atul.seth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What do we exactly mean by ancient civilizations?
> Is there any unique or common distinguishing
> feature other than remote timeline? Is it complex
> architecture, texts or language that we cannot
> cognize?

A few more thoughts for now.

I believe mankind shared a language/ science that was mutually intelligible save the numerous dialects. It was usually fairly easy to establish communication and to catch up on new discovery. "Civilization" was the type of behavior we recognize as leading to the ability to maintain "urban" enviroments which were technologically chiefly founded on agriculture. This required an economy and some specialization of activities. It likely originated in Africa and spread around the world after first passing through Egypt. Obviously advances could come from anywhere as there was extensive trading especially by the time of Mesopotamia and Egypt. The spread may have been rapid and effectively had multiple points of origin.

> So, is our brain
> or rather the sensory apparatus, normally,
> capable or tuned to distinguish between natural
> and artificial reality?

Reality hasn't changed but our relationship to it has. We once experienced it more directly but we now chiefly experience it through our knowledge and beliefs. We "know" reality second hand. Ancient people knew they couldn't experience it directly, amun was "hidden", but they watched the dance and tried to stay in step.

> Are there natural sensory limits to our
> understanding of the physical world by observation
> and experiments irrespective of advances in
> technology?

There are lots of "senses" which are untrained today.

> How Natural Process or Law’s “meaning” which
> operates in a dynamic 3d world can be encoded in a
> static 2d form (Hieroglyph, cuneiform)? How
> “Time” is accounted for in the 2d sign?

I don't believe "natural law" exists or can be encoded or otherwise be made effective in language. However knowledge is power and words (even modern language) can contain great power. This power must be expressed by some agency or machinery or effect behavior for the power to manifest. Ancient language could more directly manifest in action or event.

> What is the unknown process of information
> encoding & compression? What part is missing in a
> 2d sign to enable decoding? Is it property of
> “Time”?

I suspect that ancient language was manipulated by a different region of the brain. While a mutation was necessary to cause complex language, changing to modern language was simple will.

> What are the limits to such encoding? Is presence
> of higher phonetic alphabet size an indicator of
> higher levels of Universal science understanding
> and its encoding?

I'll have to think further about this.

> How natural sound units (language alphabets -
> phonemes, syllables) which operate in 3d are
> related to the 2d signs? Do they serve to
> replicate the underlying vibration frequency
> encoded in the sign/form?

Some vibrations probably are more natural for language. Indeed, I believe that much of the vocabulary and hence much of the "alphabet" pre-dated complex language. For instance the "M" sound usually appearing in the various modern words for "mother" likely originated from the sound newborns make while nursing. Even words for animals might relate sometimes to the sound they made or that humans made if caught by one. Sounds were "natural" but complex new ideas usually were given names highly descriptive of their meaning. These sound then might also be descriptive in some way of the complex idea.

> In this sense, are phonetic alphabets the decoding
> units and “speaking” “chanting” (adding
> time) the “right words” (proper sequence of
> alphabets) of ancient language in the right pitch
> and meter the decoding process in the brain to
> cognize using the auditory sense?
>
> Is the encoding & decoding process free from loss
> of information or there is a loss? What process of
> communication would ensure that there is zero
> loss? Perhaps a direct contact with reality
> without using sensory interface.
>
> As a final point, are the 2d signs similar to
> “snapshots” in time of natural laws?

Again, let me sleep on it.