/lit/ - Literature

>>8939532
>In Morris 2001, Langan relates that he took what was billed as "the world's most difficult IQ test" in Omni magazine, and he gives his IQ as "somewhere between 190 and 210". He has been described as "the smartest man in America" as well as "the smartest man in the world" by some journalists.
So he just told them he was smart and they believed him?

>>8939532
I love the fact that he looks like he should be managing a strip club.

>>8939552
When you put it like this he is quite smart.

>>8939554
he was the bouncer at a strip club for a decade LOL

>>8939532
Seems legit.

>>8939532
>CTMU
ctfu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0

This was sort of a little documentary on him. I don't know if he's a genius or anything. but you can definitely tell he has a high IQ, from how he talks. he is definitely an intelligent man.

the fact that he's a farmer/barman is really not that extraordinary IMO. I mean he's still human.

>In a 2014 radio interview, Langan said that he has worked on the P versus NP problem and thinks he can prove that P does not equal NP.[15]
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
>ctrl+f "langan"
>0 results

i don't hate the guy but his claims and theories don't seem to get picked up in academic discourse, wether on math or theology or whatever. so either it's hogwash or it's just too far out to be understood by any one individual or faculty on planet earth, which seems like a stretch.

i don't doubt he's a smart guy but it seems like he's a bit grandiose, or simply doesn't have any interest in sharing his discoveries with the general public, which seems contrary to his expressed views.

he's probably a chill dude but as far as the value of his academic achievements he's basically a meme for all i can tell

>>8939609
his manner gives me the chills. he has the calmness and composure of someone ready to jump you and beat the living shit out of you

maybe it's just me

>>8939616
meant to quote
>>8939606

>>8939609

"ive never heard of Chris Langan. How could he possibly be smarter than my favorite, great, well known household name pop scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson?? That's right, he couldn't!! Hah. Yes I'm so awesome "

Doesn't seem like hogwash to me

Your first sip of science will turn you into an atheist but at the bottom of the glass you find God

Some simply choose to try to have a normal life. It doesn't do any good to dwell on being hyper smart and there aren't many people to talk with at that tier of intelligence who even have a context for the conversation. I'm not saying it's beyond people inherently, most people just don't care

>>8939532
the only thing that matters: whats his instance on the jew?

Cognitive theoretical model of the universe :

http://www.ctmu.org/

>>8939668
?

the tl;dr of my post was if he's worked extensively and found a proof to solve this huge math problem (or anything else) why isn't he even mentioned in that wiki article, or why doesn't he seem to get published / recognition of some sort anywhere relevant

nothing wrong with living a common life, or believing or not believing in god, i mean i dont care and really it's beside the point, i just feel like if his pop presence shows anything it's that people get obsessed with stuff like IQ ... he doesnt seem to have much relevance other than being a marker of sorts on a scale of measurable intelligence, that is potential, rather than achievement

>>8939698

Literally read the post above you

Go to the link

Read his papers. Academic journals aren't very widely discussed especially in the realm of hyper syncretic state of reality and information paradigms levels. The papers are very good

He has been exposed as a fraud. His CTMU is literal nonsense. Stop memeing him.

>>8939710

>The papers are very good

No, they aren't. You're just susceptible to mesmerization.

As someone who is very interested in metaphysical idealism, teleological evolution, free will, and AI, I just skimmed some of his related essays in a book that was clearly intended to be accessible for a very general audience. Except for the free will essay, which might have something interesting and I have to read something more substantial of his on it, I was skimming for anything meaty enough to agree or disagree with.

Could you briefly summarise some of his views on these topics and his intellectual debts and influences? Like I said, I'm interested in these things, and I hang out with various crackpots who are carbon copies of this guy (though less successful at self-marketing), but I have to know a bit more before I go read his magnum opus.

I recently stumbled across a very erudite independent scholar guy with a 3500-page, self-published neo-idealist metaphysics of consciousness mixed with tons of cognitive science shit. The problem with this kind of thing is always whether you want to bite the bullet and read 200 or so pages in, just to find out that he's a dilettante rehashing a badly watered-down version of Fichte that he half-remembers from college, and suddenly it all untangles. But as a rule I am sympathetic to crackpots with pet theories, especially if they seem to come from an anti-Darwinist, pre-free will milieu.

http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2011/02/11/another-crank-comes-to-visit-the-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe/

Tears him to PIECES.

