Originally posted by Indigo_Child

All I am showing by pointing out that ancient production techology was more advanced than production technology in the 18th century is that modernism is not a valid philosophy. That advanced technologies and advanced knowledge can exist even in ancient times. I am also highligting that the label modern which refers to only Western history is a dubious label, the West were behind non-western cultures in modern times, and still are behind in many areas.

You use the word "advance" way too much. So you are saying that a blacksmith using a mud based kiln with a bellow made out of wood and raw animal hide is more advanced than blast furnaces of the 1800s? Wootz steel is good for weapons, but is too brittle for building, so I fail to see steel framed building from that era, I also fail to see this steel made in any mass produced manufacturing technique.

I have a pet theory that throughout our history there were super geniuses (180 to 200 plus IQ)born that in their short life spans they pushed a civilization forward in leaps and bounds, but those civilizations stopped once that person died. In the case of Wootz steel it seems someone hit on a great method and recipe, but there were no further advancements as we see in the modern world.

Communication is the key. You speak of language, but reality is that we communicate around the world with anyone in the world in a matter of seconds, and this has created an exponential curve of advancement. As too the title of this post, there just was not a civilization with tools at hand to have this type of exponential growth in advancements. Some were well advance in small areas to anything within 500 years of them, but none were advancing in every direction as we see today, or even 500 years ago. This ability to advance in every direction is the key to an advance civilization.

They had great weapon’s steel, and a complex language but what did they do with these great things and were did these and a few other advancements lead them as a society as a whole? Since our advancement in the past was calculated in 1000s (or even 10,000) of years then for a civilization to be 1000 years ahead of another one I do not find out of the norm. Today that 1000 years of the past is about a decade now, and so some time after the 15th century advancements started to accelerate in all directions, but after 1900 they went into warp speed.

You use the word "advance" way too much. So you are saying that a blacksmith using a mud based kiln with a bellow made out of wood and raw animal hide is more advanced than blast furnaces of the 1800s? Wootz steel is good for weapons, but is too brittle for building, so I fail to see steel framed building from that era, I also fail to see this steel made in any mass produced manufacturing technique.

I understand your point and agree with your point. I am not saying that India in 500BCE was technologically advanced, what I'm saying that India had inherited an oral tradition from an advanced culture. So while in terms of materials it was not advanced, other than the advanced materials it could develop like steel, zinc and corrosion proof technology, it was incredibly advanced in terms of knowledge and that knowledge all comes from the Sanskrit oral tradition.

I have a pet theory that throughout our history there were super geniuses (180 to 200 plus IQ)born that in their short life spans they pushed a civilization forward in leaps and bounds, but those civilizations stopped once that person died. In the case of Wootz steel it seems someone hit on a great method and recipe, but there were no further advancements as we see in the modern world.

I agree with your theory that we have had super geniuses from time to time that have advanced our knowledge considerably. However in the Sanskrit tradition it seems everybody is a supergenius: Panini is a supergenius, Kapila(founder of of metaphysics) is a supergenius, Patanjali(founder of of psychology) is a supegenius, Dhanavantri, Sushrata and Charaka(founders of medicine) are supergeniuses, Gotama(founder of logic) is a supergenius, Pingla(founder of music) is a super genius, Vyaasa is a supergenious. The seers of the Vedas are supergenius. Everybody who has found a major area of Sanskrit science is a supergenius. It seems basically everybody that was a part of this tradition was a supergenius.
This elite tradition is super-genius itself.

The problem is there is no explicit history of development of how any of these sciences formed. All of the founders state the origins of all these sciences to be in the Vedas. In the past the Vedas was divided up into hundreds of branches and each branch dealt with a science. Then each science had their corresponding school. There are literally tens of thousands of Sanskrit texts on a range of subjects all part of this tradition. Some dealing with the science of clouds, some with the science of horiticulture, still others dealing with astrophysics, aeronautics etc.

