5 ms·

I could be wrong because I haven't read unabridged versions of either. My sense is we tend to relate what was described abstractly with advancements we see arou

I could be wrong because I haven't read unabridged versions of either. My sense is we tend to relate what was described abstractly with advancements we see around us. For e.g. with flying vehicles in ancient epics I'm skeptical that they describe in any detail how flight was achieved besides magic or divine power.

phekunde 5y ago
> My sense is we tend to relate what was described abstractly with advancements we see around us. How is the mention of ""vaayu yaan" abstract? Can we similarly say that to the mention of present day "aeroplane" abstract and dismiss it as non-existent? > For e.g. with flying vehicles in ancient epics I'm skeptical that they describe in any detail how flight was achieved besides magic or divine power. In present day writings(fiction or otherwise) when we mention flights or aeroplane, we don't mention every nut and bolt of the aeroplane. So saying the ancient text did not give much details is unfair to those texts. As I mentioned in my original post, these advance ideas were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty, similar to how we now mention air travel or space flights.
- blackoil 5y ago
  There is a lack of consistency and continuity. We had aeroplane in stories but no similar ground vehicle like Car/train, which should have been invented earlier if technology was present. We had vision across space/time but no knowledge of places outside India.
  - phekunde 5y ago
    We had teleportation ;) Jokes aside, the link between car/trains and aerial vehicles is superficial. There is no hard requirement that one has to come before the other.
- thechao 5y ago
  > were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty You've said this twice now. In persuasive writing, once you state a fact, you must draw a conclusion, clearly. Please, draw for me your conclusion. Since we're asynchronous, it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed: heavier than air flight, spaceflight, test-tube babies, etc. Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them. Could you point me to the physical proof of these? Because, I feel like these objects would've come up in my readings, before. If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing?
  - phekunde 5y ago
    > it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed Please read the last line of my original post. > If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing? I am saying, that the description given in the text is too specific for it to be dismissed right away. And even if it is hokum, then the sheer level of imagination of ancient civilisation to mention flying vehicles, missiles, teleportation, body preservation and test-tube baby is appreciable. It will be good to know what type of civilisation was that that was able to imagine these advance concepts. > Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them. Sure, I am all for scientific evidence. In fact I would like to see that it is either supported or refuted with evidence. From some of the comments it looks like for rejecting a hypothesis no evidence is required, but for supporting it evidence is demanded. If there is no evidence to either support or refute it, then the matter should be inconclusive rather than concluding it either way.
    - thechao 5y ago
      Off the top of my head "flying vehicles" and "body preservation" are well-attested in many other cultures (Ancient Egypt; Mayans) that I'm 100% certain had neither. You are for sure reading too much into this. > And even if it is hokum I 99% believe that you think these things are real; I don't know if you're a von Danikenite, but you sure talk like one. > If there is no evidence to either support or refute it There is evidence that there's no evidence: we've been digging holes all over the world for centuries, looking for raw materials -- quadruply so, very recently, in the Indian subcontinent. If there was a civilization capable of supporting space-age technology, we'd've found it by now.
      - phekunde 5y ago
        > I 99% believe that you think these things are real; Again, go read the last sentence of my original post. > There is evidence that there's no evidence: we've been digging holes....very recently, in the Indian subcontinent. Hmmm.
  - 5y ago
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
I mean, if a complete layperson were to describe how an airplane works, how would you even begin? It looks a bit like a bird and err, it's very loud, and it flies! I mean if you don't know the least about an engine, how would you describe it? There's untold masses of people out there that still lack even a basic education, and that education / class difference was worse as you go back in time. Anyway, your second sentence reminds me of how we interpret e.g. Nostradamus' writing in hindsight, how he predicted Hitler and 9/11 and all that. But only in hindsight.

phekunde 5y ago

> My sense is we tend to relate what was described abstractly with advancements we see around us. How is the mention of ""vaayu yaan" abstract? Can we similarly say that to the mention of present day "aeroplane" abstract and dismiss it as non-existent? > For e.g. with flying vehicles in ancient epics I'm skeptical that they describe in any detail how flight was achieved besides magic or divine power. In present day writings(fiction or otherwise) when we mention flights or aeroplane, we don't mention every nut and bolt of the aeroplane. So saying the ancient text did not give much details is unfair to those texts. As I mentioned in my original post, these advance ideas were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty, similar to how we now mention air travel or space flights.

blackoil 5y ago
There is a lack of consistency and continuity. We had aeroplane in stories but no similar ground vehicle like Car/train, which should have been invented earlier if technology was present. We had vision across space/time but no knowledge of places outside India.
- phekunde 5y ago
  We had teleportation ;) Jokes aside, the link between car/trains and aerial vehicles is superficial. There is no hard requirement that one has to come before the other.
thechao 5y ago
> were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty You've said this twice now. In persuasive writing, once you state a fact, you must draw a conclusion, clearly. Please, draw for me your conclusion. Since we're asynchronous, it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed: heavier than air flight, spaceflight, test-tube babies, etc. Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them. Could you point me to the physical proof of these? Because, I feel like these objects would've come up in my readings, before. If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing?
- phekunde 5y ago
  > it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed Please read the last line of my original post. > If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing? I am saying, that the description given in the text is too specific for it to be dismissed right away. And even if it is hokum, then the sheer level of imagination of ancient civilisation to mention flying vehicles, missiles, teleportation, body preservation and test-tube baby is appreciable. It will be good to know what type of civilisation was that that was able to imagine these advance concepts. > Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them. Sure, I am all for scientific evidence. In fact I would like to see that it is either supported or refuted with evidence. From some of the comments it looks like for rejecting a hypothesis no evidence is required, but for supporting it evidence is demanded. If there is no evidence to either support or refute it, then the matter should be inconclusive rather than concluding it either way.
  - thechao 5y ago
    Off the top of my head "flying vehicles" and "body preservation" are well-attested in many other cultures (Ancient Egypt; Mayans) that I'm 100% certain had neither. You are for sure reading too much into this. > And even if it is hokum I 99% believe that you think these things are real; I don't know if you're a von Danikenite, but you sure talk like one. > If there is no evidence to either support or refute it There is evidence that there's no evidence: we've been digging holes all over the world for centuries, looking for raw materials -- quadruply so, very recently, in the Indian subcontinent. If there was a civilization capable of supporting space-age technology, we'd've found it by now.
    - phekunde 5y ago
      > I 99% believe that you think these things are real; Again, go read the last sentence of my original post. > There is evidence that there's no evidence: we've been digging holes....very recently, in the Indian subcontinent. Hmmm.
- 5y ago

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

I mean, if a complete layperson were to describe how an airplane works, how would you even begin? It looks a bit like a bird and err, it's very loud, and it flies! I mean if you don't know the least about an engine, how would you describe it? There's untold masses of people out there that still lack even a basic education, and that education / class difference was worse as you go back in time. Anyway, your second sentence reminds me of how we interpret e.g. Nostradamus' writing in hindsight, how he predicted Hitler and 9/11 and all that. But only in hindsight.