/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11902761]

Who else here has taken the CTMUpill?

http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe#Structure

[Anonymous No.11902875]

not I

and I dont wanna copy paste your link

so why dont you just fuckin copy paste the best parts yourself, please

[Anonymous No.11902902]

You know the annoying thing about CTMU is how similar it is to all of the eastern philosophies and their ideas of an organic universe vs the typical western views of the ceramic or automatic universe models as Watts would say.

[Anonymous No.11902905]

>>11902875
The question of why reality exists is sometimes taken to be unanswerable or meaningless: reality "just exists", it is held, and no further explanation can be given. Alternatively, it is sometimes held that reality exists because it was created by something outside of it, an external creator. Langan opposes both views, arguing that were reality to lack an explanation, it would be acausal and could not sustain itself, whereas for an external creator to create reality, the creator itself would have to be real, and therefore inside reality by definition, contradicting the premise.[23]

The CTMU treats the origin of reality in the context of freedom and constraint. Concepts are defined by constraints specifying their structure, and structure requires explanation. Consequently, Langan argues, the only concept not in need of structural explanation is the "terminal concept" with no constraints, and no structure to explain. In the CTMU, this "ontological groundstate" is called "unbound telesis" or UBT.[24]
The above reasoning, holds Langan, resolves the ex nihilo or "something-from-nothing" paradox. The paradox arises when "nothing" is taken to exclude not just "something", but the potential for "something". Because exclusion of potential is a constraint, "nothing" in this sense requires its own explanation, and cannot serve as an ontological groundstate. But when "nothing" is viewed as unconstrained potential or UBT,[25] asserts Langan, reality arises inevitably from it.

[Anonymous No.11902908]

I'm not clicking on your gay-ass link, cocksucker.
goodbye

[Anonymous No.11902912]

>>11902902
mechanism vs organicism is the spiritual battle of our age

[Anonymous No.11902919]

>>11902905
huh. cool

yeah i guess that ties into the whole being shackled to seemingly diametrically opposed arguments thing that loads fall for - its either the universe has a creator, or nothing has any inherent meaning whatsoever. why does it have to be one or the other? is there not other options? methinks gey

[Anonymous No.11902920]

Reality, Langan argues, requires as a condition of its existence not merely logical consistency, but also "teleological consistency". To arise from UBT, he says, reality needs a function to distinguish what it is from what it is not—to "select itself" for existence.[26] This requirement, the "Telic Principle", generalizes the well-known anthropic principle: whereas the anthropic principle addresses the degree to which human existence constrains reality, the Telic Principle addresses the way in which reality tautologically constrains itself.[27]

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"[26] and "reality triples as choice, chooser and chosen". Langan explores the logic of this arrangement: "[a] large part of the CTMU is about what happens when functions, including choice, generative and causal functions, are looped so that input coincides with output coincides with functional syntax".

[Anonymous No.11902929]

>>11902920
yeah dude, teleology, now thats some interesting stuff. you ever get into Adler?

of course teleology being true would mean also that we have free will and are self directed beings. I would agree with this but modern atheism chooses oft to disagree and insist that we are machines that are purely effects and not causes in and of themselves

[Anonymous No.11902963]

>>11902761
Fuck off Langan

[Anonymous No.11902964]

>>11902761
Have not read it, but i fucking bet you it's some sort of dialectical, dual aspect monism.

[Anonymous No.11902993]

Long time Langan supporter here. I used to get annoyed by lazy critics calling him a crackpot, charlatan, or the worst critique of all, "he uses jargon". Such a charge is now tranparent to me for what it truly is: a self-reflexive defense against syntactic unbounding of the self-processing linguistic monism which is isomorphic to the infocognitive nexus of the primary telic operator.

[Anonymous No.11903006]

>>11902761
Cringe, clearly doesn't engage with philosophical tradition at all. Ahistorical and boring.

[Anonymous No.11903035]

>>11902761
This guy is a pseud

[Anonymous No.11903047]

>>11903006
does engaging with philosophical tradition automatically qualify something for being correct?

[Anonymous No.11903053]

>>11902912
Can't disagree with you there. Problem is in the west, culturally there is a massive fear of letting go from controlling things, so it's hard to give these ideas the time of day for a lot of people. The universe has to be planned or random, society has to be planned or random, the economy, it's like it falls back to the abrahamic religious culture vs the nihilistic god is dead style culture spilling into everything else.

Here come some Daoists or Hindu's talking about the universe and everyones like "nah that's mystical hokie pokie bullshit, hah how unintelligent and naive". I guess CTMU is interesting in that way because he uses his high IQ authority to introduce more bigoted westerners to essentially an eastern idea in his own way. I know it's not 1-1 but the parallels are huge.

[Anonymous No.11903056]

>The universe exists because it exists
No shit moron

[Anonymous No.11903065]

>>11902920
absolute jargon.
go back to being a bouncer, langan, you shithouse.