It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proof: Advanced Ancient Indian Civilization existed

page: 23
88
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
You two are priceless to watch...don't do it Indigo...but what the heck..lol...you will do what you will do...this is becoming quite circular...and Infinite in a way...lol...good job both sides...Hans...you are "Factual and Absolute"...just remember...Absolutes...Corrupt Absolutely...good job both...




posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by qbik2008
 


Hehe, howdy qbik

This is fun, I enjoy talking to fringe believers. Indigo has made the most fundamental error a believer can make. Instead of staying with stuff that is opinion based she/he? has strayed into areas that can be verified.

Indigo debates very much like a creationist, using quote mining, failing to see the context and making stuff up when neccessary. There is in India a small group of people who believe in this theory (an unknown super civilization) they tend to quote one another to give the appearance of acceptance by real science

Just delightful!

As a fringe person you NEVER want to give any information that can be verfied or checked. That is what is so wonderful about "Sanskrit" documents we cannot see or unknown 'channelers". its the old Sitchin dodge of saying you can really read the documents not like the old fuddy duddy scholars.

However I have to go overseas on Monday so the debate will have to last until I get back!

You keep Indigo busy until then, LOL



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Hans: oh great wonder of the age, I accept that the real Indian civilization had wisdom – that good enough for ya? LOL, however that wisdom was appropriate for their level of development. Ideas were created that were later used in the theory of computer science, they didn't have computer science.


I think you should speak with a bit of respect Hans. You are not talking to a regular joe, I am highly educated and have studied Logic and Philosophy formally. I kind of know what I am talking about
What are your credentials if you don't mind?

If it’s alright with you I am not going to respond to the rest of your “points” because I want to clarify this for you.

You obviously are completely ignorant of the history of scientific development and nor understand what ‘modern’ actually means, though are quick to dismiss the Sanskrit tradition as not being modern. The word modern refers to a particular philosophy which prevailed during the enlightenment that rationalism and science is what will bring about progress and not faith. This lead to a paradigm shift in Western civilisation which gradually began to eschew faith and concentrate on analysing and logic. While, initially this took the form of philosophical inquiry with Descartes and a quest for rational certainty but with an ulterior motive of proving faith. It later became more empirical with Locke’s theory of representationalism. We represent the world to ourselves and this is the only means of gaining knowledge. This lead to the birth of the empirical scientific method, knowledge gained through classification. Later with the arrival of the Kant who introduced his analytical philosophy and the notion that we cannot know things-as-they-really-are, but only as they appear it brought about a shift to pure mathematical logic and linguistic theories which generally considered all of reality of being constructed of word-concepts and thus a logical analysis of language was necessitated. While the initial linguistically theories were fairly basic, it not until the emerge of Ferdinand Saussure that modern linguistics emerged who able to give an analysis of language and the notion of signs(signified: signifier) He brought a new paradigm shift called structuralism. Decoding language, analysing it and using it in analytical ways and helped shape mathematical linguistics and then later computer science. The analysis that was going on through modern linguistics of signs, decoding language, encoding language, data-structures, recursions, algorithms lead to the birth of formal/programming language theory, founded by Bakus Naur, known as BNF(Bakus Naur form) on which all formal programming languages are based. The next biggest heavyweight was Noam Chomsky developed a theory of generative linguistics in which his emphasis was on syntax and how sentences can be generated from a grammar and applied to natural human languages. Chomsky’s work had a huge influence on cognitive science and AI and now in cutting-edge linguistics cognitive science and AI have blended together in a quest to produce formal languages with natural language processing I.e, a language that can be both used naturally but be a formal language.
All that in a nut-shell is computer science theory and basically refers to the theory of computation where logic, mathematics, linguistics, cognitive science and AI blend in together. So the history of computer science has been intertwined with the history of linguistics.

This was a very brief overview of what modern refers to. In summary: rationalism, and logic.

You claimed that Panini was normal for his time. That’s interestingly, considering computer scientists and linguists consider him to be a genius and not at all normal for his time.

You claimed that only some concepts of Panini are used in computer science. That’s curious they are using the concepts of somebody in 700-500BCE (Conservative dates) in modern computer science?

I will deal with your claims in the next post.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Both your claims are ignorant i.e., you don't know what your talking about. Panini is an absolute misfit in 700-500BCE. His analytical, logical and mathematical knowledge is post-enlightenment. This level of analysis is not found anywhere else in all of history and especially in his time outside of the Sanskrit tradition. It has not been repeated by anybody even in the 21st century. It is superhuman and Panini is sometimes called superhuman and his work is known as a “monument of human intelligence” by linguists.

