|
 teeter
Mindfucked
 
Registered: 02/06/09
Posts: 1,081
Loc: Philadelphia PA
Last seen: 5 months, 19 days
|
 CTMU
#10214287 - 04/22/09 02:33 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Zanthius posted a link the the CTMU in the spoof of his neural net thread and the theory looks like it could be really interesting, but the guy uses an assload of technical jargon and big words. Does anyone actually understand what this guy is saying? If so can you give a basic explanation of what hes saying, I'm really interested, but it would take me forever to gain an understanding of what hes saying, so I'm hoping someone can help me out.
--------------------
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern." - William Blake
"Psychedelics helped me to escape.. albeit momentarily.. from the prison of my mind. It over-rode the habit patterns of thought and I was able to taste innocence again. Looking at sensations freshly without the conceptual overly was very profound." - Ram Das
|
falcon
In the green
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 5,149
Last seen: 1 day, 10 hours
|
|
 I think it's an assload because the guy is talking out of his ass, either that or he just doesn't want to be understood.
|
 deimya
tofu and monocle
Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
|
But he has an IQ of 200, I mean come on man, come one, this the first thing you learn while reading his wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan . He must be right, right ?
|
falcon
In the green
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 5,149
Last seen: 1 day, 10 hours
|
|
 He could be, like teeter, I would like to have it explained in terms I can understand.
|
teeter
Mindfucked
Registered: 02/06/09
Posts: 1,081
Loc: Philadelphia PA
Last seen: 5 months, 19 days
|
|
It could go either way. Either hes a total bullshitter and he just tries to sound impressive with gigantic words, or he actually has some great ideas, but he has trouble expressing them due to his insane IQ.
Anyway, does anyone know what the fuck this guy is talking about?
--------------------
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern." - William Blake
"Psychedelics helped me to escape.. albeit momentarily.. from the prison of my mind. It over-rode the habit patterns of thought and I was able to taste innocence again. Looking at sensations freshly without the conceptual overly was very profound." - Ram Das
|
5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast
Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 3,824
Loc: Ohio 
Last seen: 20 hours, 37 minutes
|
|
Just looking at that ctmu.org made me want to blow my brains out. What kind of an asshole would write something so fucking terribly? I mean, if you really think this explains everything I'm pretty sure you'd want everyone to understand it.
He rejects Darwinian evolution. 
--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
 
|
C.M. Mann
subconscious explorer
Registered: 05/01/08
Posts: 899
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
|
teeter
Mindfucked
Registered: 02/06/09
Posts: 1,081
Loc: Philadelphia PA
Last seen: 5 months, 19 days
|
|
Really, he rejects evolution and he has an IQ of 200? I guess hes so smart, that he doesn't function?
Quote:
5HTSynaptrip said:
...if you really think this explains everything I'm pretty sure you'd want everyone to understand it.
Exactly.
--------------------
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern." - William Blake
"Psychedelics helped me to escape.. albeit momentarily.. from the prison of my mind. It over-rode the habit patterns of thought and I was able to taste innocence again. Looking at sensations freshly without the conceptual overly was very profound." - Ram Das
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
5HTSynaptrip said:
Just looking at that ctmu.org made me want to blow my brains out. What kind of an asshole would write something so fucking terribly? I mean, if you really think this explains everything I'm pretty sure you'd want everyone to understand it.
Don't be so certain. Many individuals with a high intelligence seems to think that the only other individuals worth convincing are those individuals that also have a high intelligence. It can also be more precise to use a lot of complicated words.
|
teeter
Mindfucked
Registered: 02/06/09
Posts: 1,081
Loc: Philadelphia PA
Last seen: 5 months, 19 days
|
|
Zanthius, if your such a fan of Michael Langan (which I assuming because you defend him and because you are the one who introduced me to his work), could you please explain what the fuck hes talking about? I'm sure I can get through his work given enough time and a lot of time flipping through a dictionary, but I'm not really inclined to do so from what I've seen so far. Could you please give me a summary so I can decide if this guy is worth my time.
--------------------
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern." - William Blake
"Psychedelics helped me to escape.. albeit momentarily.. from the prison of my mind. It over-rode the habit patterns of thought and I was able to taste innocence again. Looking at sensations freshly without the conceptual overly was very profound." - Ram Das
|
5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast
Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 3,824
Loc: Ohio
Last seen: 20 hours, 37 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
5HTSynaptrip said:
Just looking at that ctmu.org made me want to blow my brains out. What kind of an asshole would write something so fucking terribly? I mean, if you really think this explains everything I'm pretty sure you'd want everyone to understand it.