>>8939532
He didnt say anything any of us couldnt have come up with.

>>8939726

Not really desu

>>8939725
Here again, skimming some of his CTMU and >>8939726

Yeah, I definitely don't know enough about the way he's going about this stuff to assess it properly. I saw little hints of William James and stuff in there so I was hoping for more of a Bergson-ized Berkeley, but the set theory shit is beyond me. Some of the "reality is a recursive self-understanding monism" stuff is familiar from various pastiches of semi-esoteric semi-philosophical stuff I've read, but the hard part is finding what he's actually saying.

>>8939756

>First - he gets the definition of set wrong. He's talking about naive set theory, which we know is unsound. And in fact, he's talking about exactly the kinds of inclusion issues that lead to the unsoundness of naive set theory!

>Then he uses semantic word-games to argue that the universe can't be a set according to set theory, because the universe is the largest thing there is, but set theory says that you can always create something larger by taking a powerset. What does he conclude from this pointless exercise? That playing word-games doesn't tell you anything about the universe? No, that makes too much sense. That naive set theory perhaps isn't a great model for the physical universe? No, still too much sense. No, he concludes that this problem of word-games means that set theory is wrong, and must be expanded to include the contradiction of the largest thing being both smaller than its powerset and larger than its powerset.

>Yes, the solution is to take an unsound mathematical theory, and make it doubly unsound.

No? Not 4202deep4umaannnnn enough?

>>8939725

Basically, informatics and dynamic alteration / creation of memory storage supercedes the physical layer of reality, DNA encoding as an information structure vs. Physicality of it as a Macromolecule

This is to encompass components of the known universe along with unknown, the latter being easily proved to be very wide in scope due to our limited methods of detection and very basic understanding of the depths of the potential spectrum of information input. Current methods of scanning and detection do not allow for a complete understanding of the universe. If you are familiar with programmatic layer structure is similar to that. I'm trying to make this accessible to a conversation. You know how with a computer you have OSI model? Consider the same but for the universe, wherein we are only operating current material science along one or maybe two of those layers.

Reality dynamically changes and creates itself due to unknown circumstances outside the bounds of molecular behavior and genetic variation under observation much like quarks begin to abhor the laws of conventional physics under observation.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but I did enjoy his insights

>>8939532
I have an IQ of 214 and this is wrong.

>>8939797
>Current methods of scanning and detection do not allow for a complete understanding of the universe.

Sure.

>If you are familiar with programmatic layer structure is similar to that.

lol what

Reality dynamically changes and creates itself due to unknown circumstances outside the bounds of molecular behavior and genetic variation under observation much like quarks begin to abhor the laws of conventional physics under observation.

Fuckin' CRAAAAAZYYYYY duuuuuuuuuuuude, holy moly!

>>8939814

Just take OSI model and extrapolate it to understanding the universe, except replace physical layer with material science, maybe encompassing some of layer 2 as well

That's the closest way I can approximate what I'm trying to say.

>>8939797
I admit I'm straining to understand the technical sides of it, but it seems interesting.

Like I said, I'm interested in teleological evolutionary theories and idealisms. So I'm struggling not to make facile comparisons to things I actually am familiar with, here. But could this be read essentially with "information" as the progressively realised entelechy of matter, something Hegelian and Plotinian - i.e., where we as scientistic humans are mistakenly seeing only the "mechanical," dead, merely deterministic "layer" of things, and failing to grasp the ideational and fundamentally creative content that we're actually part of (as minds/Mind)?

>>8939827
I meant to say, with the creative/ideational layer being immanent in the other layers, part of the same holistic process.

>>8939827

>, where we as scientistic humans are mistakenly seeing only the "mechanical," dead, merely deterministic "layer" of things, and failing to grasp the ideational and fundamentally creative content that we're actually part of (as minds/Mind)?

Yeah I like that phrasing

Take above model >>8939825
and apply layer 1 maybe part of layer 2 to it and it's kind of what I'm getting at

It seems like the author who critiqued him is stuck in physical layer paradigm

>>8939825

Yeah, okay, but my operating system doesn't just 'dynamically change and create itself outside the bounds' of the underlying architecture.