In particular he suggests that algebraic reasoning, the Indian way of representing numbers by words, and ultimately the development of modern number systems in India, are linked through the structure of language. Panini should be thought of as the forerunner of the modern formal language theory used to specify computer languages. The Backus Normal Form was discovered independently by John Backus in 1959, but Panini's notation is equivalent in its power to that of Backus and has many similar properties. It is remarkable to think that concepts which are fundamental to today's theoretical computer science should have their origin with an Indian genius around 2500 years ago.


Your other claim that computer science only uses some of his concepts, no doubt you think they are simple one and modern science builds up on them. The short answer is no. Theoretical computer science is Panini and is heavily based on Panini. There is nothing in theoretical computer science that is not contained within Panini’s text. Panini contains all of linguistics from the mathematical logic of Frege to the descriptive linguistics of Saussure to the generative linguistics of Chomsky and even beyond. There is no major linguist that has not studied Panini. Saussere was a professor of Sanskrit and had studied Panini's grammar before he founded structuralism. Bloomfield, the founder of American Linguistics, borrowed heavily from Panini. Then Chomsky studied Panini and became inspired and tried to realise a universal logical language that had natural language processing like Panini had done. Sanskrit is that language. It’s grammar is completely formal and like machine code and yet it is has natural language processing .

The current aim in computer science is to develop a language just like Sanskrit for human-machine interface. Thus why Sanskrit, Panini and other Sanskrit linguistics is being studied by AI and computer scientists in institutes like NASA. The NASA article has been archived here:

Briggs, R. Sanskrit & Artificial Intelligence - Knowledge Representation in Sanskrit and Artificial Intelligence . Roacs, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffet Field, California

www.vedicsciences.net...


In the past twenty years, much time, effort, and money has been expended on designing an unambiguous representation of natural languages to make them accessible to computer processing. These efforts have centered around creating schemata designed to parallel logical relations with relations expressed by the syntax and semantics of natural languages, which are clearly cumbersome and ambiguous in their function as vehicles for the transmission of logical data. Understandably, there is a widespread belief that natural languages are unsuitable for the transmission of many ideas that artificial languages can render with great precision and mathematical rigor.
But this dichotomy, which has served as a premise underlying much work in the areas of linguistics and artificial intelligence, is a false one. There is at least one language, Sanskrit, which for the duration of almost 1,000 years was a living spoken language with a considerable literature of its own. Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. This article demonstrates that a natural language can serve as an artificial language also, and that much work in AI has been reinventing a wheel millenia old.


Bhate.S, Kak.S.Panini's Grammar and Computer Science. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, vol. 72,
1993, pp. 79-94

www.ece.lsu.edu...


The enterprise of computer science has two fundamental elements. The element is to develop techniques that make the elucidation of the computational structure of nature and the mind easier. The second element is the creation of new computing algorithms and machines that have powerful cognitive and computational abilities: this includes development of new techniques of representing and manipulating knowledge, inference and deduction. The tasks of representing and processing knowledge with a somewhat different emphasis has parallels in many ancient disciplines. Thus grammarians have long considered questions of relating facts about the physical world and
cognition to linguistic expressions. Likewise logicians have developed formal structures to relate events and draw inferences from them. This is seen best in the work of ancient Indian logicians and grammarians. It has been argued by Ingalls, Staal, Matilal, Briggs, Kak and others1 that many contemporary developments in formal logic, linguistics, and computer science are a rediscovery of the work of these ancient masters. But apart from the question of a correct history of ideas it raises the following important question of significance to Sanskritists as well as cognitive and computer scientists: Are there other rules in ancient Indian logic and grammar that may be of use in making further advance in cognitive and computer sciences?


The above articles describe the ability of Sanskrit to represent knowledge in data structures much like object-orientated programming. The grammar of Sanskrit is built as such as it can compute with the power of a turing machine.

So the Sanskrit language the language of the Aryans turns out to be an advanced human-machine language with incredibly advanced computational abilities. Inherent within Panini’s grammar is the entire history of the mathematical and logical development of modern science and its future. It is definitely post-21st century.

I have already provided information on everything that is in Panini's text. It matches and outperforms everything in theoretical computer science and linguistics in modern times.


Pāṇini's use of metarules, transformations, and recursion together make his grammar as rigorous as a modern Turing machine.[The Backus-Naur form (Panini-Backus form) or BNF grammars used to describe modern programming languages have significant similarities to Pāṇini grammar rules. Pāṇini's grammar can be considered to be the world's first formal system, well before the 19th century innovations of Gottlob Frege and the subsequent development of mathematical logic. To design his grammar, Pāṇini used the method of "auxiliary symbols," in which new affixes are designated to mark syntactic categories and the control of grammatical derivations. This technique was rediscovered by the logician Emil Post and is now a standard method in the design of computer programming languages.



