Should I read him?
I read his essays on X, they're pretty good.
>>24826139His books are very short but they're not very understandable to me, I got filteredYou will probably get filtered too
>>24826139He's a retarded charlatan who has temper tantrums.
who wins?
>>24826139His main text is like 30 pages. Give it a read. Some of it is interesting but in the end it's mostly undergraduate computer science larping.
>>24826139No, just watch thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDmcoYpTTbE
>>24826484Langan is a retard but that YouTuber is a fag who goes after low-hanging fruit.
>that YouTuber is a fag who goes after low-hanging fruitSure, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. In moments like this he shines.
>>24826732No, he never shines. He just takes cheap shots at easy targets while his subscribers delude themselves into thinking they're not just midwits. Easily the worst genre of YouTube.
>>24826760This
>>24826760You're right. But one psued taking down another is poetic.
>>24826768This is true
>>24826139I'll save you the time. The following premises are all tautologically true1) Mind is reality2) The map is the territory3) Reality is contigent upon language4) Reality is closedHe is right about all of these and if you wish we can argue about it and I will show you.These four premises, when combined, represent a "super-tautology" which leads to the metaphysical conclusion that the universe is that which speaks itself into existence. He doesn't get around the problem of induction though, despite his dancing around it.That said, the CTMU really is unfalsifiable no matter how much Langan believes it.
He has a high IQ, but he's not a genius.
>>24826855>Reality is contigent upon languageWhat kind of language? How so and why?
>>24826901Langan calls the "universe's language" SPSCL which is, I guess, a rudimentary language made up of "infocognition." Langan is absolutely obsessed with the idea of duality. Infocognition is his way of describing a duality of information and cognition. Basically you can't have information without cognition and you can't have cognition without information, hence they must be elements of the same thing.Why language? Because you can't have a thought or perception without information, and you can't convey information without language. Since the universe perceives itself and conveys information about itself to itself (the moon is here and not there), language must be elementary to reality itself.
>>24826855Can you recommend a better book covering this topic from a non-grifter?
>>24826947>Because you can't have a thought or perception without information, and you can't convey information without languageI'm not entirely convinced that's true.
>>24826952The almost impenetrable CTMU and Langan's descriptions are the best way to get down to what he means. Source material is a wide array of various subjects Langan has mashed together. It's idealism + epistemology + ontology + number theory + philosophy of science + sentential logic. Part of me thinks this is a grift, part of me thinks he's trying to start a new religion, and part of me thinks he's so bored he is just epically and subtley genius trolling. Don't underestimate him though, he is definitely incredibly brilliant.
>>24826963Ok, let's start with language. Describe to me a way information could be conveyed without using language.
>>24826969Cave paintings
>>24826969>>24826971And maps.
>>24826969And pain itself. Pretty obvious information which causes the body to react. Informationally it's saying "get the fuck out of here"
>>24826969Facial expression and body language
>>24826855>He is right about all of these and if you wish we can argue about it and I will show you.Show me. That they're *tautologically* true, mind you, not that they kinda sorta make sense when you employ convenient definitions.
>>24826971>>24826975But both of these things DESCRIBE reality. It appears like a visual representation devoid of language to us, but because information is contained therein and communicated (the man is bigger than the mammoth and he holds a bow and he has a large penis), what you're really looking at here is some form of information conveyance, i.e. a language. Langan doesn't mean a "spoken language" per se, he called this substrata of all communication the SPSCL language.
>>24826484>low impulse control midwit kikethis guy is just the non-pedophile destiny
literally who?
>>24826983Ok so the first one, that mind is reality. Perceptions without percepts are a non-sequitur, and vice versa. For something to be a perceiver, there must be things to perceive. Conversely, for things to be perceived (percepts), there must be a perceiver. If you think about all perceivers and all percepts as a set union, the terrain they share is where mind = reality. At some fundamental level, any difference must devolve at some fundamental level to a shared characteristic. Langan calls this devolution "syndiffeonesis" and the the thing which they share "infocognition."
>>24826979It is saying? :)
>>24827003Consider yourself blessed to not have come across this mountebank until now.
>>24826963nta but a thought is literally the manifestation of information in your mind. If a thought isn't information then what else is it?Perception is the apprehension of information conveyed through the senses. If you are not interpreting information as representation then what are you interpreting via the process of perception?
>>24826969I don't need to read how you've responded to others because I know you're just going to define any way of communicating information as language.
>>24827032Not me, Langan. I'm just the messenger and I don't really agree with him, but I am convinced of some of his premises.Language is tautological because it's impossible to form or express a coherent alternative without using language itself. You'll kindly notice any alternative is itself entirely dependent upon language to express.