>>8939836

>It seems like the author who critiqued him is stuck in physical layer paradigm

Yeah, no, just correcting Langan's childish grasp of set theory.

he is obviously a crazy person

>>8939836
It's interesting then. If you're into this stuff, you might want to look into the points where German idealism intersects with esotericism. If I'm read you and/or Langan right, he probably would have been some kind of quasi-Anthroposophical or Gurdjieffian or TM cultist in the '30s or a mystical cyberneticist in the '60s. And it goes on like that - Rudolf Steiner cribbing from the American transcendentalists and Naturphilosophes, who were themselves cribbing from German mystics and idealists like Goethe, Novalis, Boehme (who had a big influence on Hegel.. and so on and so on until it's one gigantic incestuous orgy). Bergson, James, etc.

The insights with this sort of are always good, and I like where this guy is going. But what starts to happen is that you have various fringe esoterics and scholars who were clearly "onto something," but it's all tangled up and garbled in the incestuous process I just described.

I will check out more of this guy because it seems like a novel description of some of the general Bergsonian, teleological milieux that are circulating these days - people very happy to see "GOFAI" failing to understand consciousness, to see the Darwinian modern synthesis cracking and epigenetics making a comeback (with the possibility of elan vital!). Etc.

Just be careful not to get too taken with these dudes. Like I said, and not to be condescending or an asshole, I recognise the phenomenon. This guy would have been a theosophical cult leader with slightly different historical circumstances. They tend to draw philosophically and mystically inclined people into their gigantic spires of all-inclusive systems, especially using charisma and an "this solves EVERYTHING!" outlook.

Always interesting to crib from, look at for insights, appreciate, but keep a safe distance. I watched people spend 20 years following dudes like this.

>>8939845
Yes of course

This is only a rough, heavy handed approximation of the topic I'm trying to scratch. Can't make a direct correlating analogy of a universe to an operating system with this comparisonI'm a bit hesitant to continue if only for that I don't know how to encapsulate that into the english language properly.

In fact we have to take multidimensional synthesis into account as individual actions and decision components of the flat universe we encounter are woven together in the 4th from possibilities of the 5th dimension level possible universes

Starting to run out of words for this

>>8939606
>"I am closer to absolute truth than any man has been before me."

>"Albert Einstein was estimated at between 180 and 190."
>"Charles Darwin was way down there in the toilet at 135"

ATHEISTS BTFO.

>>8939871

Yeah I just take it as another piece of information. I don't see it as a master be all end all theory but a nice juicy bit to chew on for sure

But good luck on your journey. It's gonna get weird :)

The fact that he's smart just makes him more treacherous and deceitful, and apparently his Wikipedia page illustrates that quite well.

>>8939558
Touché.

>>8939606
There is something terribly wrong about this man.

>theory of everything
Lol, when will humans, barely-evolved monkeys designed to hunt food on the savannah, let go of our arrogance in believing we can ever possibly comprehend the universe in its totality?

One can only fully describe a system when one is outside of it anyway.

>>8939915
It's impossible to comprehend the university in it's totality, but it's not impossible to *reduce* the universe to a totality.

>>8939924
universe*

fuck sake

>>8939911

He's a borderline and megalomaniacal personality with paranoiac tendencies. There's more than something wrong with me.

>>8939924
Then you get the same problem. The map is not the territory.

>>8939606
replace this man with sam hyde and this is an mde skit

>>8939927

>There's more than something wrong with me.
>me

>>8939915
>One can only fully describe a system when one is outside of it anyway.

>implying I haven't transcended the system

>>8939933
>The map is not the territory.

It sure isn't, but everyone views the world through a faulty lens.

>>8939961

Fuckin' DEEP.

>>8939963
Am I wrong?

>>8939968

Well, you're presupposing that there is something, 'the world', independent of our perception of it, which is to be demonstrated.

>>8939976
Well that's my point moron. Everyone presupposes something, and it's always incomplete.

>>8939606
>Guys. I'm super duper smart
>I can't buy helmets because my head is too big
>*spew a bunch of buzzwords*
>scaremongering
>follow my made up religion
>I'm your new messiah
>sterilise children, I don't give a hoot

>>8939981

Well, I think you're just stuck in a physical layer paradigm.

>>8939961
And that's why someone who claims to have come up with a Grand Theory of Everything is guaranteed to be a charlatan.

>>8939958
Being able to post on the internet is proof that you have in fact not transcended the universe.