A treatise called Astadhyayi (or Astaka ) is Panini's major work. It consists of eight chapters, each subdivided into quarter chapters. In this work Panini distinguishes between the language of sacred texts and the usual language of communication. Panini gives formal production rules and definitions to describe Sanskrit grammar. Starting with about 1700 basic elements like nouns, verbs, vowels, consonants he put them into classes. The construction of sentences, compound nouns etc. is explained as ordered rules operating on underlying structures in a manner similar to modern theory. In many ways Panini's constructions are similar to the way that a mathematical function is defined today.


Panini, by the way is not a solitary genus, he refers to the works of many linguists from the Sanskrit tradition of similar advanced analytical prowess.

I would like to see you deny that the Sanskrit knowledge tradition is not post-21 century after this.




[edit on 4-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by qbik2008
 


Hehe, howdy qbik

its the old Sitchin dodge of saying you can really read the documents not like the old fuddy duddy scholars.


Yes...I came across "Sitchin's" writings by chance...and found them to be somewhat misinterpreted...and a large body of people agree on "Sitchen's" interpretations...even though he has been interpreting over the last 30 to 50 years...don't quote me...lol...has been quite erroneous...and I will have to leave this up for debate...until I receive "Absolute Proof"...I must wait and see because the "Physical has not demonstrated things as such"...but at the same time...I happen to not "Believe" in "Sitchens" proposed "Planet X"....this could simply be a misinterpretation of a bunch of massive sized "Asteroids" approaching in unison...who am I to judge...for as you judge...so shall you to be judged...

just some simple thoughts from a simple man...



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Yes...I have noticed that you have made the segregation of "Fringe" and "Factual"...I would ask you to begin to "use your very own Mind and Consciousness"...this is a concept very foreign to you...and it is definitely a "Scary" path...

I am reposting on "The Children of the Law Of One thread" and it is a direct rebuttal to one of your posts...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

as I have gained much more awareness...since your last intervention...and I hope you begin to let go of "Absolutes"...as you will need to do so in order to Progress...yes arrogant in a way...but also...the complete opposite at the same time...it is your choice...it is ultimately up to you...pursue as you do...this is your nature...just remember...Nature is something very powerful...and not to be underestimated....



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by qbik2008
 


My friend was a big fan of Sitchin and he gave me a book on him. I read it and I couldn't stop laughing, not because I found the concept of Nibiru and Sumerian Reptile civilisations unbeliebable. You know I am very open to these things, but when I read the part where he refered to a pictogram which looked like one of those Native American teepee's, he wrote, "Before modern times people would have been hard pressed to guess what this is, but now we know: it is a multistage space rocket!" I couldn't stop laughing! I tried very hard to see it, but everytime I cracked up. I felt the same about most of his book.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Indigo...do not dismiss the "Reptillian's" so easily...more research is required....they do exist according to my arrogant reading...and they definitely pose a problem in our evolution...Time Travel and such...but...the ever enlightenment concepts can never be Invalidated...WE ARE ONE...WE ARE GODS...WE ARE THE MANIFESTATION OF GOD...WE ARE ALL ONE...pretty silly huh?...mbbe so...mbbe no...



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by qbik2008
 


Oh no I do not dismiss the Reptillians, I am just not a fan of Sitchin shall we say.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


From what I have gleaned from my own understanding...is that Sitchin is "Close"...and his arguements may very well be valid...but from a limited "Thought Form...

I do not propose that I have all of the "Keys" to Enlightenment...as they are vast and never ending...and they are "Dynamic" in "Nature"....but...this begins to make one wonder about their very existence in "Nature"..it is a never ending question...



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by qbik2008
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


From what I have gleaned from my own understanding...is that Sitchin is "Close"...and his arguements may very well be valid...but from a limited "Thought Form...

I do not propose that I have all of the "Keys" to Enlightenment...as they are vast and never ending...and they are "Dynamic" in "Nature"....but...this begins to make one wonder about their very existence in "Nature"..it is a never ending question...



