Man With 200 IQ Explains What Humans Are
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ธ.ค. 2023
- FULL Chris Langan episode is here (Jul 2021): • Chris Langan: IQ, Free...
THANK YOU: To Mike Duffey for your insight, help, and recommendations on this channel.
Follow TOE on Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
Support TOE:
Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 4 // 100T vs GEN | G2 vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UkTGSxdCUQw/mqdefault.jpg)
FULL Chris Langan episode can be watched here (Jul 2021): th-cam.com/video/N-bRM1kYuNA/w-d-xo.html
consciousness/Consciousness:
“that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”.
As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture.
According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05).
There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child:
“Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”.
In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
His language always has to be a certain way because he's always mentally fighting off other people's arguments or redirecting it... having such a high IQ people are always going to be testing you... it sucks that his personality has to be like that but it absolutely does... I like this guy. You should have him on with me.... will be the best performing toe of all time... except it won't because im shadowbanned.
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler you sound like a card carrying cultist. He's giving cosmic oneness fools a set of jargon to justify their nonsense beliefs. That's their choice, but not one I recommend, knowing a bit more about how hive mind programming works than the average human. Happy Karma, and don't say you weren't warned
You might want to tell Chris this: There is no rating scale for wisdom. But wisdom has taught me that consciousness is best defined as: awareness at a less-than-infinite sampling rate. And the brain's function is to limit the sampling rate. When the body and brain are left behind, the sampling rate soars. And when the soul is done with samsara, the sampling rate returns to infinite, and absolute Awareness is restored. Science will benefit from this information some day, and the "Planck length" will be understood because its cause will be known. The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies.
@@user-ji6ov1ld1n I can understand him... I do agree his vocabulary is a little expensive I like to use simplistic vocabulary so everyone can understand what I'm talking about...
"There are times when all the mirrors are cocked at the right angles and all the lights are on"
To be a fly on the wall in that room.
Great stuff Curt. Thanks for giving air time to the most under-appreciated genius of our time.
Poetic words man. Brilliant.
Poetic words man. Brilliant.
My consciousness pushed me to press the like even before watching the video. Curt, you are the man out there doing a tremendous job. Thank you for everything
So was that a free will or not?
@@fullreactionband unfortunately nope 😄
Who is 'me'?😏
Who is who?
@@bibo2559 Who knows?
It’s crazy that I can understand what he’s saying despite all the unique vocabulary he uses to convey his message. It’s his own sub language but having listened to the original podcast, it begins to make sense as you learn his language.
Like learning basic Chinese or Russian. Except you can't write any original poems in either of those languages.
I watch my feed every day looking for more of your content, Curt. Thank you for providing people with exceptional information from some of the world’s greatest minds. ❤ You rock!
Wow, thank you so much!
@@TheoriesofEverything if you don't get langan back on it'll harm us as a species
@@AaA-on8nw I think the fate of the whole world lies in the hands of langan
This was a very complicated way of saying what Alan Watts put more succinctly as (and I’m paraphrasing) “we are awash in consciousness to the extent that we are no more aware of it as a fish is aware it is in water, or a bird is in the air.”
Chris Langan will go down as our times greatest thinker, but also our times most savage youtube commentator.
No
I think it goes hand in hand.
Thanks Curt as always much appreciated
I love Chris’ demeanor. He strikes me as both the guy at the biker joint who is so intelligent he also sees the false reality of going after a certain lifestyle or form of success. I actually feel this can be observed in many extremely intelligent people throughout time. It’s like once you reach a certain level of intellect or enlightenment, you realize how fake and pointless a lot of things are in our existence; probably because of lot of the man-made systems of our world are created and thought up but not-so-intellectually motivated people. Also, side note, his way of speaking with incredible vocabulary is like opening up a mechanic book without any knowledge on fixing cars. Fascinating and yet you are left with the burden of trying to make sense of the amazing images.
That eventually leads to rage and resentment I'm afraid.
Every particle in the universe is conscious in the sense that it interacts with something else in space.
But does it know that it's interacting. It's not the doing, it's the knowing.
@@TheBadBunny87i say think of your blood cells, they’re not necessarily conscious yet they know they have one and only one job. even willing to sacrifice oneself for the greater good, it’s impressive and bewildering
source: trust me bro
@@taefithendoyes interesting
What a succinct penetrating and generative genius Chris is. Thanks again, Curt. Many blessings to you both. Hope to see Chris on again. 🙏🏼
We need to have Chris Langan again !!🙏
Hey at 1:03, can anyone explain what Chris means by 'Global Operator Descriptor' I have briefly looked into what it might pertain to but I am still not 100% - I found information relative to programming such as OOP, inheritance, Classes etc. Whilst I could apply these concepts to what is being discussed it does not seem to directly relate.
It means GOD
@@alexeyprofi3951 lol
We need a new interview with Chris Langan!
Curt did you say you were going live every Monday night so everyone is off work? Super Cool
Evolution occurs when an organism makes a conscious effort to achieve what has never been accomplished before.
