Floyd
Antediluvian
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2019
- Messages
- 7,960
Apart from people from Welwyn Garden City.This place doesn't go in for generalised derogatory comments about a whole group of people.
Apart from people from Welwyn Garden City.This place doesn't go in for generalised derogatory comments about a whole group of people.
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.
So what've the past 270 posts been all in aid of?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?
Mine is my mum shrieking at me not to eat an earwig. Funny how things turn out, eh?My earliest memories (other than various tactile and sensory memories) are trying to understand the nature of thought.
And, given that you say the language is untranslatable, you know this how?Coming to understand that ancient people didn't think at all and had no words for "thought"
You'd really think somebody should look into that.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.
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?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".
You just had to ask, didn't you.So what've the past 270 posts been all in aid of?
So you want us to just make it all up?I want people to realize that "Look and See Science" is not science at all.
Some, on the other hand, are just so out-there and cool, that nothing more need be said: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.
And, given that you say the language is untranslatable, you know this how?
Of course. But there is no science in Egyptology and it's not reasonable to think they are going to start now.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?
Here's a current example.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.
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.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
Yeah. I'd hate all this to just, you know, hang there unresolved.You just had to ask, didn't you.
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.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.
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.Of course. But there is no science in Egyptology and it's not reasonable to think they are going to start now.
Some, on the other hand, are just so out-there and cool, that nothing more need be said:
And she’s the real deal! Check out her Wikipedia page:I think I am in LURVE!
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.
She’s now my second favourite Egyptologist, after Rachel Weisz in The Mummy.
maximus otter
So no, then. You won't be satisfied until you're proven right.
maximus otter
What do you think to the 'poured concrete' theory? https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23iht-pyramid.1.12259608.htmlThey 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.
Don't we all. However, you think differently from most of us:I seek truth.
..the latest in a lengthy line of such recipients of inspiration..I didn't think like other people even before I stumbled on how the great pyramids were actually built.
...you thinking being that the Ancient Egyptian civilisation, utilised funiculars despite:Indeed, I might not have stumbled on it if I thought differently.
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:Coming to understand that ancient people didn't think at all
..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:The language is untranslatable.
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.They are NEVER going to prove me or anyone else right or wrong.
You deserve a medal Sir- imho- you’ve fought long and hard and tried your best... now step away- this way madness lies!!Oh Jesus Christ.
I give up.
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 science and Egyptology not testing your theory...
What do you think to the 'poured concrete' theory? https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23iht-pyramid.1.12259608.html
Clearly.You misunderstood something or other.
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.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.