The kind of civilisation we find in the Sanskrit tradition is impossibly advanced. New dating has pushed this tradition back to at the latest 4000BCE, this means this incredibly scientific tradition existed back then in the stone age. This means this tradition goes back into pre-glacial times. And that is exactly what Indian records show us, Manu who survived the floods and retreated to the Himalayas, descended from there and reestalished civilisation.

For me the evidence is overwhelmingly indicating we've had advanced civilisation before 10,000 years ago, perhaps many and there are periodic cycles of destruction of civilisation. The strongest memory we have of our forgotten past is the Vedas.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

The problem is there is no explicit history of development of how any of these sciences formed. All of the founders state the origins of all these sciences to be in the Vedas. In the past the Vedas was divided up into hundreds of branches and each branch dealt with a science. Then each science had their corresponding school. There are literally tens of thousands of Sanskrit texts on a range of subjects all part of this tradition. Some dealing with the science of clouds, some with the science of horiticulture, still others dealing with astrophysics, aeronautics etc.

And with all this knowledge nothing came of it...why? I think you mix Legends with facts and vice a versa.

Gotama lived in the second century AD, but Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato lived 700 years before he did, and their logic lives on, why the difference?

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtrozero]

So with so much evidence and empirical data why today is this not all considered common knowledge? I understand how in the past people like Darwin, Freud etc would be bias to anything that wasn’t their own idea, but today that bias is long gone and people are open to the truth, so why is it all not out in the open. I can hardly Google anything about it at all but basic descriptions.

It is not common knowledge in Western education, it is common knowledge in the niche subjects of Indian Philosophy, Indology and Sankrit studies and other related subjects.

I think the idea that we are open to the truth today is slightly naive, information is still suppressed today, but that said modern historians are starting to revise history correctly. It will take time, centuries of misinformation cannot be discarded so easily.

I do not buy the theory that people want to keep this all a secret, I would be more willing to believe there just isn’t proof to convince the scientific community. Also, why are no major universities involved in all this?

Be careful on relying on authorities for your knowledge. They have been lying to your for thousands of years and still are. Why isn't Indian Philosophy taught in Western universities, because it undermines their own history. They see science and philosophy as unique to their race, and Indian Philosophy bursts that bubble. It is the same reason why certain Gospels are not included in the Church, some Gospels burst the bubble.
Why isn't Ayurveda(Indian medicine) accepted in the mainstream, because Ayurveda can cure a lot of diseases, and if they allowed that it will kill the business of allopathic medicine that relies on drug-dependency.

Come on you are on ATS you should know better than to judge your world according to what authority says. Rise above authority.

What I find somewhat confounding with your posts is you continually suggest everything you write is factual. When you write "How do you account for the fact that Sanskrit is a human machine language" you say this like this language actual is, and everything leads it to be related to the roots of Latin and a few other languages, so I do not see computer science involved here. Plus, why would they need a machine language when they didn't have machines that required programming as computers do?

It is a fact, see my other thread where this is explained, this langauge is the only language that can be used in computer programming because of its advanced data representation and mathematical abilities. It is based on a grammar that uses recursions, transformations, algaberic rules and is virtually identical to machine code. Does Latin have that? No. No other language has that. The closest we have to compare are formal programming languages, and Sanskrit beats those too, because it is both a formal programming language and it has natural language processing.

If you look at the history of logic, linguistics and mathematics from Artistotle to Chomsky you will find these sciences developed gradually over 2500 years. Whereas in the Sanskrit tradition logic, linguistics and mathematics is already developed. The logical conclusion to draw from this that Sanskrit's development stage goes back into prehistory.