The Imagination is our savior.
The subconscious mind makes it possible.
Keeping the conscious mind in check, creates balance.
Well now? Evolution is based on the law of contradiction, which is expressed by the formula A is B, illogical impossible contradiction. Let's look at your false claims?
A law of abiogenesis caused the illogical impossible contradiction effect of
B law of biogenesis
This is an absolute illogical impossible contradiction, a false scientific hypothesis. Your wrong dude.
A non conscious non intelligent non being caused the illogical impossible contradiction effect of
B your conscious intelligent being in the universe.
A is B grasshopper, another false scientific hypothesis, illogical impossible contradiction. God absolutely exists to cause the logical non contradiction effect of your conscious intelligent being. You should apologize for being stupid dude.
Evolution is built in to our dna. Evolution occurs in curiosity.
It might even go deeper than that, if we have a soul. A "nature of the soul", but that is just wild guessing.
@@HotHenrik-eu4nu science shows no energy ever dies, it simply transmutes into the next pattern of existence. We are animated by an immortal energy having a mortal experience.
Vibration is the creative intelligence of the universe. Cymatic patterns are the 2D version of what is occurring throughout reality in 3D.
Sonoluminescence is the evidence that vibration also creates light. We are made of that energy, formed into its image...
@@HotHenrik-eu4nu How do you know that? What is the evidence for this?
It sounds like Mr. Langan is saying that consciousness is a process. A process requires time or perhaps the process IS time. Thus where reality is timeless there is no consciousness, there is only knowledge.
The "false dichotomy" is matter/energy! On a scale of "consciousness", matter occupies one extreme, and energy, the other.
How do you write infinity using numbers ?
Write any string of numbers not in a left to right read line, but in a circle
I really like this guy, wish i was in his news group.
However, i dont imagine you can approach a theory of consciousness by exploring universals. We can only generalise from our own consciousness to a point we are happy with.
My own view is that conscious is our own(human) awareness of a transmission being mirrored in every atom. Such a deep meaningful transmission that we are forced into complexities, as sentient and self-aware creatures with such an imaginative general awareness (people unlock this in self-discovery). Reality is all completely integrated in everything. Our own reality is reflected and fracatised in all aspects of life, wherever you care to look.
What does the internet reflect? All our thoughts are shared...what else do you need to give you a hard-on about the way it all comes together...in divine timing and never as you want?!
Edit: just imagine that, a transmission that exists beyond the scope of materialism, an aspect of motion more than mass. How can 'science' get a handle?
The water and the blood and the spirit are in agreement.
Kurt, simple question. Does the law of attraction work? If you see it, believe it, you will achieve it? Do we create our reality through our beliefs?
Thanks
Mike
If that worked, then why do so many transgenders have problems convincing others of their beliefs? There wouldn't need to be laws threatening people and making them lie if they genuinely thought a man dressed as a woman was a real biological woman. Many trans might believe that inside they are the opposite sex, but only them and a certain few like minded see that, most other people see a bloke dressed as a woman. If the dude really believed he was a female on the inside and wanted to transform, then why doesn't that belief alone convince others too?
any `trivial` predictions using this framework? like arriveing at general relativity ... quantum tunneling ...
Alternate title: "conscious as defined by a man"
By some dude
By some dude with decent mustachio
at least that much is self-evident@@davealaya
Seen through the skeptical lens of a man
Lol
Heck yeah I enjoyed it thanks
There is no rating scale for wisdom. But wisdom has taught me that consciousness is best defined as: awareness at a less-than-infinite sampling rate. And the brain's function is to limit the sampling rate. When the body and brain are left behind, the sampling rate soars. And when the soul is done with samsara, the sampling rate returns to infinite, and absolute Awareness is restored. Science will benefit from this information some day, and the "Planck length" will be understood because its cause will be known. The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies.
Mr Langan, what do you think the ‘ether’ is? Consciousness?
He just said that consciousness is everywhere, but that it is "generic" or simple consciousness, as opposed to complex
@@Corteum ‘consciousness is everywhere’ doesn’t define the ‘Eather’ ‘dark energy’ or whatever the trending descriptive word is. A universe of electromagnetic geometric harmony is hardly disconnected ‘simple’ ? 🤔 non judgmental? Probably.
@@jant4741 If we assume ether is just another form of consciousness, like everything else... then we're at least half way there to explaining it !
@@Corteum what are the differences between complex and simple consciousnesses
Chris Langan has such a charming and friendly disposition. His statements about computational theory and CTMU are interesting, but where are the predictions that can be tested?
Physical predictions are predicted externally. Mental predictions are tested internally. Hinduism, Buddhism, and even Taoism talk about this.
Chris could perhaps write a book on the history of science?
Does this mean the CTMU would corroborate the Information Integration Theory of consciousness?
It means that the IIT could be *interpreted in* the CTMU, which long predates it. The CTMU is in fact far more evolved than IIT, but because it is in no way a product of academia, academia "ghosts" it. In academia, it's all about air time for academics only.
@@RealChrisLanganThank you for your time here.
