Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

megafoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

#11

Post by chrischen »

diiq wrote: post #9

I am always disappointed when someone cloaks their ideas in such thick intellectual veneer. I can't do justice to someone else's voice, but a few minutes were all that was necessary to make the first paragraph sound like a person: (translated from semi-scientific posturing) "One of the things that makes us human is thinking about the big picture. Unfortunately, it's easy to make simple mistakes in the attempt think a…

Perhaps simple to him just seems complex to you and me, and he simply can't help it.

Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

#16

Post by jcapote »

10ren wrote: post #4
ice_man wrote: post #2

It was written by this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0 An illustrative image of who he is: http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/chris-lang...

That video is a chilling cautionary tale.

I think I would've been a bully rather than a hacker had I met someone this arrogant and pretentious in high school. The only amusing part of that video is when he tells the story of getting chained to a truck and dragged up the street. Clearly, that didn't happen enough times.

Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

#18

Post by jerf »

etherael wrote: post #5

This fellow seems a little intellectually insecure to me, his style of writing / communication displayed in both the youtube videos and his theory, he appears to be making it complex to illustrate that he's capable of grasping complex things, rather than needing to illustrate actually complex ideas. The finishing points about "god" without ever really nailing down an empirical definition of the term beyond "indetermi…

This is either so brilliant that I can't follow it, or the product of paranoid-schizophrenia of the TimeCube type (along with numerous other famous internet kooks) cloaked in more intelligence than I'm used to seeing.

I don't usually have so much trouble deciding. There's a bit more coherence than I'm seeing from such things. On the other hand, it does show a lot of one of the hallmarks of such writing, which is referring to various non-standard premises like the "Mind Equals Reality principle" that I can find no explanation for on the net beyond what is seen in that writing, and tends to cloak an idea that can only be sort of expressed in fuzzy words in vaguely mathematical garb that really only exists in the author's head. (Google for "Mentifex" for a much clearer example, and don't miss the FAQ at http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html . The theory, such as it is, is cloaked in scientific jargon, but has no correspondence with the real world.)

Hard to tell. It would depend on whether the ideas actually have a backing that one could get at in conversation, or whether this is it. When pressed for details, the difference is the paranoid-schizophrenic ideation is endlessly recursive (talk to the timecube guy as much as you like, but you'll never get anywhere; back him into a logical corner and he simply starts insulting you), whereas real ideas can actually be shown to be grounded in something else real.

Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

#19

Post by ellyagg »

etherael wrote: post #5

This fellow seems a little intellectually insecure to me, his style of writing / communication displayed in both the youtube videos and his theory, he appears to be making it complex to illustrate that he's capable of grasping complex things, rather than needing to illustrate actually complex ideas. The finishing points about "god" without ever really nailing down an empirical definition of the term beyond "indetermi…

It's disappointing that the highest rated comment is essentially ad hominem. I've been aware of the CTMU for many years and was hoping smart folks would engage his ideas. Sadly, it appears the intellectual insecurity here is as great as that attributed to Langan.

Arrogance and insecurity may be regrettable traits for getting along with people, but are irrelevant to the truth of a matter. Truth/falsity should be judged on its merits.

> Still, I don't doubt he has some mental agility

Pretty condescending. That's sort of like finding someone who has a vertical leap 8 inches greater than Michael Jordan and saying "I don't doubt he has some athleticism..." Maybe you don't think transcendent jumping ability necessarily makes you a good basketball player, but you'd sure give someone with that trait a harder look. In a similar vein, you may not think an IQ score is the final word in apprehending great truths, but you should certainly take a little extra care, I'd think.

At least, when I encounter analysis by someone who is significantly smarter than I am, and I don't fully understand their claims, my first impulse isn't to be dismissive or make ill-defined, hand-wavy criticisms.

Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

#20

Post by ellyagg »

diiq wrote: post #9

I am always disappointed when someone cloaks their ideas in such thick intellectual veneer. I can't do justice to someone else's voice, but a few minutes were all that was necessary to make the first paragraph sound like a person: (translated from semi-scientific posturing) "One of the things that makes us human is thinking about the big picture. Unfortunately, it's easy to make simple mistakes in the attempt think a…

Do you read scientific journals much? Papers are usually filled with long, grammatically complex sentences full of obscure technical jargon. Given the subject matter, it seems a bit silly to hold the author to a different standard.
Post reply on HN