Don't be so certain. Many individuals with a high intelligence seems to think that the only other individuals worth convincing are those individuals that also have a high intelligence. It can also be more precise to use a lot of complicated words.
Well man, my beef as a cellular biologist, is that dna evidence OVERWHELMINGLY supports natural selection and Darwinian evolution.
The GREATEST minds all agree upon it. I guess I'd have to see his "proof" but I've read the origin of species and studied quite a bit about genetics and organic evo to really take anything else seriously. It's like every sign points to one direction and that direction is a change in allele frequency in a given population in a given period of time.
--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
|
teeter
Mindfucked
Registered: 02/06/09
Posts: 1,081
Loc: Philadelphia PA
Last seen: 5 months, 19 days
|
|
Not to get off topic, but as a side note: I really don't see why there are only two sides to the coin (evolution and Intelligent Design). Honestly, couldn't they both be true? Couldn't evolution be God's "intelligent design"? The reason intelligent design people aren't taken seriously is because they don't face the proven facts and the reason evolutionists can't win them over is because they aren't willing to be "agnostic" about it. There wouldn't be a debate if the dumb ID people would realise the evidence for evolution and the dumb evolution people would admit the possiblity that God designed the evolution system.
--------------------
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern." - William Blake
"Psychedelics helped me to escape.. albeit momentarily.. from the prison of my mind. It over-rode the habit patterns of thought and I was able to taste innocence again. Looking at sensations freshly without the conceptual overly was very profound." - Ram Das
|
DavidW
Stranger
Registered: 04/23/09
Posts: 3
Last seen: 3 years, 20 days
|
|
Actually Langan's theory does not discount evolution. It just says it's incomplete to explain life, just one piece of the puzzle. Since Darwin's evolution theory explains life based on the assumption of the preexistence of the universe and the laws that favor the possibility of evolution into humans, but it does not answer those more difficult questions.
But yeah, Langan's theory is confusing, even when there isn't a lot of technical jargon, the explanations seem almost intentionally vague and user-unfriendly.
|
teeter
Mindfucked
Registered: 02/06/09
Posts: 1,081
Loc: Philadelphia PA
Last seen: 5 months, 19 days
|
|
Welcome to shroomery, and coul you possibly offer more?
At this point I'm pretty much not reading his thing, I think the guy is essentially too smart for his own good.
1.) You can't mathematically prove the existance of god anymore than you can mathematically prove the existance of your computer. You can't just make math say "This exists."
2.) Watching some interviews with him, he looks like pretty much Grade A wacko stock. His father was a sadistic psycho and he got picked on at school. Hes got a total chip on his shoulder towards acedemia and hes ridiculously smart. Also, hes clearly not full functional at a practical level. Do you think a guy with an IQ 70-100 points higher than nearly everyone on earth would be working as a bouncer if he was able to function practically. Pretty much the profile for all these wierdos. He just uses random intellectual jargon instead of clever twisting of the bible to induce mass suicide.
3.) He said that if he had dictatorial power over the world, he would make it illegal to have a child w/o permission. He would basically require you to have awesome genes in order to have kids. He also said that people with high IQs would function as the government. The way I see this going: 150+ IQers become ruling class. All female children given surgically removable birth control. Applications for non-high IQers to have kids are all denied. Non-genius level people die off and world falls to shit because people with 150+ IQs are generally less than 100% functional. Also, they would have an extreme sense of entitlement because they are the ruling class. Nobody would be there to take out the trash (metaphorically and literally).
I conclude: Langan = wacko
--------------------
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern." - William Blake
"Psychedelics helped me to escape.. albeit momentarily.. from the prison of my mind. It over-rode the habit patterns of thought and I was able to taste innocence again. Looking at sensations freshly without the conceptual overly was very profound." - Ram Das
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
|
Although I agree with (1), (2) would only follow if this guy had trouble living, whereas from the information that you have given, there is no reason to think he is not happy with his employment.
(3).. well since no person can really say which genes are better, this is impractical. Humans should not have so much power.
But as for intelligent people running the world.. I dont know where you get the idea that intelligent people are less functional. There is no reason to not desire mental capabilities in your leaders. It is just not a good measure of leading ability to run off primarily. Still, there would be nothing wrong if it happened that all the leaders were incredibly intelligent.
From what I have read so far, Langan seems like a very reasonable philosopher.
on one of the exerpts on this page http://www.ctmu.org/ he write about darwinism being unconvincing.
What I took from the article (indeed the language was a little hard to follow when in the state of mind that has been surfing the net) was that Natural selection does not contradict with Intelligent design and thus A theory that utilises Intelligent design theories as well as Natural selection theories has a stronger philosophical stance than taking merely natural selection alone.
