwyn Garden City.

 

[Floyd]

I'm off for a lie down. I'm worn out now. A banging head too.

 

[mummyknave]

See right there at the end, in spite of all you've seen here, you played a dud hand. Nobody worth their salt would say that here. Reason is, well ... it is idiotic. Most Egyptologists become cautionary tales. It's true. Ask someone. It's true. It really really is.

Mebbe I shouldda phrased it differently; I have a great deal of respect for the expertise of almost every Egyptologist.

Some of them are remarkably ignorant of many things we take for granted. An uncomfortably large minority believe in magic and the power of superstition. Many come from very odd beliefs before they adopt Egyptology.

I consider most of them balanced and very "intelligent" but they are all experts and I never argue against expertise.

 

[stu neville]

I consider most of them balanced and very "intelligent" but they are all experts and I never argue against expertise.

So what've the past 270 posts been all in aid of?

 

[mummyknave]

So what've the past 270 posts been all in aid of?

I seek truth.

My earliest memories (other than various tactile and sensory memories) are trying to understand the nature of thought. In a very real sense this is what my entire life has been about and how I got to my current largely unenviable condition. I didn't think like other people even before I stumbled on how the great pyramids were actually built. Indeed, I might not have stumbled on it if I thought differently. Coming to understand that ancient people didn't think at all and had no words for "thought" provides many insights into the nature of thought but more especially how "thought" is quite distinct from "consciousness". I believe this is invisible from every perspective other than one that holds both experimental knowledge and ancient consciousness. Or in other words we'll never understand consciousness or humanity until we understand the nature of thought. Thought is the one thing that always had to be viewed from the inside until now.

I'm mostly seeking to get the public interested enough in these subjects to put pressure on Egyptology to use modern science. I'm seeking input to the theory and insights that I can incorporate into it. I want to see the redevelopment of ancient science in my lifetime. I would like to see proof that linear funiculars were used instead of waiting 50 years to hear everyone say "they mustta used funiculars".

I want Egyptology to get off the dime and do something. I want people to realize that there has been no science at Giza since Flinders Petrie shuffled off the mortal coil a very long time ago. I want people to realize that "Look and See Science" is not science at all. I want better education in the schools especially in metaphysics. I want a fixed language for use by philosophers so they can build on the work of past giants more easily.

I want machine intelligence since we have none.

I believe that one must know himself and his own "consciousness" and this will require a definition and a century of study.

The sooner we begin these things the sooner we can come to understand what the characteristics of a "golden age" might be. It's entirely possible a few centuries of work could bring us to one and the alternative might be extinction.

Egyptologists are running block on everything but each Egyptologist makes perfect sense in terms of his premises. All of their premises are wrong and they are impeding progress.

 

[stu neville]

My earliest memories (other than various tactile and sensory memories) are trying to understand the nature of thought.

Mine is my mum shrieking at me not to eat an earwig. Funny how things turn out, eh?

Coming to understand that ancient people didn't think at all and had no words for "thought"

And, given that you say the language is untranslatable, you know this how?

in other words we'll never understand consciousness or humanity until we understand the nature of thought. Thought is the one thing that always had to be viewed from the inside until now.

You'd really think somebody should look into that.

I want to see the redevelopment of ancient science in my lifetime. I would like to see proof that linear funiculars were used instead of waiting 50 years to hear everyone say "they mustta used funiculars".

Serious question: given that science, correctly applied, is an impartial tool to evaluate hypotheses by means of observation and experiment, and drawing conclusions based on where the evidence leads, what would you do if "modern science" evaluates your theory and concludes that funiculars were not used? Would you then accept it?

 

[Floyd]

So what've the past 270 posts been all in aid of?

You just had to ask, didn't you.

 

[bugmum]

I want people to realize that "Look and See Science" is not science at all.

So you want us to just make it all up?

I don't think the peer reviewers are going to like that one little bit.

 

[Amergin]

Mebbe I shouldda phrased it differently; I have a great deal of respect for the expertise of almost every Egyptologist.

Some of them are remarkably ignorant of many things we take for granted. An uncomfortably large minority believe in magic and the power of superstition. Many come from very odd beliefs before they adopt Egyptology.

I consider most of them balanced and very "intelligent" but they are all experts and I never argue against expertise.

Some, on the other hand, are just so out-there and cool, that nothing more need be said:

https://instagram.com/vintage_egyptologist?utm_medium=copy_link

 

[mummyknave]

And, given that you say the language is untranslatable, you know this how?

The language is untranslatable.

Words are far more translatable.

