[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mfbUhs2PVY[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHtxZBZfFfs[/youtube]

Is this the self reported genius who thinks god made the universe?

campermon wrote:Is this the self reported genius who thinks god made the universe?

I don't think he's on about @od for the ruling elite. A pacifier for the stupid masses....

He might be the smartest person in the world, but his theory of physics seems to demonstrate that scientific education is also important:

http://www.ctmu.org/

Warren Dew wrote:He might be the smartest person in the world, but his theory of physics seems to demonstrate that scientific education is also important.

It's certainly worth thinking about this mans perspective before dismissing it. I don't suppose anyone here likes Stephen Wolfram either? Damn smart-arse freethinkers tearing up the rule books devised by their betters!

alienpresence wrote:It's certainly worth thinking about this mans perspective before dismissing it.

What do you consider his perspective?

Just because he aces IQ tests does not mean he has wisdom or a clear understanding of reality.

locutus7 wrote:Just because he aces IQ tests does not mean he has wisdom or a clear understanding of reality.

Yep.

After viewing, I would say he is unable to break free of his abusive childhood and the beliefs he acquired then, such as the foundational assumption of a god (his seems to have a deistic "god is universe" Star Wars version).

Moreover, he sees the world in binary terms, and he doesn't seem to have the discipline to focus his talents. He always has an excuse for why he doesn't have a concrete result of his IQ, like the one where he came up with a Wolfram-like theory and lost the paper he wrote it on. Emotionally, he is like an undisciplined grade school boy.

Thanks for posting, though.

locutus7 wrote:After viewing, I would say he is unable to break free of his abusive childhood and the beliefs he acquired then, such as the foundational assumption of a god (his seems to have a deistic "god is universe" Star Wars version).

Moreover, he sees the world in binary terms, and he doesn't seem to have the discipline to focus his talents. He always has an excuse for why he doesn't have a concrete result of his IQ, like the one where he came up with a Wolfram-like theory and lost the paper he wrote it on. Emotionally, he is like an undisciplined grade school boy.

Thanks for posting, though.

I have seen the piece of paper(sort of). It is incomprehensible to me but my brain is small and no good, about the size of a mouse.

I did find a paper concerning this guys theory. I found it to be unreadable. The text was dense with obscure jargon and I couldn't understand what it was trying to say. I'd say this guy was very clever, but no 'genius'. As a comparison, read / listen to someone like Feynman. Now he was a very clever guy who I would class a 'genius' based on his work and the way he communicated it.

That's my tuppence worth anyway!




edit - here's the paper; http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

A pint to anyone who can explain it to me!!

....following on from my previous post. Here's an extract of the abstract of that paper;

"Abstract: Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping). Where information is the abstract currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality. This extension is associated with a limiting formulation of model theory identifying mental and physical reality, resulting in a reflexively self-generating, self-modeling theory of reality identical to its universe on the syntactic level. By the nature of its derivation, this theory, the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic. Uniting the theory of reality with an advanced form of computational language theory, the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and self-execution (reflexive read-write functionality). SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism consisting of infocognition, self-transducing information................"
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

Now, usually I can get the gist of a paper from the abstract even if it's not my specialism (physics). What I've quoted above is word saladry to the nth degree!
I can make no sense of this at all!!

campermon wrote:I did find a paper concerning this guys theory. I found it to be unreadable. The text was dense with obscure jargon and I couldn't understand what it was trying to say. I'd say this guy was very clever, but no 'genius'. As a comparison, read / listen to someone like Feynman. Now he was a very clever guy who I would class a 'genius' based on his work and the way he communicated it.

That's my tuppence worth anyway!




edit - here's the paper; http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

A pint to anyone who can explain it to me!!

Haven't read anything quite like that. He's obviously writing for his peers isn't he?

Maybe the time cube guy is a genius too?

This guy's theory looks similar to the time cube theory to me. But then, maybe I'm just too dumb to understand it.

iamthereforeithink wrote:Maybe the time cube guy is a genius too?

This guy's theory looks similar to the time cube theory to me. But then, maybe I'm just too dumb to understand it.

Nothing wrong with the time cube guy except his taste in font sizes.

campermon wrote:
edit - here's the paper; http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

A pint to anyone who can explain it to me!!

I think it's a load of old smoke and mirrors (esoteric memeto-linguistic camouflage). I did find this snipit suggesting the existence of creationist hiding behind the veil though:

Teleology, the idea that the universe has a purpose which explains its existence and guides its evolution, some time ago began losing sway in the court of scientific opinion. Although it was at first assumed that a more neutral, less “theological” explanation for the existence of man and the universe would come along to fill the resulting explanatory void, it eventually became evident that no such replacement was conveniently falling out of the equations; some amount of higher-level interpretation would be required in any case.

Abiogenesis and evolution explains the existence of man. No higher level interpretation is required AFAIK. So WTF is he on about. Wouldn't suprise me if the whole IQ thing was a set-up bankrolled by those with a vested interest in the popularity of Jebus's estranged father, Gawd.

I think he is saying that our brains model reality using sensory input (perceptual data). Wow, nobel prize time.

locutus7 wrote:I think he is saying that our brains model reality using sensory input (perceptual data). Wow, nobel prize time.

It's cheesemakers he's on about, cheesmakers!!!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiDmMBIyfsU[/youtube]

locutus7 wrote:I think he is saying that our brains model reality using sensory input (perceptual data).

That's what he's saying in the first half of the first sentence of the abstract, at least.

Warren Dew wrote:

locutus7 wrote:I think he is saying that our brains model reality using sensory input (perceptual data).

That's what he's saying in the first half of the first sentence of the abstract, at least.

You really mean that?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq9udFmsNO0[/youtube]