@@RealChrisLangan can predictive processing and/or the free energy principle be interpreted in?
Is pattern recognition included in an information and rule set? Pattern recognition is just another name for consciousness.
it's not, at least the term consciousness as it's been used colloquially for centuries is a lot more than pattern recognition (unless you think a thermostat is conscious).
If the recognition process or procedure is mechanical, then the pattern-acceptor need not be more than generically conscious.
@@RealChrisLangan
Even the principles of logic and math are patterns we recognize. But I don't know of any rules that guide us in pattern recognition in the first place. Of course we notice similarities and differences. Is that sufficient to recognize complicated patterns?
@@daarom3472
Self awareness is also just a pattern we recognize about ourselves.
it's also another name for pareidolia :P
Bernardo persnickity??? NEVER!! 😂
can you ask this gentleman wtf'ing handbag are for?
The right-sized handbag can hold lots of trolls, thus removing them from circulation.
Can you give the time stamp where is explains what humans are? I seemed to have missed that part.
@13 seconds he begins to format humans as a syntactor. .. a proto computational generalization of what in referred to in computation theory as a "accepter".
We already mapped consciousness everywhere physically its one and the same chaldean minded modeling.
Here when he says qauntom consciousness idk if he means its actually with an object like they do.
As a field of consciousness where critical extreme states can give rise to its emergence or accessibility is another dementional story.
Triality in this one and yes info/word is one with mind . This notion and how it exists within such a dualistic nature of object & subject.
Through which this connection is made in biology.
I like to think I understand what ctmu means, but I don't have a bloody clue. It's very interesting though..... 🥴
Feelings is the question
...oh my goodness. Wow.
Chris Langan is so smart -- Syntax in Language by itself is a rule set -- to say there are no rules is bullshit. -- ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. So who makes the rules of the language that is the mind? Where does language come from -- where does thought come from and how does thought go from visual thought (like animals have) to words which started as concrete and turn into metaphor???????? Where does this shit come from and how does it evolve??? If you can't even understand this or know to ask these questions you can never ever get at truth.
he's like a humbled neil degras tyson
Alex Jones isn’t fooling anyone with that moustache
Wellll this is way over my head.
I wish you had pushed Chris on his uncoutably infinite assesrtion. It's not entirely clear what he is implying here. For instance:
1. Is he asserting that the real numbers are countable? He remarks that "Real numbers are uncountable because you never have to complete one of them..." and then that "if you want to be able to distinguish things, they're countable." Now, obviously the real numbers are distinguishable, even finitely so. This is the basis of real analysis. So what exactly is meant by this?
2. Is it possible that the CTMU can generate Real-analogue theorems, i.e. theorems which are essentially homomorphic to infinite decimal expansions of irrational numbers?
3. Formally, how is it that a generative logical structure skirts around Gödel's theorems?
A few of these questions could probably be clarified by reading the CTMU, which I'll try and get around to when I have the time.
Real numbers are in most cases incompletely discernible even though we may have enough information about a pair of them to distinguish them from each other. Why? Because not even the intension of a real number can be fully discerned due to its infinite number of decimal places. At the very least, one needs a "repeating decimal", in which case an ellipsis will do for some purposes. As far as physical insantiation is concerned, a real number has no extension. Being a cut in the manifold, it excludes all of the manifold's content.
@@RealChrisLangan I see, so you were referring the fact that the Real numbers taken as a field are not "uniformly distinguishable," in the sense that, taken together, an infinite instantiation of each value would be the necessary and sufficient condition for their discernment. Is that correct?
Now, is it possible that, given the generative nature of the CTMU, you might be able to formulate theorems which are (or better yet, that the generative structure is in itself) isomorphic to the Real numbers? Again, I haven't delved very deeply into the CTMU itself, so if there is a reference which deals explicitly with this I'd be happy to take a look.
PhD in math. here. What he said about countable uncountable is a complete bs.
@@zholudProve it. Where is your university website with the mail / telephone information so that I can confirm you have this title (assuming you actually work at the university)?
@@eikefreidank4567Nah, I don’t have to prove anything - already proved what I wanted to prove many years ago 😅
Dan winters fractalfieldtheory
You cannot justify any explanation of consciousness without a logical and sensible creation story.
Consciousness was never created. It always was and will be.
@@Corteum nonsense. It is created all the time. That's how NPC characters are generated in an expanding multiverse. Your assertion is the narcissistic nonsense of panpsychism, basically proclaiming yourself God. Now that's some serious narcissism, isn't it?
@@theomnisthour6400 You cant know anything unless youre conscious or capable of experiencing information subjectively. If you cant be conscious of it, then you cant experience it. Without that, there's no reality.
@@Corteum NPC level consciousness works like AI. It runs on default programming till it can't find a high probability solution. Then it needs to either call on a higher power or exercise free will. It's hard to use free will till you develop conscious faith in your own choices, despite what programming sources are feeding you
@@theomnisthour6400 Consciousness is basically the capacity to experience information i.e., awareness , i.e. subject. What can consciousness experience? It can experience information, thoughts, feelings, emotions, sensations, i.e. objects.