There is simply no word that means or implies "thinking". This would suggest they did not experience "thought". They did perceive they were "thinking" or they would have a word for it.

This is what they said instead of "He thought about it";

232a. It is he who is come against N., (though) N. does not go against him;
232b. the second moment after he saw N., the second moment after he perceived N.

Serious question: given that science, correctly applied, is an impartial tool to evaluate hypotheses by means of observation and experiment, and drawing conclusions based on where the evidence leads, what would you do if "modern science" evaluates your theory and concludes that funiculars were not used? Would you then accept it?

Of course. But there is no science in Egyptology and it's not reasonable to think they are going to start now.

I believe a second year engineering intern could prove funiculars in a single season. I was able to debunk ramps a decade ago without ever leaving Indiana.

 

[mummyknave]

So you want us to just make it all up?

I don't think the peer reviewers are going to like that one little bit.

Here's a current example.

https://i.imgur.com/4Amj9Pa.jpg[img]

[ATTACH type="full"]53098[/ATTACH]

[MEDIA=youtube]dM3kpOF8ews[/MEDIA]

This guy looks and sees everything he believes about pyramids including a spiral ramp all the way to the top despite the impossibility of constructing such a thing. It doesn't matter to him. He sees people who think and are very superstitious and primitive. By the same token I see linear funiculars and ancient metaphysicians.

The difference here is that the dat support my theory and NOT his. You can see the stones came up n the south *(bottom) side and were laid sequentially from right to left exactly as my theory predicts. His ramp was impossible to build and ramps are debunked anyway because the pyramid is stepped underneath.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I believe a second year engineering intern could prove funiculars in a single season. I was able to debunk ramps a decade ago without ever leaving Indiana

This is the way forward. Now all you have to do is get in there and do two years as an engineering intern to prove your point.
Should be a doddle as you’ve already been labouring the point for years here without any progress.

 

[stu neville]

You just had to ask, didn't you.

Yeah. I'd hate all this to just, you know, hang there unresolved.

There is simply no word that means or implies "thinking". This would suggest they did not experience "thought". They did perceive they were "thinking" or they would have a word for it.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The narrative you cite may not include thought as thought as a concept is irrelevant to the narrative.

Of course. But there is no science in Egyptology and it's not reasonable to think they are going to start now.

So no, then. You won't be satisfied until you're proven right. Take Analogue Boy's advice above and do it - we'll listen then. Until then, I'm afraid this carousel will just keep spinning.

 

[Frideswide]

Some, on the other hand, are just so out-there and cool, that nothing more need be said:

I think I am in LURVE!

 

[Amergin]

I think I am in LURVE!

And she’s the real deal! Check out her Wikipedia page:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_Darnell

 

[maximus otter]

Some, on the other hand, are just so out-there and cool, that nothing more need be said:

https://instagram.com/vintage_egyptologist?utm_medium=copy_link

She’s now my second favourite Egyptologist, after Rachel Weisz in The Mummy.

maximus otter

 

[Frideswide]

She’s now my second favourite Egyptologist, after Rachel Weisz in The Mummy.

But... but... SHE'S MINE!!!!!!!!!

 

[mummyknave]

She’s now my second favourite Egyptologist, after Rachel Weisz in The Mummy.

maximus otter

I love Kathleen Martinez and the passion and energy that she brings to the field;

It's almost like Egyptology isn't long dead in a 19th century rut.

 

[mummyknave]

So no, then. You won't be satisfied until you're proven right.

They are NEVER going to prove me or anyone else right or wrong. Egyptology refuses to even gather the evidence necessary to form hypothesis. It's not really possible they'll ever test theory or perform experiment.

We'll only know "they mustta used ramps" till the end of time or Egyptology is removed from Giza.

 

[maximus otter]

But... but... SHE'S MINE!!!!!!!!!

maximus otter

 

[Frideswide]

maximus otter

You know, I nearly used that one!

 

[Floyd]

They are NEVER going to prove me or anyone else right or wrong. Egyptology refuses to even gather the evidence necessary to form hypothesis. It's not really possible they'll ever test theory or perform experiment.

We'll only know "they mustta used ramps" till the end of time or Egyptology is removed from Giza.

What do you think to the 'poured concrete' theory? https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23iht-pyramid.1.12259608.html

 

[stu neville]

Right then. To summarise -

I seek truth.

Don't we all. However, you think differently from most of us:

I didn't think like other people even before I stumbled on how the great pyramids were actually built.

..the latest in a lengthy line of such recipients of inspiration..

