Jon Ellison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So how did the designer communicate his complex
> design ideas (in his head) to the craft persons
> that were executing the finished blocks?

Nobody "designed" it. It wasn't "designed" at all.

They simply added blocks according to a set of a few simple rules and this is what they ended up with. At any given point even the mason himself didn't know what was next. He'd look at the stone shapes and select the one most easily cut into a shape that fit and followed these rules. The region nearly needed to be able to support the load above and to have a low natural frequency to match earthquakes.

> Again.. complex inter fitting shapes need a
> design as they cannot occur randomly.

Each merely needs most of its weight on something that easily supports it. This region was intended to change its shape without significant movement. This would limit the damage above by a strong lateral shock wave.

> No two
> blocks are identical but many are very similar.
> Also the similarity is carried over three distinct
> groups of blocks. Therefore they need a designer.
> A design/concept is a mental process ..(in the
> mind), how did the designer communicate his wishes
> (in his mind) to those carrying out the work?

...Through simple rules.

> I'm not sure that the G1 is the result of natural
> processes. It carries all the hallmarks of very
> intelligent design.

:)

It required a sort of "intelligence" to master the ancient language just as it requires a sort of intelligence to master modern language. Ancient people would have had a hard time distinguishing "intelligence" from "consciousness". Certainly they were aware that many people couldn't understand much language and couldn't remember all the "names" of things. Ones understanding of nature was the equivalent of the ability to manipulate language.

> I'm sorry but the linear and consistent and exact
> nature of the pyramid AP block work in no way
> resembles any natural process including bee hives
> or random background noise.

They are neither regular nor random. They merely follow simple rules. These rules should be the inventor's (of the rules) understanding of the nature of the earth itself and its stone configurations.

> What were the "simple rules"?
> You suggested that available block size and shape
> maybe a factor. Available blocks that repeat
> themselves in threes, three times over??? If that
> had been received by Seti it would cause
> considerable excitement.

I haven't put a lot of thought into this yet but, obviously one is that three or more stones tend to not join up in lines.

> Problem is how does a designer get the mental
> picture in his head (concept) transferred to the
> craftsmen in such a way as to allow them to
> execute the project, a very complex inter fitting
> project.

Again, you're picturing these exact stone placements as being the intention of the designer but this is not the case. He merely wanted a region that acted as one that was a low frequency and could be tuned.

> The only simple rule is to follow the designers
> drawing. A necessarily complex mathematical, three
> dimensional drawing. Not simple. Not piecemeal.
> Not cobbled together. No simple rules.
> Designed and executed with astonishing precision!

You might be right but I doubt you are.

Ask yourself what possible use such complexity could achieve and how the designed would have known how to design it. I am left believing this is a practical impossibility. They built like I build; knowing the function and but never knowing the step beyond the next. I don't sit down and draft up the simple rules I follow because I live these rules. Just like drafting a post I never know how I'm going to get there, just where I want to end up. I work toward that goal.

> I get the impression that you don't fully
> understand what's going on here.

> How does one accurately describe this to another
> person, without making an accurate
> blueprint/drawing in such a way that they can
> produce an exact copy of your mental/imagined
> picture.

You can't, it's practically impossible. ie- For all practical purposes it can not be done in any language.


> Even if the designer were also the block carver,
> carving the first block intuitively, freehand, how
> does he then carve the second interfitting block
> without the aid of a 'visual thought transfer
> device'. (A Drawing).
> I guess telepathy would help.

You just measure it. You measure what you want to put in.

> If you are saying that something existed that
> somehow replaced what we know today as a blueprint
> or a visual communication, telepathy, sixth sense,
> incredibly complex verbal instructions, then
> that's another matter.

No, thinking of it as complex communication would be misleading. Think of it as 100% effective communication in the sense that every listener hears the same thing and can repeat it to another without change. But it was no more adept at describing such complex shapes than our language. If they could be described then the listener would understand but they couldn't be described.

> However there has to be a means to transfer the
> concept to the production team. AKA a blueprint.

This is not even a requirement for me. I can take many routes to the same destination. Blueprints are fine but they convey limited information. Showing these stones in a blueprint wouldn't show their function nor the easiest means to achieve it.