>>8940010
>And that's why someone who claims to have come up with a Grand Theory of Everything is guaranteed to be a charlatan.

Especially if he's not associated with any scientific field, or has any education at all, and works in a bar.

>>8939532
>"You can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."
where's the proof?

>>8940035

It's all still in his head.

>>8940038
Nah, bro. He wrote it on a napkin and lost it after splitting up a fight between two rough and rowdy cowboys. Now he can't remember it.

>>8939942
Kek

>>8939616

Well he did work as a bouncer

>>8939606
>you can definitely tell he has a high IQ, from how he talks

He talks like a person who is used to talking to people, so I guess from a shut-in nerd perspective he appears intimidatingly intelligent.

>>8939942
Replace the character with Sam's parents/people he went to Art collage with.

>>8939552
You can look the test up online and it varies from idiotic autism rules (some of the answers are based on some random thing that isn't the only possible answer at all) to general knowledge quiz.

It's the kind of test that dumb people might think a smart person would do well on.

>>8940028
>and works in a bar.
Tbf it's usually the people on the other side of the bar that know the answers to everything.

>>8940028
i fucking hate you

insults the intelligence of the man who described natural selection/evolution as being "in the toilet" while promoting his useless fedora-tipping The Secret x Timecube tier jerkoff pet project

arrogant dick

>>8940010
>And that's why someone who claims to have come up with a Grand Theory of Everything

You have no idea what Theory of Everything is even about.

>>8939566
Nobody points out the fact that many geniuses in our time have been bouncers of strip clubs?
Langan, musk, rosner

My IQ is barely over 180 and even I know this guy is a fraud

>>8939616
I don't blame you.
>delusions of grandeur
>gifted bullshitter/liar
>history of childhood abuse and comfortable discussing violence
He sets off my psychopath detector.

>>8941128
>gifted bullshitter/liar
not at all

>>8941058
pope francis

>>8941145
Of course his stance falls apart to any serious scrutiny, but he tricked enough media people to get some exposure. He's definitely better than lying than the average person, plenty of dipshits on youtube and whatever are impressed by this weirdo.

>>8941162
media people aren't actually people, tricking them doesn't count

>>8941187

>>8939942
holy shit, I cant unsee this

>>8939668
this is the post of a clinically insane person

>invents some straw man involving black science guy for some reason
>starts spouting proverbs about atheism and god

What did he mean by this?

>>8939606
>you can definitely tell he has a high IQ, from how he talks
by that logic stephen hawking is a dumb fuck

>>8939606
what a smug pos
kek

>>8939606
>watch complete part 1
>zero interesting ideas

>>8939532
This guy is /lit/ incarnate. I'm amazed nobody has said this earlier. He lives in a place where he has only idiots to talk to, he read a few things and learned to string the ideas together and make them seem like his own for the local bumpkins. Nothing said in his little documentary hasn't been discussed on this site and in hundreds of other places before by other dumb delusional pseuds.

>>8939836
>It seems like the author who critiqued him is stuck in physical layer paradigm

Lol you do realize that you literally just created a mystical dimension in order to justify everything Langan says as being beyond the scope of detractors? Why do you insist on making him a Christ figure?

He's full of shit.

He used to get in edit wars with the admins of Wikipedia because he'd edit his article to make himself out to be a super genius, and start to insult personally anyone who questioned him.

He's had no great achievements. His theory is shit. He is only impressive to the ignorant.

>>8939797
Go away Chris ya big fat pseud

>>8939878
how could anyone know this, IQ tests were made for the US army quite recently, right? Defintely didn't exist in Darwins time

>tfw to intelligent to do anything of value

>>8939532
>>8941534
Sounds to me like this guy would fit right in to the Joe Rogan Podcast

>>8939674
HEY GUYS WHAT'S HIS INSTANCE ON JEWS? THIS GUY WANTS TO KNOW HIS INSTANCE ON JEWS! I DONT KNOW MAYBE HE'S RETARDED HE DOESN'T HAVE FRIENDS JUST TELL HIM THE GUYS INSTANCE SO HE GOES AWAY

>>8941568
>Joe Rohan begins asking him about DMT
>Brian Redman begins asking him if he's ever fucked a pornstar

I can see it already

>>8939532
>he gives his IQ as "somewhere between 190 and 210"
well I give my IQ somewhere between 1000 and a million billion and also my dad could beat up his dad

He doesn't seem like he has or wrote on any good idea. Obscure writing and made-up/distorted terminology is reminding me of Lacanism, and given that barely everything I read on this man is referring to his IQ, and that most to all the information have no source but him, I can tell there's something fishy.

