I would like to explore an alternate view of human history. Moreso a few tangents from a general theme of alternate history. The generally accepted idea is that culture, and really the possibility for historical development, began around 10,000 years ago, or a bit more or less depending on how you look at it. And then it's been steadily, or exponentially , growing from there. Now this is absolutely the standard view which almost all share. And it can be difficult to even allow for any other possibility. But I think it is at the very least interesting to think about, whatever probability you give to its reality. Before we get into presentations of this theme, let's just think about one thing. One thing that is also a fact, yet people don't seem to think too much about the strangeness of it. Physiologically modern humans have existed well over a hundred thousand years, generally given an approximate date between 150-250 thousand years ago. These humans were no different than us, physically speaking. And that includes brain size and structure. And so we're saying that for, say 180,000 years, they did almost nothing. They weren't much above animals, a bit better adapted, in terms of planning capabilities and tool production. Then all the sudden, they start moving into towns with increasing agricultural proficiency, language begins developing and being written; and all of the sudden, you get everything that we think of when we say human. And over 10,000 years, about 5% of the time which modern humans have been on earth, we get to where we are, something wholly different in almost every conceivable way, minus our physical makeup, which was identical the whole time. Now, there is one specific idea that is perhaps inextricably bound to almost any framework which presents this theme. And that is that there was an advanced civilization which was destroyed approximately 12,000 years ago. Now, to share some specifics, this was the end of a glacial period on the planet. During this time, it seems that a comet hit the earth, wreaking havoc. Now also at this time there was massive collapse of ice structures on the planet, causing a drastic rise of sea levels. So first of all, just think about it for a minute. Isn't it a bit odd and coincidental that almost immediately proceeding this cataclysmic event, all of the sudden human culture just takes off? Isn't it at least reasonable to consider the interesting alternate possibility that this cataclysmic event ended a previous civilization, and what we consider the dawn of civilization is actually the remnants of the previous civilization attempting to rebuild? One fascinating thing to note, is that Plato's account of Atlantis dates its fall precisely corresponding to the time in which all that I have described occurred. It is interesting to think that the near Universal idea in ancient religion of some sort of a cataclysmic event, be it a flood or otherwise, may be the poeticizing of lingering memories of this real event which destroyed an advanced civilization. Another thing you should consider. Even everything we have built in our civilization. Were our continued usage and maintenance taken out of the picture, for one reason or another, it would all dissolve in a blink of earth's time, particularly after cataclysmic events. And in this future, they would not so easily discover our existence. Now, getting into the esoteric, this was an idea that I became familiar with through reading the Secret Doctrine of Theosophy. And when I read it, it just truly fascinated me. The idea here is in fact that the world's history is full of civilizations rising and falling. That it is in fact a repetitious and cyclical, although from a larger perspective evolutionary, process. Civilization rises to great heights, and then it is thrown down, generally through radical processes which occur periodically in nature. And then it begins again. And so this previous collapse of around 12,000 years ago was just the most recent, in this framework. Now, I am just going to focus on that one aspect of the Theosophic idea, because the totality of their idea is really drastic and frankly strange to normative sensibilities, and really falls out of anything I want to discuss. Anyways, whichever way you look at this idea, I find it extremely thought-provoking, and plausible, from different angles.
Advancement use to take thousands of years. Hundreds of years. A few decades. Once machines can upgrade themselves (artificial intelligence) things will change in seconds. But would geniuses ever trust themselves to pull that thread knowing the risks?
My question would be, is there any justification for the assumption that we are at the pinnacle of human achievement?
Who's assumption is that? EDIT; I may of misread, are you saying that it's an assumption to think that modern day humans have achieved more than pre-modern humans, or are you saying that it's an assumption to think that modern day humans have already achieved all that they can achieve? Because if it's the first, then there obviously is justification in ''assuming'' that modern day humans have achieved much more than our pre-modern ancestors, because there is no evidence to suggest that our pre-modern ancestors were anywhere near our stage of development, therefore it's rational to ''assume'' that they weren't.
I finished reading Fingerprints of the Gods by Graham Hancock a few months back, and it was based on the same idea of lost civilizations/alternate history. Interesting book.