>>24827038>Language is tautological because it's impossible to form or express a coherent alternative without using language itselfDo you seriously not see how that's a circular definition?
>>24827043It's tautological, correct.
>>24827044Yeah, it's an empty statement.
>>24827047I don't think it's empty. The tautology that information cannot be communicated without some type of language carries a great deal of weight. We know, for instance, that everything is ultimately made up of information. Since information can't be communicated without some kind of language and language isn't intelligible without some kind of cognition, and the Universe is everywhere (so far as we know) coherent and consistent, it follows that the universe is some kind of perceiving, communicating cognition.
any system of communication is language>>24826971>hieroglyphics have entered the chat >>24826981>body language>not language bruh
>>24826139What for? https://www.youtube.com/live/Xye45KwB5Zs?si=iR1LDJyOuV20kEnn
>>24826969Simple, in any conclusions you can draw from circumstances. It's the essential element of detective stories - like the killer leaving some object in a room that allows the detective to deduce his whereabouts, characteristics etc. Information has been gained but no language was used, even under the broad definition of language as any symbolic representation.Unless ofc you want to say that it's "the universe" using language, but then the word is superfluous and you can just stick to "information".
>>24826855Oh wow it's Wittgenstein all over again
>>24827059>I don't think it's empty.It is because it's trivially true by the way it's defined.
>>24827081Genuinely funny
>>24827091And conclusions are expressed, to others or oneself, using what exactly?
>>24827091But deductions are literally just arguments of logic
>>24827159They don't need to be expressed for the information to have been conveyed. You might express what you already know, or simply know it and take certain actions based on it without spelling it out. Surely everyone knows what it's like to know something without having a formulation of it.>>24827164If you want to write them down formally maybe, but it's not how we make 99% of our everyday deductions, or how said detective would make one, especially a quick one, "thinking on his feet"
>>24827203You're impressed by things that are trivially true and mistake them as being insightful when the reality is it's just superficial wordplay, anon.
>>24827203But "exterior" reality is conveying the information to the detective, internal cognition is processing them with the language of logic, and then a conclusion is communicated to himself, or others. Some kind of language is an irremovable aspect of all of this.>>24827209Trivially true yet it goes over a lot of the people's head ITT. There are a few people in here arguing that language isn't integral to everything in reality, using language of course.
>>24826964It does require some intellect to be a successful grifter. Don't be so gullible lad.
>>24827221What part of that post mentioning him creating a religion, grifting, or genius trolling made you think I'm gullible?
>>24827215> There are a few people in here arguing that language isn't integral to everything in realityIs language integral to birth, death, decay, black holes, consciousness and so on? Does an ant hill depend on it? You’re greatly exaggerating, Langang.
>>24827215>Trivially true yet it goes over a lot of the people's head ITTChanging a tire on the side of the road is a trivial activity for me but I'll bet you don't know how to do it. Bad argument, anon.
>>24827209What exactly do you consider me "impressed" by, anon?>>24827215As I said before, if you're going to simply call literally everything that happens a language, there's no point in using that particular word in addition to the word information. The things you mention can for sure be described in this or that language, like formal logic for the making of conclusions, but that doesn't mean they are that language.
>>24827272Information conveyance which is a simpler form of language or communication, and yes, obviously.
>>24827292You can’t explain any of this outside of a logical argument. You have no actual understanding or grasp of this “information conveyance”, let alone “reality”, and so these are nothing but word games. Tell me which information is being conveyed at the point of birth?
>>24826139he giving 4 chan stan
>>24827281Superficial wordplay. Your reading comprehension sucks.
>>24826139Thought that was Stephen Paddock kek
>>24827306>Tell me which information is being conveyed at the point of birth?Surely you can answer this yourself
>>24827277You said it was trivially true. Plenty of counterexamples in the thread
>>24827306>You can’t explain any of this outside of a logical argument.That's the point>you can't explain anything without language!but you're still missing it
>>24827358Ironic, seeing how you don't seem to know what "exactly" means
>>24826855>>24826947>>24826996Interesting, thanks for the great explanations. Especially the conclusion of the first post,>That said, the CTMU really is unfalsifiable no matter how much Langan believes it.Which plays into my belief that, ultimately, mystical experience transcends intellectual reasoning and debates, even as intellectual reasoning can be regarded a higher human endeavor than complete non-intellectualism or anti-intellectualism.I say this because, just as Langan formally came to these conclusions with lots of thought and study, so it seems mystics across history came to the same or similar insights through direct intuition and mystical experience.On the side of your argument with some other anon(s) about whether “language” is integral to reality, I’d come down on your/Langan’s side, and say that, as reality is inextricably bound up with perception of it, which suggests cognition/mind and the apprehension of information (one of the premises/tautologies here), so this information necessarily implies a “language”, taken in a broader sense as intelligibility, things being intelligible at all.It’s interesting that the Ancient Greek conception of Logos becomes very relevant here. Literally/variously “Word”, “Reason”, “Discourse”, also the root of the word “logic.” It’s a guiding principle that informs the entire universe according to Presocratics like Heraclitus, and then also takes on a spiritual sense in Christianity, as the Word (of God), Christ also being the Word (Logos), famously in the opening of the Book of John:>In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. (1:1)So I see why Langan makes much of his CTMU as also, in a major sense, a deeper explication of Christian theology, and not only that but also offering a meta-religious framework or chance for interreligious discourse, inasmuch as any legitimate religion has had concourse with or genuine inspiration by the Logos at any point. I think you could call the Logos, in its ancient transcendental sense, equivalent to Langan’s idea of “language” (taken in a broader sense) being integral to reality.