The question we are yet to answer is: "Is consciousness created, or was it always here?" and also "Is it possible to create conscious subjects from any arrangement of unconscious objects?".
More research needed 👍
Guest was stumped by the Liebniz/monad question and talked around it as a politician would, dropping that he could write a paper on the topic yet evading it here. What are his qualifications? IQ is no qualifier.
He's actually addressed monad's in the past in greater detail. Remember this is a snippet from a 4-hour interview covering a wide range of topics.
200 IQ
360p camera.
😂
😂😂 comment made my day
Sorry this guy is a word salad of juxtapostion of quantum information theory, conscious buzz words. As soon as someone is defined by some IQ number I turn off. Please bring Sal Pais back and talk about the Grusch stuff and where Sal is on these ET propulsion theories using string theory closed time curves.
by jargon are you saying that his model is incoherent? if so could you explain why
I learned so much with this video! The main thing I learned was that I’m not so smart lol
You know what can beat a current i7 processor comp? A current i3 with better compression software.
i7's are outdated. we're on to i9's now
I don't agree with everything chrisnis saying all of the time, but i don't think he is a stupid person or something like that, i just think the character of reality is a certain necessary way and i have derrived a lot of physical law from it that explains all known phenomena at a fundamental level as seen in experiements pretty much and a bit beyond such that it provides a mechanism for a lot of the stuff that is just given in modern physics, sometimes chris says some stuff i agree with, but sometimes i think he is reaching for physical necessity in modern exposition of phenomenology which is mistaken andnoverly simplified, such as quanta, a quanta as such doesn't exist, quanta are simply incrimrements of absorbed and emmited energy in certain situations and some particle phenomena, but the ontology really can't consistancy contain any complete quantization so to speak it is approximate as a phenomena, i don't know whether this is because of boiled down explaination of what he thinks or because he has trysted modern lingo about what is empirically established🤷. There are so many mistakes being made and small leaps in logic and assumptions floating around everywhere all the time in seemingly all spheres, so what a person really thinks isnhard to know and i wouldn't fault him for taking some things for granted that don't follow from our inquiries up to now but are assumed to innfolly or simple mistake. But whatever we don't need to take each other all that seriously, we are all human after all, i have some objections to the stuff he isnsayongnand writing at times but such is life, it is øore interesting when people disagree.
Hey i dont care to be rude, i can be very disagreeable as well, but i have seen the discussion between maudlin and Bernardo and that seemed a bit absurd to me. He was basically calling what maudlin thinks about quantum foundations absurd without really knowingnmucj about it as it seems to me, not to be too rude but a lot of bernardos stuff is kind of all fluff and very little content. I think that about a lot of philosophical works but it comes with the territory. For example donald hoffman takes a bad logical deduction from evolutionary theory and uses evolutionary arguments as evidence that our phenomenal world, aka the world we experience and says we because of evolution have not reason to believe we understand the finctipning of the otological roots of our phenomanal experience, but this is incoherent because applying evolutionary logic to our faculties of perception and understanding assumes the phenomena we observe has something real to do with out perceptions and thinking. If the link is severed it cannot support the argument so the argument is incoherent. A bit like to know the probability of the world being a simulation you need facts about the world in which the simulation is run in not the world that is simulated.
the further beyond folk introspection consciousness proceeds, the less its dependence on biological conditioning becomes.
the opposite of what he states.
I have no idea what he is talking about.
that's because we are all very stupid compared to mr langan, he has an IQ of 200
What language are they speaking? 😂
First boomer that goes BOOM! No hogwash here.
interesting guy, especially after reading his wikipedia page...clearly supreme intellect tempered by troubled waters. re. the former, i was fascinated by how he described his mind working on a good day, using the analogy of mirrors reflecting light about his brain. i wonder if it possible to get him talking in a relaxed way about how he imagines his mind working, in particular the extent to which he uses words / pictures, or conjures something else eg. system of mirrors. on the theories of everything theme, it might be more productive to ask what could consciousness be, rather than what IS consciousness. I'd also want to ask this guy why he dropped out of formal education to teach himself.
the rationalWiki page provides a better understanding of who this guy is
@@JA-gz6cj That's only if you like getting information about people from propaganda artists. (Or is propaganda only something "right wingers" can do? You'd think the latest Israel-Palestine struggle would have drilled some nuance into people about these issues)
@@Person4649Person nice assumptions there mr nuance, who said anything about only right wingers doing propaganda and what does the israel-palestine conflict have to do with mr langan being a certified manchild lol
@@JA-gz6cj Says the troll who thinks someone can be understood based on one page of a heavily biased "wiki".
@@Person4649Person i'm saying it's a better source to understand the character of langan, such as him getting blocked from wikipedia for making personal attacks. personal attacks and calling people who disagree with him "trolls" seems to be his thing, and looks like his followers (ie you) are doing the same thing
Whitehead and his process philosophy? How does he know so much?