Damn my long response didnt go through, so I shall start over and keep it short this time. The question I would ask is "what evidence should we expect?", considering a global cataclysm roughly 12,000 years ago. Physical evidence would be unlikely to survive that long, but ancient myths could serve as clues. They could be degraded stories that had a real basis. But the assumption that they were not advanced immediately causes one to disregard that possibility. It would also disregard the Great Pyramid as nothing more than an architectural marvel. Some even try to push the tomb hypothesis, but why? Because they assume they were not intelligent enough to construct this megalith for some greater purpose? Building that marvel as a tomb is a dogmatic assertion, simply because we dont know why it was built or its function. The assumption requires ridiculous hypothesis to ignore such anomolies. Maybe it was just a useless mound of rocks, but that is not rational.
The question I would ask is "what evidence should we expect?", considering a global cataclysm roughly 12,000 years ago. Physical evidence would be unlikely to survive that long, but ancient myths could serve as clues. We should expect at least a healthy amount of evidence of advanced pre-modern societies equal/superior to us, if we are to believe in advanced pre-modern societies equal/superior to us, plus, we have archaeological evidence that pre-dates 10,000BC (12,000 years ago), that did survive through these so-called ''cataclysmic'' conditions. Your original assertion; ''There isn't any justification for believing that modern humans are more advanced than pre-modern humans'' rests on a negative (an unprovable), like the teapot orbiting Saturn's rings, or mermaids, and there is obviously justification in assuming that both of these things are myths, the same goes for what you're trying to say. EDIT; Also, if there was an ancient civilization that were as advanced, or more advanced than we are, then why wouldn't there be traces of them in outer Space (Satellites, Space Stations, New technology etc)? These things wouldn't have been affected by the ''cataclysmic'' events on Earth, right? Or did they have no need for such technology, because they were so ''advanced''?.. I mean, there's no reason to assume that we are the most advanced group of Human beings to ever walk the Earth, other than all of the evidence to suggest that we are, and all of the absent evidence to suggest that we aren't. They could be degraded stories that had a real basis. What ancient myth describes any kind of civilization that we could read about and say; ''They were more advanced than us!''? Myths originate in mystery, mystery was most prevalent before the invention of Science, and they are altered through the ''Chinese-whispering'' nature of exchanging stories verbally. But the assumption that they were not advanced immediately causes one to disregard that possibility. Now you're jumping between two camps, I don't think that anybody would deny that there were civilizations that could be considered relatively ''advanced'', but that they were more ''advanced'' than we are is a baseless thought to have. It would also disregard the Great Pyramid as nothing more than an architectural marvel. Some even try to push the tomb hypothesis, but why? Because they assume they were not intelligent enough to construct this megalith for some greater purpose? Building that marvel as a tomb is a dogmatic assertion, simply because we dont know why it was built or its function. The assumption requires ridiculous hypothesis to ignore such anomolies. They weren't building the pyramids for the sake of ''architecture'' alone, obviously they had a reason beyond that, most likely a spiritual one, likewise the people who constructed Stone henge probably did so for the sake of holding some Pagan ceremony every now and again, but honestly, I think that the shed in your garden probably has a more useful ''function'' than the pyramids have.
Precisely, your assumption leads you to say the pyramid had little or no useful function. Again this assumption also REQUIRES you to believe mythologies were inherently grown up religions based upon fairy tales. When we know religions are based off if actual events which are subsequently misunderstood. Just as the chinese whisper would suggest! Also, there is pleny of evidence for not only an earthly cataclysm, but a one that affected the solar system. Evidence of massive cratering of the inner solar system. If you look at Saturns moon Iapetus, it has an albedo of 0.05 on one side and 0.5 on the other side. Iapetus also has an incredibly long rotation period (79earth days). This suggests whatever caused the black cratering occurred in a single incident before it had time to rotate. Van Flandern's exploded planet hypothesis accounts for Titus-Bowde laws 'missing planet', accounts for comets and asteroids, cratering rates and anomolies such as Iapetus, all in a single hypothesis. The hypothesis leaves open the possibility that planets may naturally explode or artificially destroyed. Traditional models require an ad hoc explanation for each problem, comets, asteroids, cratering rates, and Iapetus. And additional hypothesis to explain the two+ distinctly different types of asteroids. They have to assume an Oort cloud to explain why we still have comets, when they should have all burned up in the early solar system. I could go on and on, but the point is, that assumption rules out any possibility that past advanced civilizations could account for a broad spectrum of phenomenon. Or consider the supposed artifacts on Mars, this could be further evidence but such an assumption again REQUIRES you to disregard such evidence since it falsifies many science models (which also have simpler explanations). The evidence is there, most people are just waiting for their scientific authorities to admit their models are insufficient to account for the data. Meanwhile, anything that points toward an alternative view of history, must be rejected in the mind before the data is examined. I am not telling you to believe me, I am suggesting you to consider the possibility and dont be too hasty to claim your assumption is the more rational choice. It requires a shitload more ad hoc hypothesis (with no evidence), to prop up your 'rational assumption'.
