Manu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Reconstructing your effort I think this must have
> started with the insight that fifth dynasty pyramid builders...

There were no "pyramid" builders in the 5th dynasty.

The last real pyramid was G2 (Khafre's) in the 4th dynasty.

After this they build "little" G3 and then tiny little piles of rubble called "pyramids" by Egyptology.

> ... wanted to record their methods
> with the Pyramid texts, a much more plausible
> intent (to your thinking that is) than simply
> listing a series of magic formulas as can be found
> in the later Book of the Dead...

The PT are no record of anything at all. They are merely a 5th dynasty redacted version of the rituals read at the kings' ascension ceremonies. These rituals had been written over many centuries and had become tradition. Ancient people weren't superstitious but they certainly cared about ceremony, ritual, and tradition. They also cared about the past and future while people today can't see past the current fiscal quarter. They would destroy the planet to double their profits for the quarter.

But these rituals were expressed in a different kind of language with a different kind of formatting. Rather than being an expression of beliefs phrased in terms of abstractions they were expressions of knowledge that implied the thinking of the author. We format in abstraction and statement that has no relationship to science but they formatted in context and in known theory that was closely tied to reality itself through 40,000 years of human science. In this science cause and effect as well as reality itself were axiomatic rather than objects of study through experimentation.

> ...You had previously
> tackled the engineering problem and concluded that
> ramps could not have been used.

Yes and no.

A lifetime of experience taught me humans could never have concentrated so much labor at a single place as was required to construct a pyramid.

It was only later I accumulated the sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts and logic to show ramps could not have been used. The first was visceral knowledge and the second is much more empirical and logical.

> ...Either you thought
> of the funnicular system first and then verified
> it as per your reading of the pyramid texts (ie
> you read that into the texts)...

When I realized they could not have built the pyramid with brute force and savagery I first came up with the idea that they had a motive force and this motive force was probably the weight of water. This all happened within mere seconds after seeing an aerial picture of G1 with a bus at the bottom.

This was July of '06 and I believed a few minutes googling would show I was wrong but I just kept finding confirmation instead. A wise man told me in '07 that I could never understand the pyramid builders until I understood the PT. Boy, was he right! I knew almost immediately that these folk didn't think like Egyptologists and after 11 years I'm starting to understand how they did "think" a little bit. But keep in mind that to truly "understand" their "thinking" you need to be Dr Dolittle. All I can do is interpret their thinking like one might interpret his dog or baby. The difference being the builders meant exactly what they said and were far more verbal then pets.

> ...or you read the
> texts and then derived that meaning. You may have
> been subject to confirmation bias.

Of course!!!

And I seem to be the only person in the world who can see he's subject to circular reasoning. Indeed, this is the one thing in which everyone seems to be total agreement; that I'm the only one in the world suffering confirmation bias.

Meanwhile Egyptologists keep saying "they mustta used ramps", "ya' gotta be crazy to not believe in ramps", and "they didn't need the word "ramp" to build them. How can anyone really believe that a culture that lacked words of cognition think like we do?!?? Most of us use such words in every sentence but none of them even existed in Ancient Language.

Obviously there is a fundamental difference between their language and ours so obviously such fundamental differences in language necessarily reflects a fundamental difference in thinking. It is remarkable that people today just want to gloss over such facts and logic. It is remarkable that I can solve how the pyramids were built yet people refuse to even so much as consider the solution because they are too busy picking apart my words when they're not too busy parsing the Pyramid Texts.

What words do I use? I've tried saying things like in my opinion they used the weight of water but opinion carries no more ability to communicate than anything I've tried. All the evidence supports this theory and this just seems to make people mad. I guess it's not fair to people to know they mustta used ramps and then all the evidence clearly shows they used the weight of water to lift stones straight up the side. Mebbe I'd be mad, too if the shoe were on the other stinky foot.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20-May-18 17:26 by cladking.