This is computer/internet stuff. Web1 and web2 are syntactic and web3 is semantic. As were making our own mini universe, were figuring alot about the one were in. Hes just applying words to this logic and riding it to the logical end.
I like this channel but dude, wtf are you guys saying?
A lot of things are semantic unfortunately lile when he says nature is a language, i would amend thatnto saying nature is the only substance that has self consist properties, almost by definition, but it is self defining outside the need for definition, it is hard to find words that neatly apply to it, but i think language kind of gives the wrong idea, even if it might be right in some sense, because instantiation of language in thought or symbol only exists within this thing and the worlings of nature is sort of self defining, while language by any definition that means anything to us ultimately functions through a recursive interaction between environment and person, and is ultimately mediated in the same way, it gives people the wrong idea, and so we could call the special totality and uniquely real way nature as a whole works blorgh as far as i care but that doesn't help either. Nature as a whole is the only self consistent dynamical system that doesn't need a description to be real so to speak there is no way to write down exactly how nature works inside nature and there is no space in which to try to copy it so to speak, so nature doesn't need a definable mathematical reduction to precisely describe it for the evolution to be spesific and well defined, if you just try to imagine some other mathematical object that cannot be faithfully defined or represented in full but doesn't have the luxury of being instantiated as nature is, it is not clear such a mathematical object exists at all. This kind of ontology can be as simple as infinite density of detail where the laws of physics are recursivley definied by the state and the state by the law and the state, this isn't a way to spesify the law just a way to describe its character, but the result is that you cannot define the law precisely until you can spesify the state precisely and so a faithful description needs to be sort of quasi fractal that cannot be specified exactly because its information density is infinite for any subsystem. A quasi fractal simply because it is in no way exatly periodic, that jives a bit with what Chris os saying but the details of what cannbe said about the dynamics of sucv a system isnmuch richer than anyone has ever spesified, I don't have a good feel for whether he understands such systems in any detail.
He describes it as a language because reality would be unintelligeble if it werent a language. It evolves analogous to a syntactic process where non terminal symbols are substituted to terminals, which are actual intelligible physical states. He explains why the universe can be explained by mathematical equations by showing that the generative aspect of the universe is like that of a language, you only experience that terminal expressions of the language but the necessary syntactic mechanism which structures the language is not something you directly experience, yet it's absolutely necessary. Its both abstract and concrete, mental and physical, metaphysical and physical in nature. The symbols of the metalanguage he describes are actual physical states and not some abstract symbols that describes an external structure to itself as in ordinary formal and natural languages. Therefore, the universe and all other instantiations of reality can be described as languages.
Please get Chris back on your channel!
Gibberish
Oh, good grief.
Pretty bird, and it even talks!
This guy is very intelligent. to the nth degree
This guy's inability to conceive of a multiverse or view himself from a distance makes everything he says just the ravings of a narcissistic NPC with his own brand of attention-seeking dogma
Are you sure he's unable to conceive of a multiverse or view himself from a distnace?
@@Corteum I've watched several interviews, and his theories strike me as jargon created by a narcissist trying to sell old ideas under new language. I could be wrong, but that's what I get from the few hours I've listened to him. NPC characters can have high IQ and lots of education, but very little experience outside their current incarnation avatar.
@@theomnisthour6400 Syntactic metaverse?
@@adamlindfors5082 yes, he's created an artificial syntactic elitism that can't be questioned and won't be explained without simply dismissing any challenge as a lower order IQ
Complete nonsense. A Turing machine is not conscious. You might as well say a bicycle pump is conscious. it can only accept certain inputs, processes them, and produces an output. This is irrelevant to the issue.
You totally don’t understand what hes saying at all
@@astralmaster1692 I understand very well he is a bull shitter who gets paid when unintelligent people pretend they understand the bull shit. I have worked with some genuine geniuses, engineers scientists etc. I am pretty well qualified in a science from one of the best three universities in Britain and spent 10 years in scientific research. I am not fooled by stunts like this.
Just because he has a high IQ doesn't mean he knows shit? He's intelligent. Intelligence doesn't just automatically give you the key to the universe. Smh.
Good thing no one said that.
Yeah but someone with high IQ will figure shit out far better than someone with low IQ. Our theories, everything we know in science is created by guys like this. They didn't read it from the books, they created the knowledge we teach.
This man needs to study.
Of course I do, as do we all. (At least this troll's blank profile has a picture of a creepy face on it.)
You as well. Everyone should be studying. That's just how we learn.
It's crazy that some believe evil can be determined by your beliefs.
Is it so hard to believe? I like David Grush's recent example. Most humans mean well, but to a cow in the slaughterhouse, we would be considered the highest form of evil.
@@PyramidofGeezer But that's the thing, you see. Cows not only can't conceptualize "evil" - they're strictly on the fight-or-flight level - but they don't have enough self-modeling capacity to "have a future"; they live strictly for the now. So it's not as though eating a cow amounts to nipping Aristotle or Newton in the bud, is it. (To prey species, the entire world would be defined as "evil" - there's always something after them, and even a "natural" death is almost never easy.)
