The smartest man in universe believes in Intelligent Design

[verty]

I should add, lest people think I am two faced, that you could say I gave him a hard time for his God-speak, but since watching the videos, I now think he doesn't believe it himself but is pursuing that for political reasons.

 

[Evo]

I should add, lest people think I am two faced, that you could say I gave him a hard time for his God-speak, but since watching the videos, I now think he doesn't believe it himself but is pursuing that for political reasons.

Or the money he's getting from the ID people.

 

[verty]

Seems an odd thing for someone that smart to do, to preach about ID because he wants money. What would he buy, anyway?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I'd preach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster if it'd ensure me money

Seriously I place ID and YEC on the same level, supposition trying to destroy science, at least the FSM's writers have some real knowledge about science.

Ahaha me jimlads, come over to the FSM, we has pirates, grog, a midgit and a tree, and if mountains be your thing we have them too.

When ye be dead we have wall to wall hooker factories and beer volcanoes, so what ye be waiting for?

Ninjas is a ghostly lot.

Oscar Wilde.

 

[verty]

I'd preach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster if it'd ensure me money

But if that money could only buy what interests buffoons, what would you buy? That's the situation he faces...

I suppose he could buy a relaxing life away from civilization, but not much else.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

But if that money could only buy what interests buffoons, what would you buy? That's the situation he faces...

I suppose he could buy a relaxing life away from civilization, but not much else.

True but since I consider my situation, I'd sell my soul to the Devil or the great vegan in a heartbeat, just so I could pursue my studies without the need to worry about money. I.e. I had to leave college for the lack of it and have only started learning when I earned enough money to do so.

 

[marlon]

smartest guy in universe

? Huh really ? So they "tested" everybody in the universe in the same way ? Huh ?


marlon

 

[russ_watters]

Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1957) is an American autodidact who says that he taught himself mathematics, physics, cosmology and the cognitive sciences.[1]

Sounds to me like he needs a better teacher...

 

[russ_watters]

Seems an odd thing for someone that smart to do, to preach about ID because he wants money. What would he buy, anyway?

Buy food? The way the Wik link reads, he's not very successful.

 

[Moridin]

Think of it like this: If he believes in Intelligent Design, then he is obviously not the smartest person on the planet.

 

[Kurdt]

I don't think he explicitly stated he believed in intelligent design (unless I missed it for I was doing other things simultaneously). I'm not sure it was implicit either.

EDIT: Oh well reading the wikipedia entry it seems he does.

 

[PIT2]

Most people don't like people that are smarter than themselves.
I like him.

 

[user299792458]

jeez, the camera work is annoying...

 

[tehno]

But...

I refuse! :grumpy:

Resistance is futile. (Star Trek;"Borg").
arildno,my buddy,looks like we are doomed...

 

[zoki85]

I did watch them, but the second half of the last my attention dropped. This was verry funny (because stupid) at some points, very scary at others (the smartest guy in the world is fascist !)

His mustaches ,clear sign!

 

[arildno]

Resistance is futile. (Star Trek;"Borg").
arildno,my buddy,looks like we are doomed...

Oh, as long as you are my buddy, I'll cope!

 

[russ_watters]

Most people don't like people that are smarter than themselves.
I like him.

Most smart people think they are dumber than they really are and most dumb people think they are smarter than they really are.

I'm not surprised he thinks he's the smartest person in the world.

 

[arildno]

He has the ability to score well on IQ-tests, though..

 

[whatta]

to actually http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

the universe is “intelligent” because this is precisely what it must be in order to solve the problem of self-selection... intelligence itself is a natural phenomenon that could never have emerged in humans and animals were it not already a latent property of the medium of emergence.

and

The CTMU says that reality is a language…a self-explanatory, self-theorizing, self-modeling structure identical to its universe.

Doesn't it sound familiar to anyone? Hint. EDIT: I now begin to think that anyone who tries to come up with interpretation of the universe in closed form, will end up in something like this. EDIT2: or how about this:

Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or “difference-in-sameness”... Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same

 

[J77]

If I dropped a box of matches do you reckon he could give me the number :rofl:

 

[arildno]

Well, latency does not imply pre-existence prior to the existence of humans.

There is a latency in the hammer to fall off the table; it doesn't follow it already has done so.

 

[whatta]

There is a latency in the hammer to fall off the table; it doesn't follow it already has done so.

But it follows that gravity exists.

