The smartest man in universe believes in Intelligent Design

[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.

 

[Curious3141]

Whether CML is actually the "smartest man in the Universe" or not is really beside the point. Using that as a basis for bolstering a sympathetic belief in ID is a sort of reverse ad-hominem. Play the ball, not the man.

And, not to detract from my previous statements, I've known of CML for quite a while (around a decade or so). That was the time when I was active in these so called "ultra-high IQ societies" and related fora (and I am happy that I've left all that pompous silliness behind me). He was always a controversial character and has been involved in many rifts in the community, including the schism of the (original) Mega Society (a society for those whose IQs fall into the top millionth of the gen. population). This is not to say he was wholly, or even in large part to blame for those conflicts, but the fact remains that he was embroiled in quite a number of those incidents.

That was just to give you a little background on the man's history in the "ultra high-IQ" community. The rest you can read up on. In any case, judge his arguments (for the CTMU) on their own merits (or lack thereof), and not by CML's attributes.

 

[grant9076]

It is so easy to dislike people who are smarter than we are.

I have to say that he does speak in metaphors. However, in one of his essays that I have read, he did explain from an evolutionary standpoint why the egg had to precede the chicken. This implies that Mr. Langan believes in evolution and that any hasty conclusions that he does not are likely to be in error.

Although the term "language" usually refers to a natural language like English, it is actually more general. Mathematically, a formal language consists of three ingredients: a set of elements to be combined as strings (e.g., symbols, memes), a set of structural rules governing their arrangement in space, and a set of grammatical rules governing their transformations in time. Together, the latter two ingredients form the syntax of the language.

Although some of his other essays get heavily into philosophy, he does have a valid point when he says that the laws of nature and existence can be described as a language. It also makes sense that the role of science is to discover “syntax” of this language.

Although I don’t believe that there will ever be a way to find a “smartest person”, I am forced to conclude (from reading a few of his essays) that Mr. Langan is absolutely brilliant.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Did you even realize what are you saying here?

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

Yes I thought I made it clear, I'm saying that this guy is talking pseudo intellectual BS. If you think that anything he's saying has any sort of consistent scientific or even philosophical base then it's up to you to show where. In short I know exactly what I'm saying: this is as Evo so rightly puts it, mysticism, nothing short of sophistry. Verbose sophistry, I'll give him that. apparently a few long words and a bit of pseudo philosophy and people somehow think he's proved intelligent design, unless I'm taking the whole thing out of context, which is possible as all I have is a sound bite.

I'd like to make it clear I'm attaking his prose not the man, I think he's talking rubbish. I couldn't care less whether he had an IQ of 4 billion, everyones capable of talking crap, I don't believe the ability to be wrong discriminates solely on the basis of intellect.

 

[J77]

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

"universe" read "US"

The bit on wiki about him bulking up to beat his step-dad who beat him makes him sound like an idiot - hardly the smartest man in the uuuuuuuuniverse.

 

[whatta]

yeah yah yah he's not smart, not even remotely genius, and his IQ measurements were probably faked by christian mafia in yet another conspiracy to make more americans into ID supporters. after all he's just a bouncer. what can bouncer possibly know about the universe? oh yeah, one more thing: you are probably more right and more clever that this guy can ever be.

happy?

 

[arildno]

But it follows that gravity exists.

Again, gravity is not the same as the state of having fallen down.
Nor are the conditions enabling the formation of intelligent life the same as intelligence.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

yeah yah yah he's not smart, not even remotely genius, and his IQ measurements were probably faked by christian mafia in yet another conspiracy to make more americans into ID supporters. after all he's just a bouncer. what can bouncer possibly know about the universe? oh yeah, one more thing: you are probably more right and more clever that this guy can ever be.

happy?

I really don't consider IQ as a worthy measurement of intelligence, I've seen too many people who ought to be dumb because of there IQ's do too many clever things. It's a rough guide at best, if IQ was directly corelatory between achievment then I might take it more seriously, as it is I'm a bit of an IQ test critic.

Happy? About what, the guys talking nonsense, I call a spade a spade. As I said I'd be delighted for anyone to show me how exactly this is profound philosophical revelation, rather than the twaddle I think it is.

 

[arildno]

Twiddle twaddle, use a paddle.
Eat a bagel, don't read Hegel.

 

[grant9076]

"universe" read "US"

The bit on wiki about him bulking up to beat his step-dad who beat him makes him sound like an idiot - hardly the smartest man in the uuuuuuuuniverse.

In a physically abusive household, a person has to do what is needed to survive with his physical well being intact. What Chris Langan did actually solved the problem...permanently. So, from a logical standpoint, what he did was not stupid.

If you think that anything he's saying has any sort of consistent scientific or even philosophical base then it's up to you to show where.

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Which.html" is an essay that he wrote. If you find anything it that is mystical or otherwise indicates a dissenting opinion regarding evolution, then please let me know. I sincerely hope that you read it because anyone who has ever interviewed with the media knows that media clips often take what they say out of context.

 

[whatta]

Again, gravity is not the same as the state of having fallen down.
Nor are the conditions enabling the formation of intelligent life the same as intelligence.

Me and you are not same, so why do they keep calling us with same names (e.g., human, websurfer, pf poster, etc, etc).

 

[arildno]

By that piece of silly reasoning, you just proved that the big bang was actually the fart of a tiny fish.