What‘s so bad about evil again?
@@RealChrisLangan there is the experience of pain tho
great guy chris langan ...shame not many other people understand him that well rly
“I do know that he’s a sweetheart” - 🤢
This Curt guy is full of it and the worst kind of people pleaser. 275k subs, 500 likes on this video. Keep up the good work 😂
I mean he need guests on his TH-cam channel why would be fuck up any prospects by talking badly about people behind their backs.
You’ll never arrive at the truth by logic or deduction. And that is why this inflated fool is mired in duality. He has no experiential insight. None. Plus the poor guy is just too sensitive and reactive. Very fragile ego.
experiences require interpretation so they can be meaningful don't they?
@@nicbarth3838 Look again. First, there is experience, then there is an “interpretation”. The later is not required for the prior and is part of a mental habit pattern.
@@TheWizard10008 what is your idea of what an interpretation is, because in my mind things are experienced because were able to categorize our sensory inputs so we can perceive something, I don't know if interpretations and experiences are necessarily separate, you might be right and they are, yet I need to look into these non-concept based experiences and see for myself, how reliable that will be I'm not sure of but I cant accept yours or my stance with too much certainty because I don't think the assumptions either of us are making to be self evident.
Wait. You didn't use logic to arrive at this conclusion did you?
@@eddiepool2546 no I unfortunately used an opinion
If Materialism (physicalism) is right DNA is producing RNA that codes the amino acid that activate the awareness in our brain. The function of awareness is coded also in DNA like a program that needs a code to be activated. Under anesthesia the awareness protein doesn't reach the neurotransmitter because the signaling in the brain is off balance.
when we sleep it doesn't produce the protein until rem sleep. My guess is more valid and more accurate then anyone of these philosophers, scientists and engineers on your show. Chris Logan I respect for going against the indoctrination of the system and not being a sheep that follow and try to be someone important. Most people are dumb sheep not able to think for them self.
Awareness is not physical
@@alexeyprofi3951 th-cam.com/video/CcjU-Gud4LU/w-d-xo.html
@@alexeyprofi3951 th-cam.com/users/shortsLMC2xfnyJkw?si=gc71VKxdG_IRc4HB
@@alexeyprofi3951they take away my response so truth wont be said
May I ask you if you believe reality is mechanical/mechanistic?
He’s mired in dualism, but isn’t smart enough to realize that. 😆
not at all..
This troll doesn't even know the meaning of "dualism" or "duality".
@@RealChrisLangan Based on what you generally expound, I doubt you have any experiential insight in the matter.
@@TheWizard10008 You have to be kidding, right? He's written/explained the distinction between self-duality and dualism countless times.
@@eddiepool2546 Come on Eddie. Just because he has “explained” the distinction doesn’t amount to squat. He has no experiential insight whatsoever. Lots of people talk a good talk, but there are far fewer that live it. He’s a salesman not the living example. Save your worship for someone who is actually worthy of reverence. All the best to you.
Curt, u are blind to who bernardo is. The way he is on your podcasts is not how he actually is, forexample he hates Jordan peterson. I bet you didn't expect that.
he does? thats a little extreme he seems like he genuinely not only desires to help people but has, politically you can disagree with him but he has good psychological insight.
Meh
No offense, IQ numbers are nice, but I'm hearing a lot of face noises. A definition of consciousness, in language, has been elusive. Not anymore, because Universal Computation has revealed itself. NOT exposed itself, I'm doing that. Get in the care, we're going for a gene drive.
Definition: The awareness of dynamic geometric and spatial orientation of and to magnetic and electric fields. "Awareness" means responsiveness to changes in 3D spatial orientation, charge, distance and speed/momentum (you can write the equations to satisfy either value). Modeling this in 2D results in time limits in the materials, which we have already reached. "Quantum" is a face noise that means counting, quantification. IIT is more useful than anything I'm hearing here. Bernardo agrees.
Tell Eric to go away and fellate Thiel. Bernardo is a sharp guy. He doesn't abide nonsense. Face noises are the source of disagreement. Nick Lane and Michael Levin, gold star smart guys. But there is only one Unitary Operator. He doesn't super chat. He tells you to build his Natural Complexity machines, digital computers with 0-1-2 gates and a reliable error rate. If genetic arithmetic is fingers and toes to me, are we the same species?
Please Curt stop repeating this 200 IQ thing it's cringe.
What's "cringe" is a troll with a blank profile giving advice to the producer of a video on a subject the troll doesn't understand.
@@RealChrisLangan first i'm not a troll, second i have red all the articles and books of Langan. third a good producer takes advice from his fans so he can improve his content, fourth stop being such a fanboy, you are more cringe than the title.