>>24827435Np, my pleasure.>Which plays into my belief that, ultimately, mystical experience transcends intellectual reasoning and debates, even as intellectual reasoning can be regarded a higher human endeavor than complete non-intellectualism or anti-intellectualism.Couldn't agree more. The fact that art "points" to some transcendence is evidence it exists, and obviously the transcendent is untestable by definition. Also one of the reasons as our society has become scientized and technologized that these distractions have interfered with and degraded the arts, which are the true expression of human experience.>suggests cognition/mind and the apprehension of information (one of the premises/tautologies here), so this information necessarily implies a “language”, taken in a broader sense as intelligibility, things being intelligible at all.For sure. The fact the universe is intelligible and we are making sense of it means there is something in common with our reason and the 'reasoning' of the universe. Although I do thing universal intelligibility is one of his weakest premises.As for your last paragraph, unfortunately I think Langan also believes that he is a god, and quite possibly the second coming of Christ himself, but you probably have to pay for the top level on Patreon before he gives you this secret gnosis.
>>24827407Just because midwits don't understand something doesn't make it nontrivial, retard. >>24827407>n-no youRetard confirmed. Also, learn how to properly apply the term "ironic" before posing on a literature board.
>>24827447Trivial doesn't mean hard to understand, it means unimportant. There's also a pretty big difference between a tautological argument and a logical tautology. Language is imperative is an example of the latter incredibly important. Only a midwit would claim otherwise.But you know, keep using language to debunk the claim that language is imperative to intelligibility. It's getting more and more amusing as time goes on. :)
>>24827455>Trivial doesn't mean hard to understandNo shit, retard. Hence me pointing out the fact midwits quibbling over something doesn't make it nontrivial. Your reading comprehension is shit, bro.
>>24827246all of it
>>24826139Yeah, start with Rules for the Human Zoo and Nietzsche Apostle before starting Critique of Cynical Reason
>>24827505I'm of the opinion that debate precludes a topic being trivial.
>>24827574Not being able to discern trivial from nontrivial is a sign of being a midwit pseud. Sucks to be you.
>>24827649>this thing means nothing to me, therefore it means nothing to anyoneThe slogan of the pseudlet
>>24827445Thanks for the response, also great stuff, but about YOUR last paragraph:>As for your last paragraph, unfortunately I think Langan also believes that he is a god, and quite possibly the second coming of Christ himself, but you probably have to pay for the top level on Patreon before he gives you this secret gnosis.No way! I just totally disagree lol. From what I’ve kept up with Langan on from his social media posts, extensive arguments online and also various more easily comprehensible essays or little interviews of his, and responses to online questioners and the like.From what I understand Langan at most sees all people as partaking in some sense in the Logos, hence in that sense we all have the potential to “incarnate God”, or partake in Christ’s Sonhood to the Father; but nothing suggests to me Langan is megalomaniacal enough to literally view himself as the Second Coming of Christ, or as God Himself uniquely incarnated in human form.But, again, thanks for the rest of your post, I pretty much agree with it.
>>24826947Well what about fields? (Tesla, Maxwell) and the Aether? What kind of language is that? Or even cognition? Same anon who asked you the question. I am being genuine. This sounds like panentheism and as much as I wish to lean towards it, saying language as the substrate of reality..well. im open though
>>24827787Well think about fields this way. How does the universe avoid space contradictions? For example, you and I are discrete objects but we do not share the same space. To do so would be to violate a law of identity. I think that Langan would say (though I'm not sure I'm no expert of his theory) that the universe evolves in a state-to-state transition, and in order to do that this sub-communication must be taking place both across space (field) and time (state-to-state transition period, however quantized). It can't violate itself, so if it really is created by itself, there must be some intra-communication happening with itself that allows it that level of non-violation. I've heard Rick Rosner (another weird genius) talk about how he thinks that the quanta is this part of the universe of pure actualization potential, which is then realized by whatever mechanisms into what we see as reality (observer effect, etc). I agree it does sound like panentheism but with scientific backing. I'm as much on the fence about it as anyone else who understands it. The universe seems to me like a pretty cold, empty place with no discernible mind behind it. If it were some kind of mind, it would have to be intending upon something and all our scientific evidence points to it just fading out over time. Not sure.