By the way what do you think of the evidence I presented above on Panini. Is it convincing, are there parts that need to explained more. I just wanted an opinion of somebody else that was not a pseudoskeptic. This thread has become quite lonely today



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   

By the way what do you think of the evidence I presented above on Panini. Is it convincing, are there parts that need to explained more. I just wanted an opinion of somebody else that was not a pseudoskeptic. This thread has become quite lonely today


As far as Panini goes...it is not all that surprising...now I am not saying I have extensive Knowledge of this persons work in the past...I am simply going on the "Assumption" that you are correct and that you have done quite a bit of research on this particular persons work done in the past...now that being said...I would have to say again...that it is not that surprising...to me...as this has been so throughout the ages past...a simple example is Einstein...It took a large body of Scientists quite literally 50 years to catch up to his proposals and many are still to this very day quibbling and arguing about his proposals...So I am quite positive...that people like Panini and Einstein were well advanced of "Post Now" and this has been true throughout the "Past" Millions of Years. You have a great deal of knowledge...much more on this subject than I may ever come to know in this lifetime...and I think that the Overall "Proof" that you have provided is sufficient for one to argue in the "Affirmative"...that there was indeed an ancient advanced Civilization can be one interpretation...or that...an Ancient "Advanced" Race not of this world did in fact came down out of the skies and "Taught" and "Ruled as Gods" over this particular Civilization...in that point in Time...

Now I believe I made a point about "Pottery" a few threads back...and I don't think you answered my insight...for some reason that particular point was troubling me...any insights would be appreciated...it may open a can of worms or it may not...I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to argue either way...it may just be a "Primitive" misinterpretation...as we now have Ceramics and Stainless etc...



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by qbik2008
 


I did reply to the pottery point earlier on, you probably just missed it:


Regarding 'pottery' well there is pottery around today too, so that does not mean we are not advanced. However, I understand your criticism, I myself do not beleive the IVC was a post-21st century technology, because if it was something would have remained from it. As it was not flooded, there should be advanced materials, parts of machines etc. The reason it cannot be found is because the Aryan civilisation is pre-glacial. There was a post-21st century civilisation but more than 10,000 years ago. It was destroyed by superfloods.


Hanslume is constructing a strawman that I am saying that this physical evidence of advanced technology in ancient times is available or that I am saying the Indus civilisation itself was advanced. Nope, I am saying these civilisations were not advanced themselves, but had advanced knowlegde which was passed down to them in the form of an oral tradition from the advanced Aryan civilisation from pre-glacial times.

The strongest evidence is the language itself which turns out to be a human machine language. Just the kind of language you would expect a superior civilisation to have. Interesingly, Vedic Sanskrit is infinitely more complex than Classical Sanskrit. It is incredibly difficult to translate which is why it is open to much misinterpretation, whereas Classical Sanskrit isn't. But it operates on pretty much the same kind of computatonal model that Classical Sanskrit does, but on a much higher level. The Sanskrit tradition devised very sophisticated tools to read the Vedas called the Vedangas(limbs of the Vedas) which included texts on prosody which used error checking algoirthms to ensure perfect transmission of text and Panini's grammar to analyse the language properly. When the Vedas are traslated with this method they produce incredibly sophisticated readings on metaphysics and poetry.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
i have read these posts and they are quite facinating. as a linguistic layman, it seems to be that what you're describing has been a problem with all communications...the ability to detail the physical and non-physical world that can be understood by all.
and that's the problem...descriptive language is needed for an exact understanding of something...but...the more descriptive, the more complex something becomes, and thus the less it is understood by the many.
that to me is the paradox. the MAIN RULE of communication should be to make it as simple as possible without losing it's meaning


[edit on 5-4-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Sorry...yes...I think it slipped by me...thanks for reposting and answering...you have alot of patience...

Was this particular Civilization in the same timeframe as "Atlantis"...just a thought that crossed my mind...I have not checked into this...eventually I will get to it I suppose...unfortunately I am feeling more and more everyday that our time here on this particular Earth is drawing near to some type of Ending and Rebirth...I feel time is of the essence and that we must use it wisely...

Cheers...



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Right, as they say the mother of invention is necessity. Sanskrit developed in this advanced tradition for the purposes of knowledge representation, intellectual discourse and human-machine interface. This is why it is called Sanskrit, meaning perfectly refined. It simply is the language to rule them all, it can describe objective and subjective states with absolute precision and even in creative expression such as music and poetry it has incredible powers e.g., it can construct complex metaphors which when read forwards gives the thesis, and read backwards gives the antithesis. It can create poetry that has geomathematical structures, i.e., the sounds are arranged in such a manner that mathematically they represent geometry. Interesingly, the Sanskrit tradition maintains that all sound forms have equivalent geometrical forms, and every Sanskrit mantra has a corresponding mandala. It was recently demonstrated through the science of Cynamatics that this is true. Not just that the sound AUM's when intoned correctly matches the mandala it is said to match.