Stop using cringe, it's so cringe. 🤣
@@RealChrisLanganFun fact: Iq is an weeugenic tool (also used to make people in the global south look dumber than Westerners) that has little scientific basis and was first developed for small school children to test whether they are on the same level as other school students. Later it was popularized by long island racist procedures to test immigrants in the early 20th century who were asked to answer questions in English when most didn't speak good English yet so that they have a reason to send them away. Then later h1tl3r was inspired by it and used it too to make j3ws,roma, sinti and other immigrants look "d0mb3r" than Germans with unequal testing. Iq says nothing about intelligence. It can correlate but doesn't have to. Its "looking" at three things: memory, visualization and vocabulary. What does it have to do with logical thinking if you can train to score good at a test and most study many hours before they take a test? IQ is mostly based on Howard Gardener multiple intelligences theory and Alfred Binet test that was created for children. Most mensa members are pretentious and snobs who are not intelligent at all. Asimov was at Mensa once. He said that he hoped for rational thinkers. In the objective reality they were bunch of losers who boasted about something that exists only on paper and it proved him how meaningless is it. He said that their iq is their whole identity/essence and it's all they care about without even thinking on the basic level. He said that most of them are dumber and less rational then the horde and all they do is boast, whine and claim they are superior because of a specific test which is totally meaningless. He said that most of them believe in radical pseudoscience and they don't care about knowledge nor truth. Hawking hated them and said that they are losers (some will claim he said it because he never got in, but I doubt he cares about mensa).
So yes, iq is "cringe".
Stop trolling. You most likely don't even understand the CTMU or Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. If you did you would love the 200 IQ usage. Stop trolling and just study philosophy or produce something yourself.
Lol, naming Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Liebniz and Whitehead all as philosophers who came close. Even if the opinions of these guys are compatible within some broader framework, from their perspectives the others are most certainly wrong. Might as well throw "Parmenides" (the Plato character) and Nietzsche in there as well.
and what is this broader framework?
good question. some (e.g., Chris Langan) would say the CTMU.
to the degree that any philosopher is "correct," of course what they get correct will be explained in a TOE. but that's not a particularly interesting claim to me: this doesn't tell me if a philosopher is any more respectable than Joe Blow on the street who happens to also believe a lot of things that are true. any theorist that says that both Heraclitus and Aristotle got a good deal of things correct is gonna have to square with the fact that Aristotle did not esteem Heraclitus' arguments highly... Heraclitus was was grouped by Aristotle with Anaxagoras and Democritus among the natural philosophers who are led to the postulation of a theory in which contradictory states of affairs obtain
for example, Aristotle has this to say about the ramifications of one of Heraclitus' more famous fragments: "And again, because they saw that all this world of nature is in movement, and that about that which changes no true statement can be made, they said that of course, regarding that which everywhere in every respect is changing, nothing could truly be affirmed. It was this belief that blossomed into the most extreme of the views above mentioned, that of the professed Heracliteans, such as was held by Cratylus [an interlocutor in a Platonic dialogue, btw] who finally did not think it right to say anything but only moved his finger, and criticized Heraclitus for saying that it is impossible to step into the same river twice; for he thought one could not even do it once" (Metaphysics, Book Gamma, 1010a5-14)
@@ChristianSt97
@@horsymandias-ur Of course you realize that this is not a good reason to declare a theory "uninteresting", right? Uninteresting to you, perhaps, but that's about as far as you can take it.
Parmenides was a brilliant idealist. Plato somewhat followed in his steps.
There were a couple of things that I wanted to discuss, but i decided to just comment on how many people on here are basically attacking Chris over the 200 IQ. It's truly distasteful and smacks of nothing so much as pure jealousy. Hey, I have a 168 IQ(but mostly I feel like an idiot savant, with the emphasis on 'idiot'🤣), but I'm not jealous of Chris nor dumping a bunch of ad hominem bullshit in his face. Perhaps commenting on what he acttually _said_ during this interview, rather than assaulting his IQ as false? Yeah. Good plan.
Too bad so many are not using it, preferring to stick with logical fallacy as their argument style.
You may have an IQ of 168, but what's the relevance in sharing that? I mean, the numbers are irrelevant to me if the person has next to no emotional intelligence. 🤷♀️
Bernardo is a Nihilist ;)
Kastrup sweatheart? 😂...only towards Curt and Michael Levin.
the funniest BULLSHIT I've ever heard lol.. IQ tests can be easily learned.. my last test after a decade was 170.. and I'm basically stupid lol
that's why I unsubscribed
Spoken like a true genius. ;-)
@@RealChrisLangan Alright smarty, solve this equation: 8=D
How does consciouness work? Well everthing is conscious because it's all made of syntactors or so, I just made up a word for a thing I claim to exist, and they need to be conscious, because, uhm, that's how they work, here's another made up thing I put in convoluted sentence, my favorite food is word salad and my IQ is 8000 so I'm right. What a meme.
New concepts sometimes require new words. That's how logic, math, and science often progress.
@@eddiepool2546 new words require explanation and context. This guy is not Shakespeare. He's obfuscating his speech to make people feel dumb when they don't understand what he means. After all this guy has such a high IQ! I must be dumb! True intelligence shows in the ability to communicate your ideas to others.