 

[whatta]

thanks this thread for a pointer to rather nice reading, btw. this guy DOES make some sense. but. to somehow make ID opponents here a bit more happy, let me quote him again:

that the universe is somehow prohibited from serving as its own source, means, or reason. But this amounts to saying that the universe could only exist “by magic”, popping out of the apeiron with a spontaneity exceeding that by which a genuine magician might pull a magic rabbit out of a hat. For whereas magic rabbits can at least be said to originate by magic associated with magicians who pull them out of top hats into the bright light of reality, or to magically bootstrap themselves out of their own hats into their own realities, the universe would be denied any ontological basis or medium whatsoever…even a bootstrap.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

the universe is “intelligent” because this is precisely what it must be in order to solve the problem of self-selection... intelligence itself is a natural phenomenon that could never have emerged in humans and animals were it not already a latent property of the medium of emergence.

How does that follow? Why? Sounds like arm wavery to me? Thought must be an intrinsic part of the universe or thought itself could not arise, er why? So in order for intelligence to exist there must be an intelligence, any proof of that? Any logical reason to believe that? It sounds more reasonable to believe that given enough monkeys and enough typewriters x...

The CTMU says that reality is a language…a self-explanatory, self-theorizing, self-modeling structure identical to its universe.

I have no idea what the CTMU is but if this is either in terms of those who view reality it's self evident - or if he's referring to some sort of conscious direction which I think he is - also nonsense, why would he make that assumption?

Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or “difference-in-sameness”... Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same

YEEEESSS OOOOKAY, time for you medication now Mr Langen...

 

[Evo]

thanks this thread for a pointer to rather nice reading, btw. this guy DOES make some sense. but. to somehow make ID opponents here a bit more happy, let me quote him again:

So it makes more sense that some magical, mystical "intelligent designer" created the universe? :rofl: Where did this "intelligent designer" come from? Sorry, I will stick with science.

The CTMU and Intelligent Design

Design theory, which traces its origins to traditional theological “arguments from design” holding that nature was more or less obviously designed by a preexisting intelligence

OY. There is no science here, it's mysticism.

 

[whatta]

So in order for intelligence to exist there must be an intelligence, any proof of that? Any logical reason to believe that?

Did you even realize what are you saying here?

So it makes more sense that some magical, mystical "intelligent designer" created the universe?

Funny, the part I quoted last, stated exactly the opposite, but you keep throwing your stones. Oh well.

 

[Evo]

Funny, the part I quoted last, stated exactly the opposite, but you keep throwing your stones. Oh well.

I was actually referring to what he said in the quote I posted from his site.

 

[whatta]

...in the quote I posted...

which one?

 

[Evo]

which one?

The CTMU and Intelligent Design

"Design theory, which traces its origins to traditional theological “arguments from design” holding that nature was more or less obviously designed by a preexisting intelligence"

 

[whatta]

oh that one. an evolutionist could say, I "trace my origins" to amoeba-like creatures, but that doesn't make me one of them, does it.

any way, I am not advocacing this CTMU, I just say that some things in that PDF make sense to me. some do not, as well (e.g., telesis part).

 

[Evo]

oh that one. an evolutionist could say, I "trace my origins" to amoeba-like creatures, but that doesn't make me one of them, does it.

At least we can prove amoebas exist.

 

[whatta]

in the end this all boils down to how do you define "intelligence". if you deliberately define it as something unique to humans, you will have a firm ground to argue against ID. but if you define it in the way that it is applicable on many scales, up to the whole universe, you will have ID virtually unavoidable. so why don't we cut decent bits out of this CTMU and move on? that's what I am doing.

 

[Kurdt]

in the end this all boils down to how do you define "intelligence". if you deliberately define it as something unique to humans, you will have a firm ground to argue against ID. but if you define it in the way that it is applicable on many scales, up to the whole universe, you will have ID virtually unavoidable. so why don't we cut decent bits out of this CTMU and move on? that's what I am doing.

Well this is what it all boils down to is definitions. I.d. proponents define things with a slim chance of occurring as being guided by an intelligence. Others just see it for what it is, that something with a slim chance has actually occured. There is nothing special in that. Its like playing the lottery. In England there is a 14 million to one chance that you will win the lottery. yet most weeks someone wins. Do we attribute this to their greater intelligence having predicted the numbers that would be drawn? No.

 

[Evo]

but if you define it in the way that it is applicable on many scales, up to the whole universe, you will have ID virtually unavoidable.

No, ID claims that there was an intelligent entity that deliberately designed everything. That's mystical, it skips over any scientific reasoning and falls into "faith". ID explains nothing, claiming that "something had to create us" just leads to the question "what created the thing that created us?" If you claim that the "creator" didn't need anything to create it, then obviously we don't need anything to have created us either.

 

[Mk]

Most people don't like people that are smarter than themselves.
I like him.

I actually do like him.