Thread: Chris Langan on youtube

What do you guys think about this Chris Langan dude? I've read most of his CTMU and agree with its conclusions.

Chris Langan highlights - YouTube

"A fool and his money are soon parted."

He seems to be as much of an asshole as I am. lol. I don't know about his ctmu , and its probably more than I can bother myself to look into right now. but his philosophies, as dickheaded as they come across are a lot like mine. Though I would never go around boasting how much smarter I am than other people. I think once you have decided that you are the smartest person alive, you have willingly crippled your ability to learn any more than you already have, and there is always more to learn. It is illogical to assume that you are smarter than everyone else. His ego is the only thing bigger than his IQ score. Which may be why he hasn't gotten himself into a career where he could possibly influence the social changes he insist need to be in place. Book smarts are important. But social skills can take you places book smarts will never get you. Humility is something he seems to have no grasp of.

he makes a lot of talk to continue working in a bar. if he wants to change things like he talks about, he should try doing something.

I wonder why people are obsessing over this guy, there are numerous individuals who have higher IQs than him "IMO his IQ is the only thing interesting enough for provocation to make him a sort of celebrity on youtube.". Adragon Del Mallo "incorrect spelling I imagine" Michael Kearny, or from earlier times, William Sidis. Langan is certainly intelligent, but I'm rather skeptical on the IQ test's ability to actually measure anything other than spatial/logical intelligences. I.E: Bobby Fischer, anti-semite, genius IQ in the 160s I believe. Ted Kaczynski, IQ of 167, you may know him better as the Unabomber. Leopold and Loeb, the first was rumored to have an IQ the equivalent of 210 "accuracy in the test falters in the higher numbers", and they went on to murder a 15 year old to see if they could commit the perfect crime. Langan may have a high IQ, but he wasn't intelligent enough to get a University degree so that scientists would take any of his work seriously.

What do you guys think about this Chris Langan dude?

Langan is (supposedly) smart.
Langan is a nut.
Langan is a liar.

I've read most of his CTMU and agree with its conclusions.

Then you're as deluded as he is.

I couldn't watch the whole video. Sounds like hooey.

Just goes to prove that intelligent is not the opposite of stupid.

I don't like this trend where people who can appeal to the largest base of the uneducated are suddenly uplifted as geniuses. Just because something makes sense to a large swath of the public does not mean it is intelligent. After all, we elected GW Bush TWICE.

Peter Higgs is a genius. A guy with a series of YouTube videos that happened to get a lot of views is not necessarily a genius.

What is the point of this thread?
You have pushed Langan and his CTMU multiple times, in dedicated threads AND as inserts into existing threads.
In each case there has been sufficient feedback to convince anyone with an ounce of rationality/ intellectual integrity that Langan is wrong, is mistaken, is actively promoting a false conclusion based on a pre-existing agenda.

I had never heard of Chris Langan before this thread and having only seen the YouTube sited in this op is what I based my initial opinion of him on. I have now done further research into him and have decided that even though I have made some similar comments in regards to guiding human evolution, I only make my comments in private with people who know me to be only kidding. I assumed this was some kind of satire but now I realize this guy is serious and quite frankly if he ever came into power he would be very dangerous. He is a crank fanatic that seems to think anyone that doesn't believe like he does should be culled. His IQ scores were fraudulent and his attitude is nothing short of being a genocidal lunatic, in that he thinks only people like him should be allowed to live and breed. But he isn't as smart as he claims to be or he would have done something with his life other than be a bouncer at a bar. And anyone who genuinely believes that they are not better than anyone else would not allow a video glorifying them to be made. Nor would they make such pompous arrogant claims to be closer to actual truth than anyone else alive.

Anyone who buys his BS is a fool.

So I have to retract that he and I are alike, having based that initial summation on the assumption that he was kidding (I always give people the benefit of the doubt). This guy has delusions of grandeur and the only thing we probably have in common is that his IQ is probably comparable to mine which is somewhere between 135-145. I think that is average, I'm not sure, could just be I don't associate with extremely stupid people much.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Anyone who buys his BS is a fool.