@@etzenhammer Which terms do you feel are obfuscation? How much research have you done into the concepts? There are resources online if you need help.
I've read the paper on CTMU and saw a couple of interviews with him.. and also with his critics. One of the first terms he's using is syntactor, which is described as follows: "A syntactor, portmanteau of syntactic operator, is self-transducing information -- the fundamental entity in SCSPL -- a coherent processor capable of or responsive to telic recursion[1] -- an entity in the universe which is able to process information by virtue of being able to read-write SCSPL syntax."
Sorry I had to laugh out loud when I read this the first time, what a load of useless word salad.. I wonder how anyone can take this stuff seriously 😂
@@etzenhammer A lot of people take it seriously. I'm not sure what you find funny. Also, FYI, there's a half-dozen or so published paper by Langan on the CTMU, and your quote comes from none of them. I'm assuming you got this from a fan-made wiki on the CTMU. It's best to go straight to the source.
I agree with him cause he is so sure of it. But who knows.
Don't agree with him for such a lightweight reason. Just stay skeptical till you know.
@@rl7012 I agree!!
Don’t follow confidence, follow logic. Dictators and fraudsters exude confidence.
it seems most of his followers think this way. they don't understand any of the stuff but he sounds so confident and has an IQ of 200 (!!!), so he must be correct
That's a dumb way of thinking. That's like agreeing with the news media on everything they say, well, because they're so sure of it! 😂
Does this help us build conscious AI that can think like human? No? Go away, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Let us know when your "conscious AI" is ready to speak for itself.
Chris' views on morality seem to be exactly the same as helena blavatskys' as she doesn't ascribe personhood to the universal intelligence but he claims to be christian while deciding for himself what good and evil mean through "interpretations" of scriptures (based on his self assessed framework) ...basically he thinks he's God "I want to contain the entire universe in my head" was a quote 😂if he was consistent he would be muslim since he claims to believe in the super ego behind all manifestation... that ego who would know best why humans were created & what moral actions in our context will lead to our best desirable outcomes, then he would submit. Instead he thinks his foresight is 20/20 lmao even if his iq is actually 200 (which i doubt considering the flynn effect and restandardisation of the metric) that's still only 2 people , you're not fitting the universe in 2 heads mate 😂
Submit to what exactly? Or perhaps you mean "to whom". There aren't many so-called leaders to whom I'd submit these days.
@@RealChrisLangan to this G.O.D you speak of obviously.. krishna, Allah, Yahweh etc. The same entity claims to be the truth, basis of all reality, Lord of the worlds. You read Bhagavad-Gita and it's exactly the same as the quran. With clear moral instructions that don't include hubris, that is the "mode of illusion".. I'd recommend books of Rene guenon, he seemed awake
Maybe the two heads he’s fitting the universe into are the dimensions of good and evil. Free will allows you to choose one dimension or ‘head’ over the other.
😂😂😂
Grifter vibes with word salad
Translation: I’m too lazy (or stupid) to contend with an idea directly, so instead I’m going to throw out infantile cliches to make myself feel better about my unfounded assumptions.
Grifter? 😅
IQ is an outdated concept and no reason to think this guy is any smarter than anyone else. In fact, I think his arrogant assertion that he's smarter and understands reality on a fundamental level is evidence to the contrary.
Take that, psychometricians! You fools aren't measuring smarts, but stupidity! Word, bro! ;-)
Wishful thinking. GWAS studies and twin studies show that ‘g’ is general, genetically heritable and predicts positive outcomes.
Moreover, the facets of ‘g,’ abstract reasoning, general problem-solving ability, verbal fluency and comprehension, spatial awareness, speed of processing etc. correlate HIGHLY with one another.
If you find someone who reacts quickly, they are also more likely to be able to solve a problem.
Intelligence is a property of nervous systems and is normally distributed.
What I find strange, as someone who is fairly average intelligence, is all the highly intelligent people who want to deny it exists or to say it is only one of many capacities and start talking about creativity or EQ. I, as someone who does not benefit from the truth, find it intellectually dishonest to bury it and turn away from it. It’s ideological at this point.
This guy’s theory could still be wrong. But only in the way that a Ferrari could be driving in the wrong direction. It’s still a Ferrari.
The claim that brain is somehow making consciousness is itself an arrogant and unproven assertion. But even so, a lot of people lapped it up!
@@Corteum If you hit your toe hard with a brick you don’t lose consciousness. If you hit your head hard with a brick you do. if you remove someone’s hippocampus, they get anterograde amnesia and can’t form long-term memories. Different states of consciousness (awake, asleep, under anesthesia) show distinct and predictable patterns of brain activity on an EEG or fMRI.
How do you account for these things?
@@aaronclarke1434 No different than saying "If you hit a radio with a hard brick, the music stops". But that doesnt mean the radio is creating the music.
I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS TRUMP.
Your Mother....😊
I support Trump
Keep screeching about Trump for the rest of your life.
deciding if you will see someone as respectable, based on only one singular data point, is your right.
Trump has a little turnip farm in your brain... get over it...