>>24827732Of course your feelings are your own, and I'm not going to judge them. Personally, I get the same feeling from him as I do driving past the church of Mormon or reading about L Ron Hubbard. I'm not sure he is a purely benevolent actor.
>>24827081Whoever posted this guy thanks, he is incredible. I don't have enough depth of understanding of physics to say how he's wrong in much of anything, but his aversion to the gibberish of theoretical physics is something I can relate to.
>>24827787I ask because of concepts like gnosis, apophatic reasoning, saying 'The Ineffable One' or more aptly 'The Tao that is spoken of is not the Eternal Tao.' I do not think they spoke so out of poetry. Language divides, categorizes, and points, but it never is the thing it points to.Even the word “light” fractures when uttered:In one context, it’s the electromagnetic spectrum.In another, it’s spiritual illumination.In metaphysics, it’s the first emanation of Being.But in nature, light (principle) simply is.It shines, without concept, without meaning attached.Language belongs to the reflective mind, not to the self-existing Real.Nature does not speak; it acts seamlessly, without hesitation, without the need for self-description.But let me read Langan's theory, however it does feel..anthropocentric, that uses a human cognitive metaphor onto something that is prior to cognition.But I will read his theory, perhaps hes using language and information to mean something else.
>>24826855Those are all rephrasings of a single idea and all false because the map's usefulness is in the ways it differs from the territory.
>>24827836Well he doesn't mean spoken language. He is referring to some proto-language that is common to everything that uses the aforementioned infocognition as its building blocks.Once you read it come back and talk about it. I've only met a handful of people who could penetrate that godawful paper he wrote.
>>24827814You put it well. The issue of non-violation is indeed central. how can Being manifest as multiplicity without contradiction? That’s precisely what ancient metaphysicians wrestled with when they spoke of emanation or participation rather than discrete creation. Each thing exists in and through the One yet maintains its apparent distinctness.But where I differ slightly is that “communication” implies separation, ultimately there is no separation but relatively and experientially from our 'perspective' there is. Why? I have ideas but they sound sentimental. Anyways perhaps the Real, or the substratum of fields, doesn’t seem to communicate so much as it coheres. The universe does not “talk to itself”; it is itself, continuously. What we perceive as state-to-state transitions may be our mind’s way of measuring the seamless unfolding of the eternal. All im saying, is that there are mysterious and paradoxes, and some psrt of me believes Light (principle, Tesla) seems to be responsible for all apparent dualities, paradoxes and the desire for all beings to seek that very same union with the One which is itself a bit of a paradox but it may bery well be its one of its functionsBut I will say no more. I think mysteries are part of the 'fun' and 'thing' that attracts all who wish to see and be seen Again. Im not opposed to theories, Im just opposed to theories of 'everything' but are closed off from criticism.
>>24827856There is weight to what you said. I'm not here to peddle Langan's wares I was just trying to explain his theory as best I could with my limited understanding of it. I agree with his premises, but I do not think his conclusion follows. Many possible conclusions follow from those premises.
>>24827876>There is weight to what you saidKek, there is? But I agree with your attitude . I just downloaded his paper and youre write about godawful lol. But it does seem interesting
>>24826139That depends, are you a fucking idiot?Think carefully now, the answer depends on deep knowledge of the self.
>>24827877I think so, especially the salient thought that communication implies separation and violates the concept of the universe being a holistic entity.I can't remember his name but a pretty prominent mathematician had a dialogue with Langan on his website where they discussed this stuff and he seemed to agree with a lot of the theory. I'd recommend looking up the wikipedia debate Langan had with Byrgenwulf some years ago under the pseudonym Asmodeus. I've read it three times and it's fucking great.
>>24827897>>24827877Google is really becoming shit. I had to use duckduckgo to find it. Very informative from both sides and both sides extremely intelligent and well read. No clear winner imo.https://ia803105.us.archive.org/34/items/asmodeus_202106/asmodeus.pdf
>>24827908Thanks anon :)
>>24827661>I mentally masturbate to the writings of Chris Langan No you.
>>24826233thismy iq is higher than him lmao