Refer back to post #2.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Anyone who buys his BS is a fool.

Refer back to post #2.

Yeah, i didn't know what you were referring to at first since I wasn't aware he was attempting to sell anything. And didn't know ctmu was an attempt to prove intelligent design and/or the existence of God.

My IQ is probably comparable to his but at least I'm smart enough to know that I'm nothing near to being a genius.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

"A fool and his money are soon parted."

Truer words were never spoken.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I couldn't watch the whole video.

No point watching the entire video.
Any video that starts with such a phenomenally stupid "conclusion" isn't worth watching at all.

The CTMU is a reality theoretic extension of logic and amodel for science in which perception itself is the model. It was developed by Christopher Langan in the mid-eighties as a theory for the purpose of paradox resolution and if you read his book The Art of Knowing you'll notice that Newcombs paradox is one of the paradoxes it solves.The CTMU describes reality as a language residing in the mind of God, more specifically a self-programming language or SCSPL, Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language. This linguistic object as it were is the essence of the self-generating aspect of reality, furthermore reality regresses to a realm of nil constraint known as UBT or unbound telesis. This is the primordial nothingness from which we originate.Reality refines itself from so called UBT by telic recursion, the currency of which is a property known as generalised utility in the maximization of which law and state must coexist.The CTMU can be viewed as the much awaited logical bridge between traditional religion, economics and modern science, although it doesn't necessecarily confirm any given cherry-picked claim biblical scripture.

*from biblical scripture

Originally Posted by Marcus Andersson

The CTMU is a reality theoretic extension of logic and amodel for science in which perception itself is the model. It was developed by Christopher Langan in the mid-eighties as a theory for the purpose of paradox resolution and if you read his book The Art of Knowing you'll notice that Newcombs paradox is one of the paradoxes it solves.The CTMU describes reality as a language residing in the mind of God, more specifically a self-programming language or SCSPL, Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language. This linguistic object as it were is the essence of the self-generating aspect of reality, furthermore reality regresses to a realm of nil constraint known as UBT or unbound telesis. This is the primordial nothingness from which we originate.Reality refines itself from so called UBT by telic recursion, the currency of which is a property known as generalised utility in the maximization of which law and state must coexist.The CTMU can be viewed as the much awaited logical bridge between traditional religion, economics and modern science, although it doesn't necessecarily confirm any given cherry-picked claim biblical scripture.

Okay, so it IS hooey.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Originally Posted by Marcus Andersson

The CTMU is a reality theoretic extension of logic and amodel for science

Oops.
That last word. There. THAT one.
"Science".
Langan is NOT doing science.
The CTMU's ONLY relationship to science is that he co-opts some scientific terms.
And then he adds a lot of meaningless buzz words.

in which perception itself is the model. It was developed by Christopher Langan in the mid-eighties as a theory for the purpose of paradox resolution and if you read his book The Art of Knowing you'll notice that Newcombs paradox is one of the paradoxes it solves.The CTMU describes reality as a language residing in the mind of God, more specifically a self-programming language or SCSPL, Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language. This linguistic object as it were is the essence of the self-generating aspect of reality, furthermore reality regresses to a realm of nil constraint known as UBT or unbound telesis. This is the primordial nothingness from which we originate.Reality refines itself from so called UBT by telic recursion, the currency of which is a property known as generalised utility in the maximization of which law and state must coexist.The CTMU can be viewed as the much awaited logical bridge between traditional religion, economics and modern science, although it doesn't necessecarily confirm any given cherry-picked claim biblical scripture.

Yep, just like that.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Marcus Andersson

The CTMU is a reality theoretic extension of logic and amodel for science in which perception itself is the model. It was developed by Christopher Langan in the mid-eighties as a theory for the purpose of paradox resolution and if you read his book The Art of Knowing you'll notice that Newcombs paradox is one of the paradoxes it solves.The CTMU describes reality as a language residing in the mind of God, more specifically a self-programming language or SCSPL, Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language. This linguistic object as it were is the essence of the self-generating aspect of reality, furthermore reality regresses to a realm of nil constraint known as UBT or unbound telesis. This is the primordial nothingness from which we originate.Reality refines itself from so called UBT by telic recursion, the currency of which is a property known as generalised utility in the maximization of which law and state must coexist.The CTMU can be viewed as the much awaited logical bridge between traditional religion, economics and modern science, although it doesn't necessecarily confirm any given cherry-picked claim biblical scripture.