Btw you say I asserted that there is no justification etc, no I asked a question, that is not an assertion. Again your reason boils down to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". So I ask what evidence should we expect? You say space stations and satellites etc. Again this assumes their entry into space should follow the same progression as our modern attempt, starting with chemical rockets. Why? Why do you assume they would have satellites? If they did, would we still expect them to be in orbit? How long will our current satellites remain in orbit? And yes we do have some remaining artifacts from at least 12,000 years ago. The only ones i am aware of are made of stone, thats all that survived. If our world was destroyed and only our large stone monuments would remain. That leaves us with what, Mt. Rushmore? A few thousand years after that people would assume the four faces must have been some religious deities we knuckledraggers were worshipping. Have you ever seen the show i think it was 'life after people' showing how quickly all the evidence of our advances civilization would relatively quickly be consumed by weathering/erosion etc, and all that would be left is our stone monuments? http://lifeafterpeople.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_collapses scroll down to 10,000 years and below, which are the few bits that would endure.
History as currently written is very inaccurate. It's generally a western thing, and they have no idea that asian cultures have written history for about 50,000 years, including some middle eastern cultures. China has hemp rope that was tied to make language, it explains that before agriculture, man was mostly into fishing, hunting, and gathering. Turkey (formerly ottoman empire), says that hunting tribes split nearly 50000 years ago, saying northern Asians and Turkish people were once the same hunting tribes, split off and evolved to its land. There's more, but I'm on a cellphone.
Precisely, your assumption leads you to say the pyramid had little or no useful function. North, it isn't that hard to comprehend how some assumptions are reasonable, and others aren't. The fact that there is no coherent reason to think that the Pyramids serve or did serve any ''higher'' function because there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they do or did, is not an ''assumption'' that is unreasonable, on the other hand, the assumption that the Pyramids do or did serve any ''higher'' function is an unreasonable one, in that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they do or did serve any ''higher'' function. Okay? Again this assumption also REQUIRES you to believe mythologies were inherently grown up religions based upon fairy tales. When we know religions are based off if actual events which are subsequently misunderstood. No, I put Mythology in the same category as Religion, the only difference I see between the two is the amount of followers that subscribe to them. Also, we don't know that Religions are ''based off of actual events which are subsequently misunderstood'' at all, pardon me for pointing it out, but you're talking out of your ass, stop it please. Just as the chinese whisper would suggest! Tut.. All the Chinese-whisper remark was meant to infer was that stories are gradually changed through verbal exchanges. Also, there is pleny of evidence for not only an earthly cataclysm, but a one that affected the solar system. I didn't even deny that there might of been damage sustained by the Earth through a comet intrusion, what I wanted to know was why 12,000 years was enough to destroy all the evidence of an advanced society and not of societies that pre-date 10,000 BC too? Btw you say I asserted that there is no justification etc, no I asked a question, that is not an assertion. It was implied, there isn't enough of a difference between an ''assertion'' and an ''implication'' for you to quibble over it. Again your reason boils down to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". So I ask what evidence should we expect? Er, yeah, ''absence of evidence'' is actually ''evidence of absence'', especially in this case, because you're talking about physical evidence left on Earth, why do you have difficulty with that? If you tell me that Unicorns exist on Earth, and we examine every inch of the Earth with no evidence that Unicorns are anywhere, there is no reason to think that ''absence of evidence'' doesn't amount to ''evidence of absence''. In fact, it would be incoherent and stupid not to think that. . Again this assumes their entry into space should follow the same progression as our modern attempt, starting with chemical rockets. Why? Why do you assume they would have satellites? If they did, would we still expect them to be in orbit? So you're saying, ''Yes'', to my third question. And yes we do have some remaining artifacts from at least 12,000 years ago. The only ones i am aware of are made of stone, thats all that survived. And does that imply either that the only Artifacts around were one's made of stone? Or that there must of been an advanced society who's entire catalogue of Artifacts were unfortunately destroyed? Despite how they surely had materials much more durable and sturdier than mere stone? .
