/lit/ - Literature

isn't the body that medium?

>>16393262
Cringe. Langan is a pseud.

>>16393262
Langan understands the Physical realm and the Spiritual realm are both one the same in the end.

>>16393262
>>16393320
Boring. Langan is Morgue/Hyperianism tier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCWsPwQ4gwY

Dude they're like a moebius strip XD

Can anyone give me a quick rundown on langan? I assumed he was a hack but Aarvoll considers his work to be really important for his philosophical outlook

>>16393379
Cognitive-theoretic model of universe
www.ctmu.net

>>16393394
>Because reality is self-contained, it serves as its own selection function. That is, the function, that which it selects, and the act of selection itself are identical; "existence is everywhere the choice to exist"[35] and "reality triples as choice, chooser and chosen".
Gibberish.

>>16393262
Fat people are not allowed to talk about philosophy. Ignored.

This brain let didnt even consider that the medium could be dualistic in nature. In truth, it's mediums all the way down

>>16393262
He is a hack.

He claims to have an iq of between 195 and 210. The odds of this are extremely rare, to literally impossible.

He created his model of the universe using terminology he made up, and when people ask for those terms to be defined he calls them stupid.

How many actual geniuses brag about their iq? None. Because actual geniuses do shit that is relevant.

itt: pure undiluted cope by brainlets who are seething the smartest man to ever exist isn't a leftist

>>16393434
no actual accomplishments

>>16393426
>He is a hack.
An extremely over-used attack that is meaningless without reasons.
>He claims to have an iq of between 195 and 210. The odds of this are extremely rare, to literally impossible.
That has no relevance. No matter how rare something is, that can never mean it is impossible.
>He created his model of the universe using terminology he made up, and when people ask for those terms to be defined he calls them stupid.
Can you give examples of this happening? I don't see how this is relevant, unless he just never defines his terms.
>How many actual geniuses brag about their iq? None. Because actual geniuses do shit that is relevant.
Irrelevant attack to his character.
>>16393473
See >>16393394

If he really is the smartest man in the world it's been wasted on him, since he's accomplished nothing of note.

>>16393426
>He created his model of the universe using terminology he made up

What? All terminology is made up. When Plato talked about forms, or when Leibniz talked about monads, they were making these terms up. You realize this right?

>>16393394
Thanks anon, I will give it a read.

>>16393521
See >>16393394

>>16393502
>That has no relevance. No matter how rare something is, that can never mean it is impossible.

It is not a matter of rarity. It is not possible - there are hard limits. Not to mention you can see his brainlet tier opinions on fb.

Imagine being confronted with a mountain of evidence but need to justify to the world you are somehow unique by claiming to understand Langans psycho babble.

So please, if you can, explain the rudiments of his theory to me. I will shut up then if it makes any sense, or is at all coherent.

Inb4 its too hard

Kant and hegel have written mutliple bricks, and yet ppl can still tell me the gist of their ideas. So go ahead. Prove me wrong.

>>16393502
The other guy who replied to this already beat you the fuck out, but I'd like to note your shit taste in waifus anyway. Fucking standard shounen lookin-ass.

>>16393522
>all terminology is made up

Is this the all words are made up argument? If you bother reading what I said he doesnt define the terms. Dont be so disingenious as to pretend Plato and Leibniz made shit up and then never explained what they were, or the process of how they got there.

>>16393590
How is it impossible? You said
>The odds of this are extremely rare, to literally impossible.
So it seems like you were conflating super-duper rare with impossible. Or that the scale of rarity has impossible at one side when rarity implies possibility.
>there are hard limits
A probability of 0 would be the hard limit that means impossible, and that would not be for something that is rare or super-duper rare.
>Not to mention you can see his brainlet tier opinions on fb
Since when did intelligence correlate with opinions you approve of?
>So please, if you can, explain the rudiments of his theory to me. I will shut up then if it makes any sense, or is at all coherent.
This has been done before by someone on /sci/ pretty decently. >>/sci/thread/S11110902#p11112847
>>16393616
Do you have an argument, faggot?
>>16393617
>he doesnt define the terms
What terms does he not define and where, exactly, does he do this?

>>16393627
>So it seems like you were conflating super-duper rare with impossible. Or that the scale of rarity has impossible at one side when rarity implies possibility.

Can't wait to meet a man with an infinitely long penis.

>Since when did intelligence correlate with opinions you approve of?

opinions can differ but have to be fact based

other ones too long to respond to rn will be back sometime in the near month after reading langan and the sci thread fully. dont worry anon, ill show. just have lots of uni course work.

>>16393262
When people argue against Kant's ideas they unintentionally cherrypick

There's of course the "all is mind" in the sense that reality only exists because we imagine it. Which is profound but not ultimately sensible.

