This thread started with your claim that our "standard" view of human history was flawed because it missed the earlier development of "civilization" (fixed settlements, basically). One branch of evidence brought up fairly early was ancient stone working technology particularly as demonstrated by pre-dynastic Egyptian hard stone vase. These topics are entirely supported or not based on physical evidence behind. Even the related claims of "lost advanced technology" (whether it be stone softening or CNC-like machining) are based on *physical* methods that we either didn't know the ancients had or even we don't have. Again, these are physical technologies, whether we are talking about lathes or anti-gravity lift machines. They are not related to mystical experiences or the like. As such ancient spirituality is *not* relevant to these discussions. There are people who study ancient religion, spirituality, etc., but that is a different topic than what technologies the ancients had. That is why it is not on topic here. Every thread can't be about every thing.
And I explained this several times. I did not begin with the physical sciences. It was more philosophical about how the orthodoxy was flawed. Thats a epistemic issue of philosophy of science and not physical science.
I mentioned that it was a natural extension that looking at specific examples like the vases may help show that there is lost advanced knowledge and tech. We have probably dedicated most of the thread to this. Though there is a large chunk on what exactly is that knowledge and tech which is epistemics. They cannot be seperated when your talking about what the knowledge and tech represents as far as the epistemics. How they came to know.
But all along I was saying that we can go over specific examples forever and this won't really settle whether there was advanced tech and knowledge. I have shown several examples that support lost advanced knowledge and its been rejected.
So therefore we come back to the actual possibility in the first place of whether such alternative and advanced knowledge is possible and how knowledge can be arrived at through other means besides material reductionist science.
No, 'mind over matter' is motivational speaker pablum and not scientific.
See this is where we disagree. We have evidence of mind over matter. Is that not science. I mean we live that just about every day.
I know how desperately you want to overthrow "scientific materialism"
Material science describes a certain aspect of reality. I never said that it is unnecessary or needs to be eliminated. Just the belief that its the ontological truth for everything.
and the operational paradigm of science (methodological naturalism), but this just isn't the place.
That you call it an operational paradigm shows that its but one paradigm in how we see the world, nature and reality. Therefore its the very place to discuss these other paradigms if we are to truely work out what is knowledge.
Discussions of the fundamental nature of reality are not on topic for a thread on ancient human civilization.
Isn't it ironic. The one and only paradigm that the ancients existed in is being disregarded and thus leaving just one option but methological naturalism and materialism by extension when being used to dismiss the alternative knowledge.
You have more or less done exactly what I am pointing out is the problem with material science being used this way. That is dismiss all other ways of knowing in a thread that is seeking to understand those alternative ways and demand only one way of knowing. Thus begging the question.
Even if we accepted that claim what would it get you? That we have souls? I don't see how that changes early civilization or stone working technology.
No I am thinking more fundementally. That people stop trying to force their epistemic and metaphysical beliefs on others. Admit that there is a good possibility that there is this alternative knowledge such as belief, souls and spirituality or consciousness beyond brain.
Or at least admit that they have no way of disproving it and be open to the possibility. INstead of dismissing this out of hand.l Thats the honest approach anyway without the preconscieved beliefs in pushing material naturalism over all else.
This would completely change the thread to something more reasonable.
I would posit that I have at least as much direct experience with nature (and far more knowledge of reality) than even the common folk of Egypt.
The problem is and your not getting this is that its not just about contact or observational science. Its actually experiential and direct which requires the openness to what is beyond the material to even enter that space. If you could call it space.
You disbelieve so you already have an epistemic and ontological blinker and wall to even enter that domain.
We must remember the fundamental reality of ancient Egypt (pre-dynastic, 4th dynasty, etc.): It was an urban civilization with extensive agriculture. The whole of the civilization was a bunch of cities and farms squeezed along the Nile River by the vast extents of inhospitable desert. The rulers, priests, stone artisans, and pyramid architects were city dwellers. That is no different that what I grew up in -- surrounded by farms with the occasional bit of woods and nearby cities. If anything I have *more* and more varied access to nature than the typical Egyptian. As for experience with reality, I've seen the rings of Saturn and the organelles of paramecia with my own eyes and no Egyptian (or any ancient person) knew they even existed.
Except and this is not just for the Egyptians. But the entire paradigm and worldview that the ancients were immersed in was transcedent. It was either through deep beliefs in transcedent aspects or spirits or gods. Or some sort of meditation. mind states that transcedended the material world.
This is what I mean by material science looking from the outside in. The ancients having an experiential immersion in nature and reality became part of what scientists today are looking at from the outside.
They actually experienced or came closer to the actual nature naturalism is trying to understand. Its more a experience or mind state that allows the knowledge rather than intelligence building through the acciquistion of knowledge.
Reminder. This is spectualtion. It is my attempt to explain how the ancient mindset and knowledge was that brought them this advanced understanding. The physical out of place examples are the results. But its not just physical.
What even is "alternative knowledge". Most of the times I see that phrase it is from people who just don't want to deal with reality.
Yes this is the atheistic and materialistic view of alternative knowledge. Because the only true knowledge is material ie matter, particles, forces and fields. There is nothing else and even the alternative knowledge is the byproduct of the material.
I'm going to give you grace and assume that you are talking about these more speculative theories that your favorite YT
What is YT lol.
channels propose (about ancient megalith builders, advanced machining of vases, etc.) are ONLY going to be demonstrated with actual physical evidence, not any of these mind/behavior things.
Yes those specific investigators mainly look at the physical evidence of out of place stuff. But that also includes maths and geometry and other ideas about transcedent beliefs that were associated with some of those practices. You cannot seperate them out as this is part of how they claim to have achieved their knowledge.
You're not going to get away with rejecting methodological naturalism in the *physical science* section. If that's what you mean by "alternative knowledge" then you are on the wrong sub-forum.
No I am not rejecting methodological naturalism but its abuse. Its use to snuff out alternative knowledge. Thats when it becomes a belief and not science.
It certainly is, but the things you just wrote are a literal rejection of science.
Not thats you belief. Your assumption.
Good because simulation theory is dumb and not part of science. It is the kind of nonsense whipped up by rich tech bros while high.
The idea may be spectualtive but the basis is solid science.