I tried to look up some facts I read on his page and I can't find any actual proof it happened.

>>8939606
what the fuck does logic have to do with perception. i can have a perception without having any thoughts.

>tfw 100 IQ

>>8939606
What a massive faggot.

A good 90% of IQ cucks are underachieving lazy cunts. Even if they are super-intelligent it means nothing without motivation and application.

And a magazine IQ test means virtually nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if he was just another pseud jerking himself off over fake credentials to make money.

>>8939878
>And yet he's accomplished literally nothing of note.

Its like poetry. "genius" gets BTFO by someone in the toilet.

>>8939532
Well considering that only a percentage of people far less than 1% would have comparable intellects, even in STEM fields, they can't.

I am in the top 1-1.5% of the world's iq ranges, and still, the gap between he and I is still nearly the same as the gap between me and a normie.

I suppose we'll become able to compete via genetic modification, eventually.

http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-are-coming

Have any of you read CTMU? Guys, it's literally just a shitty Layman's aping of Hegel combined with scientific jargon. The logical leaps this guy makes to claim that reality is structured like 'mind' are ridiculous

>>8941534
source?

>>8941746
he's probably fucking smarter than you scum piece of fucking shit

>>8941743
I am in the top 0.5% of the world's iq ranges and i think your an moran lol

atheistfags on sudoku watch!

>>8941750
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asmodeus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Langan

he's had numerous warnings on his account for personal attacks and got topic banned from editing his own wikipedia article

also it's worth keeping in mind that IQ tests are unreliable at a certain stage, and the number he shares is beyond said stage

>>8941534
>He's had no great achievements.

Most people with high IQs dont have great achievements.

>>8941743
Top 1% isn't all impressive

>>8941756
Arne't you a bit old for this, Chris?

>>8941756
At least I've read the theory everyone seems to be judging the guy on, which is more than can be said for you

>>8941789

To you. To 99% of mankind, I imagine it is.

>>8941760
Good for you. By your comment, I'd consider immature.

>>8941789

To you. To 99% of mankind, I imagine it is impressive.

>>8941760
Good for you. From your comment, I'd consider you immature.

>>8941789
>>8941743
>>8941760
>>8941905
I'm in the top 00.10% of IQ and I too think you are a moran.

>>8941786
Probably because IQ is total bullshit that doesnt mean anything

>>8942063
>>8941789
>>8941760
top 0.1% is only like a ~150 iq
You guys suck.

I mean, from what I've read that he's written, he does seem quite intelligent, probably more so than me or you or most people on this site. But his general thesis is obvious, unfalsifiable and non-controversial, and seems only to take into account general theory with no mathematical backbone (not that there could be any). So really, what's so special about it? It amounts to well-surveyed essay on quantum theory and chaos theory, and an obvious conclusion that the universe is part mental because it is perceived by beings that perceive

>>8942063
This is embarrassing buddy. Just stop.

First of all, 00.10 is 10%. Second, even if that was a typo and you meant 00.01 that is 1%. Third, your repeated misspelling of the word "moron" makes it clear that you're the same guy.

>>8942087
Again, not to 99% of mankind (which, probabilistically, includes you).

>>8942207
he might be a retard, but what are you? Somebody who just used the probabilistically, thats what!

>>8942223
It is a word I just coined. Obviously.

>>8942223
It means, "subject to probability," or "subject to the laws of probability."

Just as "realistically" would mean "subject to reality," or "subject to the laws of reality."

>>8939532
he sounds like you're average pseud pop sci reader. Especially since he mentions ideas from a history of time "hawking king of pop physics" and wheeler "the black hole". He probably read all the pop sci in barnes and nobles then googled cosmology cause its cool sounding and popular and went full autisim before turning in this half assed non falsifiable theory. Stem cucks don't respect him for a reason cause, he sounds like a 16 year old ruminating about God and got his first intoduction by reading encyclopic articles and pop sci books without actually learning/thinking much at all...I do think a creator is probable but that doesnt really mean much now does it