The Sanskrit tradition is already fully developed by the time Greek traditions begin to develop:

Subject: Sanskrit: Western
Linguistics: 500BCE: 20-20th century
Binary logic: 200BCE: 17th century
Steel: 500BCE: 18tth century
Psychology: 200BCE: 19th century
Microbiology: 1000BCE: 19th century
Plastic surgery: 600BCE: 19th century
Scientific method: 1000BCE: 18th century
Analytical philosophy: 10000-500BCE: 17th century
Quantum metaphysics: 700BCE: 20th century
Physics(including atomic theory and classical mechanics) 600BCE: 17-18th century

I have used only 'accepted' dates above which as I demonstrated above are above. The truth all of these dates are millenias older eiher 2000BCE or 3000BCE. So going by both dates: The Sanskrit tradition is either 2500-3000 years or 4000-5000 years ahead of modern Western civilisation. So what is clear from this what we call "modern" has happened before thousands of years ago in a non-western culture. It is only eurocentricism that makes us ignore that there were previous civilisations more advanced than us. Just like English is the main global language today for commerce and education, likewise Sanskrit was the main global language of yesterday.

The truth is clear from all the evidence: We've had many "modern" civilisations in the past well beyond 10,000 years ago. There are periodic cycles of cataclysm which destroy civilisations, the last one was the super floods 10,000 years ago which completely changed the geography of the earth and submerged entire continents, and we are due in for the next one very soon.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Be careful on relying on authorities for your knowledge. They have been lying to your for thousands of years and still are. Why isn't Indian Philosophy taught in Western universities, because it undermines their own history. They see science and philosophy as unique to their race, and Indian Philosophy bursts that bubble. It is the same reason why certain Gospels are not included in the Church, some Gospels burst the bubble.
Why isn't Ayurveda(Indian medicine) accepted in the mainstream, because Ayurveda can cure a lot of diseases, and if they allowed that it will kill the business of allopathic medicine that relies on drug-dependency.

Come on you are on ATS you should know better than to judge your world according to what authority says. Rise above authority.

It is not that I rely on authorities as much as I rely on empirical data, and this becomes the root of most issues into what one considers data to be pure empirical based so that a theory can be proved as factual.

Take Willow Bark, at one point in our history it was an herb that provided unique properities in dulling pain and reducing inflammation. This herb has had empirical data backing up all its effects and properties and today it is aspirin. When you look at pharmaceutical companies I would not say they do not always have our best interest at hand, but I can say they are always trying to make a buck, and so they spend Billions per year in extremely expensive research. If they could market anything based on Ayurveda they would in a heartbeat. Also, there are numerous other companies that would love to grab some market with Ayurveda medicine if it was doable.

This leads me to believe that it is more of a “can’t” do it then a “will not” do it scenario. The big part of can’t is that much of these type of medicines do not hold up under serious observations in a true experimental environment.

When I look at Ayurveda medicine I see it more of a way to maintain a healthy lifestyle. We do not live healthy lifestyles and that induces many problems with our health, and so as example, I can get fat and become diabetic just because I’m fat. I can then take drugs that will help, but the underlining cause is still there. My body can also retain many impurities that constantly affect my health too, so if I provided my body the proper healthy diet, and purged it of impurities on regular bases it would be a smoother running machine. All this is a great preventative practice that would eliminate a good amount of health issues in America. I do not see this though as superior medicine, but more of a superior lifestyle.

It is a fact, see my other thread where this is explained, this langauge is the only language that can be used in computer programming because of its advanced data representation and mathematical abilities. It is based on a grammar that uses recursions, transformations, algaberic rules and is virtually identical to machine code. Does Latin have that? No. No other language has that. The closest we have to compare are formal programming languages, and Sanskrit beats those too, because it is both a formal programming language and it has natural language processing.

It would be nice to see proof of this as in a program actually written in this language for as far as I can find in research is it is only theorized that it might be. This is not that it is some magical thing or incomprehensible to do, it is just that it shows "like" properties only. Does this in some way make it a superior language? I don’t know, but it is not used very much anymore and at best maybe 20k are fluent in it today. I find English language as a superior language because language is for communication, and English is constantly evolving making it very efficient in communication.