If you want to live in a mind of cloudy imprecisions&misconceptions, please do, but don't bother us with revelations of your thought processes.

 

[whatta]

us who ?..

 

[Curious3141]

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Which.html" is an essay that he wrote. If you find anything it that is mystical or otherwise indicates a dissenting opinion regarding evolution, then please let me know. I sincerely hope that you read it because anyone who has ever interviewed with the media knows that media clips often take what they say out of context.

That's a nice little essay. I've previously cogitated upon the same question and come up with the same solution (and the same essential justifications), that he did : in the unqualified rhetorical question, the egg necessarily came first.

However, he neglected to consider the niggling unsaid detail that makes this question impossible to answer definitively. There is an implicit label prepended to the object "egg" - that label is "chicken". In truth, the question that people often mean when they pose, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?", is "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?" Given that the possessive form as it applies to the ovum of a general oviparous species is commonly assumed to attach to the maternal progenitor of said ovum and less so the embryonic form within, it becomes clear that the answer *has* to be "the chicken".

Hence, from the perspective of a formal logico-axiomatic-semantic-syntactic structure that presupposes that such a question can even be posited, let alone answered, the final solution must remain ontologically indeterminate.

Thank you for your patience. All pleonasms are mine, but I was inspired by that Great Man among great men, CML. No innocent avians were harmed in the foregoing thought experiment.

Impenetrable? Abstruse? Obscurantist? Well, it doesn't begin to approach the prodigiously arcane prose that CML is infamous for.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Which.html" is an essay that he wrote. If you find anything it that is mystical or otherwise indicates a dissenting opinion regarding evolution, then please let me know. I sincerely hope that you read it because anyone who has ever interviewed with the media knows that media clips often take what they say out of context.

OK look I'm not slighting the mans intellect, I'm sure he's done many great and outstanding things somewhere, just from the bits and pieces I've read on this particular issue I think he's off the mark, whether that reflects on his work as a "whatever he does", I have no idea, 'til I saw this article I'd never even heard of him. If anyone has his entire essay on intelligent design put it up and I'll tell you what I think of that too.

I think sometimes Stephen Hawking is full of crap too, doesn't mean he isn't a brilliant physisist. Einstein was wrong about QM, Newton about lights properties, Socrates about the elements; Langer I think is full of it about ID.

 

[whatta]

If anyone has his entire essay on intelligent design put it up and I'll tell you what I think of that too.

http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

 

[Curious3141]

If anyone has his entire essay on intelligent design put it up and I'll tell you what I think of that too.

You can download the pdf off here : http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

See now that's my problem I can't read those, they don't appear to work, I'll try on my computer at home, that said though if your cherry picks of good ideas are anything to go by, I'm not expecting much. And the Chicken and the egg thing isn't going to inspire me either, as most people with basic evolutionary knowledge could have figured that out and indeed did. Who is this guy anyway, is he a professor or some sort of scientist or just an author, floating along on his reputation, or his IQ?

 

[grant9076]

OK look I'm not slighting the mans intellect, I'm sure he's done many great and outstanding things somewhere, just from the bits and pieces I've read on this particular issue I think he's off the mark, whether that reflects on his work as a "whatever he does", I have no idea, 'til I saw this article I'd never even heard of him. If anyone has his entire essay on intelligent design put it up and I'll tell you what I think of that too.

I think sometimes Stephen Hawking is full of crap too, doesn't mean he isn't a brilliant physisist. Einstein was wrong about QM, Newton about lights properties, Socrates about the elements; Langer I think is full of it about ID.

I understand your point about high intelligence not being any guarantee against being wrong. However, I was trying to point out the unreliability of media clips for some reasons:

1. Anyone who has experienced the absolute humiliation and embarrassment of being quoted out of context by the media can tell you that sound bites and other media clips are not to be trusted.

2. Many smart people often speak metaphorically and are easy to take out of context. For example, when Einstein said something to the effect of "God does not play dice with the Universe.", I do not take it to mean that he is a bible thumping christian.

3. Chris Langan's essays indicates that he believes in things such as evolution, the theory of Relativity, and (yes) the Big Bang. Now, I do not claim any extensive knowledge about the CTMU. However, from what little I (hopefully) understand, he believes that the laws of existence are part of a self configuring self processing language, and that the role of science is to understand the rules of this language. I believe that he is using the word "intelligent" as a metaphor to describe the laws of physics etc which process themselves. However, I am not sure of that. Regardless, IMHO his works seem to indicate an uncommonly high level of intelligence (regardless of his IQ score).

 

[Kurdt]

He mentions the human eye as being unexplainable in a gradualistic evolutionary process. I thought this had been explained for years. Perhaps he needs to do more research.

 

[arildno]

He mentions the human eye as being unexplainable in a gradualistic evolutionary process. I thought this had been explained for years. Perhaps he needs to do more research.

For those still wondering about these "mysteries", at least two typical processes are at work:
1. One light-sensitive cell is better than none
2. Organ streamlining:
Given a set of cells that all does the same tasks 8say, produce some stuff), one subset's capacity of doing one task may become redundant if another subset can heighten its own efficiency at doing the same task.
Thus, the first subset may shut off its own ability, getting the necessary stuff from other subsets, and go on and specialize itself onto some other task.
Thus, organs in which each part is extremely specialized, and cannot survive on its own, is perfectly well explainable by a selective redundancy cut-off procedure.