Again, you assume the pyramid is not special because we have no evidence that it is special. Well, if it was used for something beyond our technology, how would you expect to find evidence? Circular reasoning at its best. You assume it cant be a technology, so there is no reason to investigate. I say its possible, so we should investigate. The former is dogma the latter is science. I dont assume it did or didnt, id prefer being open to either. Okay would you like to dispute the origins of religions? The difference is, religions are less ridiculous because the events are more recent... reference chinese whisper, which backs up my point again. Mythologies are more ridiculous because the stories are further removed in time. In regards to 10,000 b.c. remains, yes, as I said, you have very little remains. One we have because it was intentionally buried before the catastrophy. Otherwise, as the link points out, all you should find after 10,000 years are large stone structures. No i didnt assert or imply, you are conciously or not, assuming I am defending my worldview. My worldview is not a solid structure, i am not arrogant enough to claim we have all the answers. I call into question the assumptions of people who have a rigid worldview, which implies you believe we know enough to definitely determine the past. I admit what we think we know could be wrong (science), if your beliefs are rigid, its a dogmatic worldview (belief). Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence when evidence should be present. So we would expect a fossil or live unicorn if they existed. We would not expect much physical evidence for cultures over 10,000 years old. As i said in 10,000 years there would be almost no evidence that our present civilization existed. So that would prove we never existed right? Of course not. I am not attacking you as a person, I am challenging your assumptions, so please dont mistake this for anything else. I dont think it was warrented that you say i am talking out of my ass when you have no idea to what extent I am familiar with the origins of religions. Perhaps you also claim to have a complete understanding of that too? Forget everything I said above, lets not broaden the discussion with religion and myth and comets etc. Let us start here with this. Are you open to the possibility that your assumption may be wrong?
I guess it depends on how you define civilization It would be irrational to think that humans did nothing for 100000 years. But fact is we can't find remnents of cities I think what's most likely is during this time, civilization consisted of tents and wood huts, hence why we don't think.of it as civilization So humans have been making giant buildings for 10000 years, but probly associated in city like tribes long before that -yuri
Again, you assume the pyramid is not special because we have no evidence that it is special. Yeah.. Well, if it was used for something beyond our technology, how would you expect to find evidence? Circular reasoning at its best. You assume it cant be a technology, so there is no reason to investigate. I say its possible, so we should investigate. The former is dogma the latter is science. I dont assume it did or didnt, id prefer being open to either. Look, I assume that it isn't a technology because there's no reason to think that it is a technology, the latter isn't ''Science'', the latter is you saying something without any grounds to say it and then expecting people to follow up on it, what if I told you that my socks could talk? And then after you said I have no evidence or reason to think that, I would reply that it's because you haven't ''investigated'' my socks yet? The difference is, religions are less ridiculous because the events are more recent... reference chinese whisper, which backs up my point again. Mythologies are more ridiculous because the stories are further removed in time. Nope, the time scale makes no difference whatsoever I'm afraid, I could just as easily invent a fictional story right now and it wouldn't mean my story was any less fictional than any historical fiction on account of me recently inventing it.. Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence when evidence should be present. So we would expect a fossil or live unicorn if they existed. We would not expect much physical evidence for cultures over 10,000 years old. As i said in 10,000 years there would be almost no evidence that our present civilization existed. So that would prove we never existed right? Of course not. And evidence should be present for your ''hypothesis'' to be taken seriously, besides, there would be quite a lot of evidence that our present civilization existed actually, at the very least, there would be evidence enough to suggest that we were advanced. Are you open to the possibility that your assumption may be wrong? No, are you?
I've always thought the earth, and universe is much older than we know. I feel that the ancient cities we know ( Mesopotamia, Sumeria, etc) were possibly built on top of the remains of these older cities, and that's why we can't discern what's is meso and what's even older. Or maybe the leftovers have been destroyed or used in the building of more modern empires. Fun idea to toy with. This is all opinion, no one freak the fuck out. I know our dating tech doesn't agree with me lol. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
And there you have it! Your presuppositions are not even open too falsification, which is no different than any other dogmatic BELIEF. Do I consider that my assumption could be wrong? Idk, I havent made any assumptions. Inherently if I did make an assumption, it would be tentative... And your sock analogy is a completely dissimilar analogy. However, it does reflect the obsurdity in your attempt to liken the two. The OP is not as close minded as you, but you come in here to propogate your baseless assumptions and attempt to look down at anyone who isnt as blindly dogmatic and close minded as yourself. You probably think you have the mighty sword of science to back up your 'rational' approach? I notice you call my questions 'assertions' and in your last reply you say something about me and my 'hypothesis'. What you are doing is trying to create a strawman so you can attack it, thus attempt to put me on the defense. Why? Perhaps you dont like defending your assumptions? All I have done is ask questions and put forth hypothesis that challenge your assumption. They are not 'my' hypothesis, i am not the author. Again, you will find some reason (because of your assumption) to dismiss or ignore the data, find another hypothesis that better serves your worldview, or perhaps challenge the credibility of the author. All you have to do is find ONE little reason to reject anything that challenges your worldview, and thats enough to convince yourself you are being rational. I say this not to belittle you, but because I have been in your shoes, its a self-confirming worldview. In such a position you literally cannot challenge your own assumptions because the worldview wont allow it. I hope you will be intellectually honest enough to challenge your own worldview as objectively as possible. I have determined not to make that assumption because I dont believe the case is closed. You think the case is open and shut, I say you have no good reason to justify that assumption. I would say this is in similar manner to an athiest trying to convince an agnostic that there is no God. The only difference is, in this case, we can expect to find some evidence, and indeed we may have such evidence.