If you look at the history of logic, linguistics and mathematics from Artistotle to Chomsky you will find these sciences developed gradually over 2500 years. Whereas in the Sanskrit tradition logic, linguistics and mathematics is already developed. The logical conclusion to draw from this that Sanskrit's development stage goes back into prehistory.

The Sanskrit tradition is already fully developed by the time Greek traditions begin to develop:

Could be true, but once again why has so many other ancient sciences and philosophies survived and this one didn’t?

Subject: Sanskrit: Western
Linguistics: 500BCE: 20-20th century

I would put this inline with the Greeks with most likely the Chinese before either. We all understand that the human progression started in that part of the world long before the west which were still rather primitive even 1000 AD or there about, but once the west hit around 1500 AD the baton of advancement was past to them from the east. Yes many things were rediscovered but the progression in the west never stopped and what the world is like today is all from the wests continued progression that we see at an exponential rate today.

Binary logic: 200BCE: 17th century

Not sure here. Binary logic is using 0s and 1s to program, and it was first used in the west because computers were extremely limited, and so they really needed a very simple way to communicate and function. Binary Logic is extremely ineffective outside the computer environment, so I’m not sure what they would use it for or even why think about it 500BC…or even 1900 AD hehe.

Steel: 500BCE: 18tth century

Not sure what your are comparing here...

1800 was the start of mass produced steel, and not the invention of steel. I have explained that Wootz steel is not superior steel other than superior in weapons for its time (in that part of the world). Their culture was not a steel based culture in any sense, so there really isn't much discussion on this other than to say they made good weapon steel, period. Steel in itself is dated back to 4000BC, so 1800 means really nothing other than mass produced steel for a steel based society.

Psychology: 200BCE: 19th century

Once again I'm not sure what you are comparing other than to say the western world was not the first to think about Psychology, but I don't see how these two can be compared unless it is like comparing Aztec surgeries to a modern surgical ward. In both cases they did surgeries but not very similar.

Microbiology: 1000BCE: 19th century

So they had microscopes to actually view this world?

Plastic surgery: 600BCE: 19th century

Hmm ok I think...did they really understand the whole infection thing, that has killed more than it has ever saved?

Scientific method: 1000BCE: 18th century
Analytical philosophy: 10000-500BCE: 17th century

I would really need to see a lot more on what they actualy did in these areas to even talk about it, but I can't fain any emperical data on this.

Quantum metaphysics: 700BCE: 20th century

Ok you got me here....metaphysics...the jury is still out on this one. So what even in the 20th century is factual about this?

Physics(including atomic theory and classical mechanics) 600BCE: 17-18th century

I would really love to read their concepts on this, and how did they view this invisible world? The data would really need to be stong here....

The truth is clear from all the evidence: We've had many "modern" civilisations in the past well beyond 10,000 years ago. There are periodic cycles of cataclysm which destroy civilisations, the last one was the super floods 10,000 years ago which completely changed the geography of the earth and submerged entire continents, and we are due in for the next one very soon.

Ok, so you now suggest they got their knowledge from an even more ancient race, and were not the originators at all. Ok spill the beans on who were these ancients and why would you think they existed.



[edit on 9-4-2009 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Bassman86
Oh yeah, also, I understand it's just a video game but look at Fallout 3. There were weapons in the game which were able to turn matter into ash. What if they had weapons or bombs with this capability if they are so much more advanced than us?

But wouldnt that be kind of noticable when studying geology? We can trace volcanic eruptions back in time already.

I believe disintegration is a better choice. Vaporize the enemy.

However, no matter how you twist and turn it, there should have been survivors and stuff left behind. Even if we where to vaporize every major and minor city on the face of the planet in this instant, that still leave gazillions of artifacts, communities, farms, vehicles, etc etc. Nothing short of blowing up Earth and reforming it will make everything vanish, I think.