Okay, so it IS hooey.Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

And what suspicions would that be? I'm assuming by the tone of your post that you're about to grace us with a theory of...

And what suspicions would that be? I'm assuming by the tone of your post that you're about to grace us with a theory of...[/QUOTE]

Upon first hearing this "theory", I thought it sounded like nonsense, but I couldn't be bothered to hear the whole thing out. Then, you came on with a summary that really helped me make up my mind that it was in my best interest not to listen to the whole video.

I'm just not a fan of metaphysics and pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I'm just not a fan of metaphysics and pseudoscience.

Conversely, I quite enjoy metaphysics and pseudoscience variously frustrates and amuses me.
What I don't like, however, is charlatanry and pushing a specious agenda while using both of the above.
That's why I'm not a Langan fan.

Originally Posted by Marcus Andersson

And what suspicions would that be? I'm assuming by the tone of your post that you're about to grace us with a theory of...

Why don't you go ahead and and describe how the CTMU accurately predicts and models reality without dispensing word salad.

I guess it depends on my mood. I'm in a foul one right now, so I'm really sick of people twisting what science is really all about. First, we get flak from creationists for not buying into their stories, then the creationists start taking an approach toward topics that they want people to believe incorporates science when it clearly does not.

Creationism is bad. Intelligent Design is magnitudes of order worse.

As a practicing scientist I am in favor of open-mindedness, comprehensiveness and for a search for truth. I'm not particularly religious myself, which is why I appreciate that the CTMU does not make any literalist claims or hokus-pokus.The CTMU is science, and I'd challenge anyone to specify something less than scientific about it.Just like any theory it's open to scientific scrutiny, which you guys seem coy about.Find me the particular bits of binary logic you disagree with and we'll have a discussion about it. I'm open for discussion.

Originally Posted by Marcus Andersson

The CTMU is science

That isn't obvious from your summary in post #17.

Find me the particular bits of binary logic you disagree with and we'll have a discussion about it. I'm open for discussion.

Shouldn't the onus be on you as the one supporting this theory? Is there one particular testable prediction that it makes which you would like to present here?

Christopher Langan isn't talking about intelligent design in the sense that you're thinking about it. And yes, anything and everything can be construed as a word sallad, right?I'm pro-sallad. I'm against meaningless cussing and posturing though, and I abhor any kind of pseudoscience.The CTMU is a logical theory.

Originally Posted by Marcus Andersson

or hokus-pokus.

The entire thing is "hokus-pokus".

The CTMU is science

Only if you redefine the word "science".

I'd challenge anyone to specify something less than scientific about it

Ooh, let's see...
"Furthermore, in keeping with the name of that to be modeled, it must meaningfully incorporate the intelligence and design concepts, describing the universe as an intelligently self-designed, self-organizing system."
In other words, my "proof" will incorporate, as part of its "proof", the assumption - nay! the NECESSITY - that ID is valid and correct.

Just like any theory it's open to scientific scrutiny

A "theory" is only open to scientific scrutiny if the word "theory" is meant in the scientific context. If it;'s used in the "wild guess" context (like this one is) then that creates an automatic cop-out from scientific scrutiny.

Langan is a fraud.
Langan has a specific agenda.

Originally Posted by Marcus Andersson

Christopher Langan isn't talking about intelligent design in the sense that you're thinking about it.

Of course he isn't.
Oh, wait:
Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID),^[20] a professional society which promotes intelligent design.
I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind.
since Biblical accounts of the genesis of our world and species are true but metaphorical
(All Wiki).

And yes, anything and everything can be construed as a word sallad, right?

Especially if it IS word salad.

I abhor any kind of pseudoscience

And yet here you are: defending pseudoscience.

The CTMU is a logical theory.

Only if your definition of "logic" includes starting from unsupported assumptions and working towards a pre-formed conclusion.