For this reason I think it is important for serious natural philosphers to consider how science interacts with Intelligent Design theory and how both Intelligent design theory and Natural selection relate to various religious teachings across the ages.
I think people should take intelligent design theory seriously simply because it is the belief that most humans assent to and thus we need to know exactly why we feel it is unreasonable to suggest that the complexity of life and the interrelationship between consciousness and organic forms is the product of an 'intelligent' intervention.
The main answer to this is 'there is no justified reason to think it is true in the first place so we shouldnt have to prove it is wrong'.
But I say that human creativity is a powerful thing and ideas can come from it that end up being true, without our knowing exactly why this must be the case. Intuition generally defines our reality, and this is important in creative produce. I think if an idea comes about, it should not necessarily be assented to as knowledge simply because it appears to be true after being suggested. However, it should be taken as a serious possibility until it can be shown otherwise.
You cannot mathematically compare the likelihood that god interviened vs life arose from nothing. Anyone who suggests this needs a kick up the arse. The thing that seperates these two possibilities are the logical boundaries of their assumptions. Using god or an intelligent creator to explain life on earth leaves open a vast domain to be filled to explain that god or intelligent creator.
Believing that life simply arose due to the way the universe is ordered supposes less information that itself needs explaining. It abides by occams razor and thus is a more appropriate interpretation to take.
But as far as the concepts go, their likelihood are incompatible, they are both as likely as eachother because we have no source of information to feed our beliefs on the matter.
And langans proposal is that since there are certain reasons that suggest toward intelligent design, which do not contradict with any of the the processes celebrated by Darwinists, then taking those reasons into account, you merely strengthen your account of the world without denying Darwinist principles to occur. Thus pure darwinism is not fully convincing.
--------------------
 
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
5HTSynaptrip said:
Well man, my beef as a cellular biologist, is that dna evidence OVERWHELMINGLY supports natural selection and Darwinian evolution.
Well of course, but our understanding of evolution isn't necessarily complete.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
teeter said:
Zanthius, if your such a fan of Michael Langan (which I assuming because you defend him and because you are the one who introduced me to his work), could you please explain what the fuck hes talking about? I'm sure I can get through his work given enough time and a lot of time flipping through a dictionary, but I'm not really inclined to do so from what I've seen so far. Could you please give me a summary so I can decide if this guy is worth my time.
I don't think I can explain his theory even nearly as well as he does himself, and he talks about a lot of stuff in the introduction to the cognitive-theoretical model of the universe. Everything from cosmology to cognition.
|
Drakion
Wo kommst du?
Registered: 11/29/08
Posts: 90
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
|
From what I read on your link Christopher Langan is a brilliant nutjob.
I almost wretched when I read the end with his "God concept" part. He could have very well said "The gun concept can not be blamed for death by bullets, as men have always used the firearms for their own ends."
"A credible religion must contain elements of truth and undecidability".
What pray tell is a credible religion? One that merely survives, or one that teachings you find acceptable? How much truth and undecidability must be contained therein for it to be credible, 10%, 20%?
"So by design, religious beliefs generally cannot be refuted by rational or empirical means".
How very ambiguous and misleading. "by design" Men or God's design? "religious beliefs generally cannot be refuted by rational or empirical means". So something that can not be proven true (hence belief) is occasionally proven wrong by science and reason. Well that would only stand as logical. Something created can continuously be built further on even more outlandish explanations, in turn continually dodging any attempt made of rebuking the fiction for what it is.
The casual reader would take from that sentence that "God made religion irrefutable due to our limited understanding". I see most of his work as little more than a heavily veiled agenda. Regardless of his views though, still an interesting read.
--------------------
Choosing a religion is like playing the lotto, you can't get saved if you don't play! ~ Bill Maher
The efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy. ~Adolf Hitler
10 years in an American prison right here folks, be careful!
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
Drakion said:
I almost wretched when I read the end with his "God concept" part. He could have very well said "The gun concept can not be blamed for death by bullets, as men have always used the firearms for their own ends."
Or he could have said: "Science cannot be blamed for nuclear weapons, just like the God concept cannot be blamed for religious malevolence".
I love science, but I don't support the building of nuclear weapons. I also have a concept of a mono-holo-pantheistic God, but I don't adhere to any religion, and I certainly don't support religious malevolence.
Edited by Zanthius (04/24/09 02:08 AM)
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
|
look i just checked his youtube self-docco and I think he is just a guy who got the record IQ score and is trying to live up to that role. I think on the whole he has very good ideas but his criticism of academia seems to stem not only from academias faults but from his own inabilities to respect other people
--------------------
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