The implications of this is staggering. Not only is Sanskrit a human machine language which can interface between humans machines, it is is also caliberated with physics and geometry. The kind of mathematical, linguistic and physical knowledge one needs to create such a language is so beyond our ability it cannot be expressed in words. It is trully, as it has always been called by Indians, a language of the gods. This language belongs to an incredibly advanced civilisation.

Throughout the Sanskrit epic literature we find Sanskrit is used as a universal language of symbols(Chomsky's vision) It is used by people to interface with the universe and to interface with weapons and machines. I really wish that one day I could just go back in time and witness this civilisation myself.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Was this particular Civilization in the same timeframe as "Atlantis"...just a thought that crossed my mind...I have not checked into this...eventually I will get to it I suppose...unfortunately I am feeling more and more everyday that our time here on this particular Earth is drawing near to some type of Ending and Rebirth...I feel time is of the essence and that we must use it wisely...

Cheers...


Yes, it sounds like it was. I sometimes think that Atlantis and the Aryan civilisation are the same thing. I say this because Plato clearly knew about the Sanskrit tradition and he derived his philosophy from them, it is possible he did indeed visit their civilisation and called it Atlantis. It is also possible that Atlantis was a rival civilisation to the Aryans.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   


I think you should speak with a bit of respect Hans.


Hans: Sorry I give respect to those who earn it. You dear have not, what exactly is there to respect? Your Mara like deceptions? LOL




You are not talking to a regular joe, I am highly educated and have studied Logic and Philosophy formally. I kind of know what I am talking about


Hans: Yes I agree you are not regular, essentially you are making stuff up and trying by tedious deception to avoid reality. I would ask for your money back - from your community college.




You claimed that Panini was normal for his time. That’s interestingly, considering computer scientists and linguists consider him to be a genius and not at all normal for his time.


Hans: Genius is normal for all times. Please tell us exactly and with detail what Panini provided? Other than concepts used in Sanskrit grammar?




You claimed that only some concepts of Panini are used in computer science. That’s curious they are using the concepts of somebody in 700-500BCE (Conservative dates) in modern computer science?


Hans: My, my you are poorly educated. Mathematics defined in ancient Greece are used in algorithms used in program languages. Does this mean the ancient Greeks used computer science? This is the same “logic” flow you are using for Panini. His work on Sanskrit grammar which is incorporated into...

Old wiki


Noam Chomsky has always acknowledged his debt to Pāṇini for his modern notion of an explicit generative grammar. In Optimality Theory, the hypothesis about the relation between specific and general constraints is known as "Panini's Theorem on Constraint Ranking". Pāṇinian grammars have also been devised for non-Sanskrit languages. His work was the forerunner to modern formal language theory (mathematical linguistics) and formal grammar, and a precursor to computing.


Panini didn’t know what a computer was and he wrote his material for use with Sanskrit grammar, not for computers. His work was later used in computer science, his work by itself is NOT computer science.


[edit on 5/4/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by qbik2008
 


Howdy Qbik

Fringe thought ignores evidence while reality uses it



[edit on 5/4/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Well Indigo tried to dodge this set of questions.....

Hans: Lets review, here are the questions you refuse to consider – not really unusual as they show your entire concept to be false. You obviously just forgot to answer them so I have kindly put them forward to you. Should you forget again I’ll do the same.

Where is your evidence for the Aryan civilization?

We have sites for neolithic hunter groups (see notes below) so we have evidence for movement out of Africa and a slow rise in civilization which led to the Indus civilization

Yet Indigo insists that a super civilization arose and was then completely wiped out - except for the transmission of super technology disguised as religious text. The super civilization was wiped out completely with no trace by glacial floods around 10,000 BC

1. Where is the evidence for these glacial floods in Northwest India? Or do you claim a different site? But what of mother Ganges?

2. How did the glacial floods somehow miss all the neolithic hunter-gathers sites yet got every single super civilization site? Man talk about being lucky on one side and very unlucky on the other.

3. Why no signs of trade from this super civilization with other known cultures? Did they stay just in that area?

4. Where are did these floods end up at? (where are the debris)?

5. For an example the mesopotamians were hit with massive floods at various times - hundreds of thousands of artifacts remain, there cities can be found - for the super civilization not a single item survived, nothing at all.

6. Why no sign of modifications of the terrain? No mines? No tunnels? No modifiation at all and of course no relics or artifacts, even indestructible items, like gold, gems, glass - all gone....swept off to where exactly Indigo?

7. When asked these questions, she feely admits no evidence exists but in the next breath insists that - as her signature says:

"Absolute proof of Ancient Advanced civilization: Read"



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join