Indeed, I might not have stumbled on it if I thought differently.

...you thinking being that the Ancient Egyptian civilisation, utilised funiculars despite:

Coming to understand that ancient people didn't think at all

A bit patronising. Without thought how did they build, make, sow, harvest, write, create or settle anything or anywhere? But you have apparently gleaned this insight from ancient writings despite the fact that:

The language is untranslatable.

..which actually means it doesn't say what you want it to say. And despite your frequent cri-de-couer about modern science and Egyptology not testing your theory, if it did so and proved you wrong your reaction would be:

They are NEVER going to prove me or anyone else right or wrong.

You will only accept the answer you want to hear. You'll move the goalposts, shift the argument parameters, contradict yourself repeatedly (often in the same paragraph), make Barnum statements and above all just put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" to any serious attempt at analysis of your theory. You just want us to accept your idea as groundbreaking and revolutionary.

Well, sorry. Fortean means examining fringe ideas, not just swallowing them wholesale. If you want to properly engage, and we can progress, feel free. If you're just going to continue going round and round, then this really isn't the forum for you.

 

[What Tyler]

Oh Jesus Christ.

I give up.

You deserve a medal Sir- imho- you’ve fought long and hard and tried your best... now step away- this way madness lies!!

 

[Mythopoeika]

Funiculars. Hmmm.
The earliest known funicular was built in the early 19th century. They really depend upon the availability of steel cables to exist at all.
But it's an interesting thought.

 

[mummyknave]

Funiculars. Hmmm.
The earliest known funicular was built in the early 19th century. They really depend upon the availability of steel cables to exist at all.
But it's an interesting thought.

Modern funiculars are dependent not only on steel cable but steel pulleys and modern bearings as well. But modern funicular bend the cable 180 degrees in two places and that would be very hard on rope. It could be done and ancient rope was strong enough but the system would be unwieldy, low capacity, and would chew up ropes in days.

The funicular I'm proposing was used on every great pyramid (at least two were used on each) was a linear funicular. It had a single dedicated sled for the stones and another single dedicated sled for the counterweight. It moved in a straight line looking at it from above. It moved to and fro. The counterweight slid down one side of the pyramid and a sled full of stones was pulled up the other side. After the system was reset it did this over and over lifting ~20 ton loads.

The ropes bent only 70 degrees at the edges of the pyramid so they could last for months.

 

[mummyknave]

...modern science and Egyptology not testing your theory...

You misunderstood something or other. I love modern science. I've considered myself a scientists since I was three years old and a metaphysician at five.

Modern science and reason are the only tools we have at this time to seek the truth.

Egyptology is no kind of science at all. It is inert, insular, and uncaring about scientific knowledge or the scientific method. It stands foursquare in favor of the power of superstition being harnessed to build pyramids and studying them with their backs turned to them. If they can't prove that ramps were used to build the pyramids they are currently shifting gears to show how the pyramids built Egypt.

It sounds incredible but it is the case and it is embarrassing.

Egyptology has gone to hell since Flinders Petrie left.

 

[mummyknave]

What do you think to the 'poured concrete' theory? https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23iht-pyramid.1.12259608.html

I'm sure there's something to it but I believe more than 98% of the Great Pyramid is natural limestone. Most of the rest is granite.

There are some confounding factors here. Not only did the Egyptians make a pretty good calcium carbonate mortar but they made other mortars as well. There is also natural "travertine" deposited from the geysers in various places in the pyramid. While there are quite possibly more man made stones than apparent, it seems improbable they would go to the effort to turn limestone into cement for use instead of stone.
I also recognize that we simply don't know how a great deal of stone working was done here and all over the world. That some of it involves cement or softening shouldn't be ruled out until there are plausible hypotheses and a lot more data. Few people realize just how little data have ever been collected at Giza. I don't know the situation at other sites but Egyptology simply is afraid of the great pyramids.

 

[stu neville]

You misunderstood something or other.

Clearly.

I love modern science. I've considered myself a scientists since I was three years old and a metaphysician at five....Modern science and reason are the only tools we have at this time to seek the truth.

OK. This what you need to do: re-read all of the interactions you've had here and elsewhere and pick out the common objections and counter-arguments. Take time to collate a direct, focused and non-self-contradictory reply to each. Then come back to us, as at the moment we are all just wasting time and energy.

If you can do that then maybe we'll finally make some progress.

 

[skinny]

Egypt happened Millenia ago. The peak of that intellect preceded you and me and all we are by thousands. To understand it you have to respect age and ancient agency.

I do not feel you’re in touch with either. Just me?