Post 249 (Dhu):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->some serious anthropological puzzles<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->It seems that the AIT is a mind-virus that prevents people from solving basic puzzles. Brains that have been exposed to and been infected by it are unable to think of the possibilities existing beyond the AIT which might negate it. After all, the virus' life hangs in the balance: if the person solves the puzzle in such a way that the AIT is ignored or even undone, then it's all over for the AIT bug.
Thankfully, some brains develop immunity after exposure and so can expell the AIT from their worldview. Yupp, I'm a survivor too.
Yes, the ox-drawn wagons originating in the sindh-punjab that you brought to my attention do indeed seem to solve the whole mystery in a manner that makes one want to say "Of course! It's so simple!"
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why should the Indologists go for the simple explanation when witzelian "complex scenarios" are always possible. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Are you implying that the Indological explanations I predicted (using the Infallible Indological Methods) are simple and not convoluted enough? <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
What? <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> Didn't you see Post 237-point (b) on how the Indological brain ducked the probable, the possible, the straightforward and went directly for the preposterous: "but them non-Oryan-Vanavasi-tribal-animistics can't draw - they've accidentally drawn horses which they've never seen before, instead of drawing their pets - all because we <i>know</i> horses came in 1500bce and <i>not</i> before". (Added a touch of circular reasoning there to make it seem more authentically Indological)
Could things be more complex and further from plausible than that? True, I'm not expert enough in Indology and require more practise, but I thought I had done well for my first attempt. Anyway, I don't want to sacrifice all my neurons by permanently ceasing to exercise them during Indology training. Don't want to end up like a Whatzel or a Fumer - not a pretty sight.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->some serious anthropological puzzles<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->It seems that the AIT is a mind-virus that prevents people from solving basic puzzles. Brains that have been exposed to and been infected by it are unable to think of the possibilities existing beyond the AIT which might negate it. After all, the virus' life hangs in the balance: if the person solves the puzzle in such a way that the AIT is ignored or even undone, then it's all over for the AIT bug.
Thankfully, some brains develop immunity after exposure and so can expell the AIT from their worldview. Yupp, I'm a survivor too.
Yes, the ox-drawn wagons originating in the sindh-punjab that you brought to my attention do indeed seem to solve the whole mystery in a manner that makes one want to say "Of course! It's so simple!"
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why should the Indologists go for the simple explanation when witzelian "complex scenarios" are always possible. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Are you implying that the Indological explanations I predicted (using the Infallible Indological Methods) are simple and not convoluted enough? <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> What? <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> Didn't you see Post 237-point (b) on how the Indological brain ducked the probable, the possible, the straightforward and went directly for the preposterous: "but them non-Oryan-Vanavasi-tribal-animistics can't draw - they've accidentally drawn horses which they've never seen before, instead of drawing their pets - all because we <i>know</i> horses came in 1500bce and <i>not</i> before". (Added a touch of circular reasoning there to make it seem more authentically Indological)
Could things be more complex and further from plausible than that? True, I'm not expert enough in Indology and require more practise, but I thought I had done well for my first attempt. Anyway, I don't want to sacrifice all my neurons by permanently ceasing to exercise them during Indology training. Don't want to end up like a Whatzel or a Fumer - not a pretty sight.