Then there's looking down to the smallest atom, the tiniest cell, a strand of DNA and genes and natural processes we cannot possibly map or understand the entirety of and all of the innate processes and tasks they are naturally destined to do. All matter is given tasks and roles even and especially when it comes to biology and living matter.

You can take literally any route to get there but the conclusion will always be that reality is in some form or another the imagination of God.

To say all is MY mind is retarded, to say all is GODS mind makes it make more sense, your consciousness is Gods matter become self and externally and abstractly aware.

>>16393636
>Can't wait to meet a man with an infinitely long penis.
Any infinitely long object is obviously physically impossible, and just because something is possible, that doesn't mean it is likely or that it will happen.
>opinions can differ but have to be fact based
I would not necessarilly say that is the case unless you say a lot of your opinions (like taste preferences) could just be said to be based on subjective facts of your experience, but they definitely do not need to be thinked about before an opinion is formed. Even if that is true, that has nothing to do with Langan's intelligence, whether or not his opinions are based on what you think are facts.

>>16393262
>What is After Finitude

>>16393686
>Preface by Badiou
Dropped.
>>16393644
Actually read Kant if you want to comment.

>>16393262
>suppose that mind and reality were really separate
Why on earth would anyone do such a thing?

>>16393262
>then there must exist a medium distinguishing the two
Er, why?

>>16393723
>Actually read Kant if you want to comment.
I won't and I will and you can neither make me nor stop me.

>>16393723
Democratic "knowledge"

You asked for it. I can be as dumb as I want and still cast my post

>>16393394
>there are actually people in this thread who accept this con artist and his completely unfalsifiable horseshit
Definite proof that IQ is mostly bullshit and that /lit/ is mostly midwits and pseuds

His stuff is interesting. I couldnt care less about his IQ or "accomplishments"
https://youtu.be/8GkU91ORLvg

>>16393262
Has this guy not read Heidegger?

>>16393320
Hermeticism represents a psycho-spiritual truth, but it does filter in to physical reality to a degree as well, such as Jung determining certain psychological characters developing from basic numbers of existence.

>>16394468
>implies that evolution has a hierarchy
My god, what a fucking moron

>>16393644
This is practically true, but it ignores the foundation of reality as something real, and putting it up just to a "larger" version of imagination or mind would reduce existence to the nihilistic conception of will and that "life is a state of mind"(as funny as it may be). You have to accept reality as real, and real in all senses and possibilities.

>>16394468
>the miracle of life has culminated in the complexity of man
He says some interesting things, but this is just such a foundational statement which can be corrected if he but had a cursory understanding of the history of philosophy, and specifically people like Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Jung.

>>16394496
Like, it's kind of charming that Wittgenstein didn't read anyone else, but Langan is just obnoxious.

>>16394510
This, he thinks in an imposed scientific structure with no questioning on how science goes over into philosophy, at least in Heidegger science formed but a very specific fragment of a kind of mentality put in action, and wasn't just proof of sufficient reason of how the world functions still within a scientific frame.

>>16393262
>kant's dualism

>>16393262
>then there must exist a medium distinguishing the two
Huh? Nani?

>>16393502
>>16393627
tranny

>>16393262
"Mind" and "reality" is not straight Kantian vocabulary, it's unclear to me.
If he means phenomena and noumena, well, noumena is not known. Noumena is the name of my lack of knowledge of non-phenomena. I can't say there's not more than noumena, but I also can't say anything of it, even describe it as a thing. This is because I don't even know if there is noumena. The simplest way of concieving noumena is, again, as "not-phenomena". So you need not to compare phenomena to a third thing, only to negate conceptually it in reason. There is no need to grasp any property of noumena.

>>16393627
is this the power of /sci/?
>1) how do we get knowledge from the outside world?
>2) what are the principles one ought to use when devising a model of reality?
>3) is there free will?
>4) where do we come from?
>5) why is there something?
>6) can science and religion be harmonized
>7) is there a rational approach to intelligent design?

>>16393320
Kant does too, the two worlds in Kant are methdological and only metaphysical insofar they are transcendental, they are not an ontological difference. Kant does not believe in a literal intelligible realm which exists apart from the physical world, but rather sees the intelligible to be constitutive of the world as such in an union with the material. Freedom for example must be philosophically analyzed to be transcendental/intelligible, but it expresses itself in the concrete actions of humans.

>>16395494
Also Kant's brain was certainly much bigger than Langan's and Langan is quite cringe.

>>16394452
>con artist
>makes no money
Hmmm

>>16395479
Yeah that all sounds about right

>>16393262
it's called intuition, dumbass. has he even read kant?

>>16396400
huh?