While I am sure there is at least still one lost civilization out there.. I think this statement here is where a lot of people get lost and think there must be some sort of extra advanced missing culture. We weren't doing almost nothing for 180,000.. we were building our knowledge base, evolving our intelligence. That's why it's an exponential increase when you look at different periods of man. The Stone Age lasted the longest.. then the Bronze Age was next and the second longest, followed by the Iron Age which was the shortest. That's how evolution works, when the conditions suited for a specific trait are stable.. the trait can multiply and it does so exponentially. First there is 1 animal with the trait, then 3, then 7, then 18, 40, 95.. and so on. Once we secured our place in nature, our intelligence was and is a trait where conditions are stable for it to multiply. And even today, we're really not much different from animals.. I mean, we are animals. There are other animals out there with intelligence as well.. but they never evolved the means to fully utilize it, like with opposable thumbs.. bipedalism and complex vocalization. What we are today was reliant on those traits and once they came together, we were able to explore and evolve our intelligence. We were never not doing anything.. we were learning and learning takes time, especially when the majority of the learning takes place through trial and error.
Well we do know the casing stones on the pyramid were stripped to build other things. And yea i forget which cities were built on top of other older cities, but i know at least a few were. Not merely an idea to toy with!
And there you have it! Your presuppositions are not even open too falsification, which is no different than any other dogmatic BELIEF. It wasn't a serious comment. And your sock analogy is a completely dissimilar analogy. However, it does reflect the obsurdity in your attempt to liken the two. It's really not, you're saying something without any grounds to say it and then expecting what you say to be taken seriously, which is what you appear to be doing in this very sentence.. since you don't have any reasons for how it's ''dissimilar'', you don't really have any grounds to say that it's ''dissimilar''. The OP is not as close minded as you, but you come in here to propogate your baseless assumptions and attempt to look down at anyone who isnt as blindly dogmatic and close minded as yourself. Haven't I already told you the difference between ''baseless assumptions'' and ''reasonable'' ones enough times now? I'm not ''looking down'' on anyone. . I notice you call my questions 'assertions' and in your last reply you say something about me and my 'hypothesis'. What you are doing is trying to create a strawman so you can attack it, thus attempt to put me on the defense. Here's what I said; I'm not really interested in putting you on the ''defence'', because I've already gauged that your opinion/the opinion your putting forward is indefensible, by virtue of the fact that you can't seem to defend it. Why? Perhaps you dont like defending your assumptions? All I have done is ask questions and put forth hypothesis that challenge your assumption. They are not 'my' hypothesis, i am not the author. Again, you will find some reason (because of your assumption) to dismiss or ignore the data, find another hypothesis that better serves your worldview, or perhaps challenge the credibility of the author. No, North, that's the point - you don't have any ''data''. I have determined not to make that assumption because I dont believe the case is closed. You think the case is open and shut, I say you have no good reason to justify that assumption. I don't think that the case is ''shut'', I think that there is no reason at present to think that the Pyramids served a higher ''function'' because there is no evidence to suggest that they did - there is only a group of Conspiracy theorists who give their imaginations too much credit.
I am not saying the pyramid had a higher function, i am saying if it did, we wouldnt know. Lets assume it was used to generate a large quantum tunneling effect. How could we find evidence for this if our technology is insufficient to test this? Say Plato came across a flourescent light bulb. He thinks it may have a higher function but since he doesnt know he needs an electric current to figure out the purpose, he simply assumes there is no higher function, since he has no evidence that it does. Mankind wont figure out the function until they figure out how to generate electricity. So Plato would be rational to say it has no higher function, all the while he is wrong.