Let's have an actual philosophy thread.
What is /lit/'s opinion on Christopher Langan's "Cognitive Theoretic Model of Reality?" I think it's probably the most revolutionary work in philosophy of science for hundreds of years. Langan shows that reality itself is "relative" to our theories in much the same way that time is relative.
Of course it takes some intelligence to understand, so leave this thread if your IQ is below 140.
ctmu.org
Great idea. I brought joints for everybody.
I'll begin.
What is, like, the *meaning* of, like "meaning"?
>>8050019
Meaning is dependent on the mind that grasps onto any concept
Why?
Sam Harris finished it all.
>if your IQ is below 140.
'your'
hahahahahaha
how embarrassing
>>8050034
rekt
>>8050034
well this is embarrassing for you, isn't it
>>8050038
>l-le didn't le mean it
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!
>>8050028
appeal to authority
>thread dead after the first post
>>8050044
As you are no doubt aware, appealing to an EXPERT is not a logical fallacy. There is no higher EXPERT on philosophy of physics right now than Langan, and his IQ is relevant to that fact.
>>8050050
>IQ is relevant to that fact
IQ = expertise?
I don't think so senpai
>>8050050
Actually if I appeal to God to tell you he's wrong I win by this logic.
Checkmate.
>>8050067
I've already read it. It's pap.
>>8050016
Does it solve the hard problem of consciousness?
>>8050079
Yes. Read the theory and you will see if your IQ is high enough.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but
1) Langan IQ has nothing to do with the philosophical coherence of his paper
2) He is a nobody in the academia. It follows that nobody knows who he is and that his work certainly isn't "the most revolutionary work in philosophy of science".
3) No one gives a rat's ass what you think since it's pretty evident that you wouldn't get past the first sentence of an arbitrary paper in contemporary philosophy of science. You are destined to discuss science and philosophy on the level of 4chan--using such sensationalist claims as "the most revolutionary", "actual philosophy", "0.999999... is not equal to 1. And here's why...", "Is consciousness just a quantum process modelled by a two-valued ordered lattice?" etc.
You might have better luck if you posted this on /sci/ where crackpots are given the benefit of doubt.
>>8050100
RËKT
AHAHAHAHHHHAHHAAHHH
Ok, I gave it a try OP, unfortunately
>The only firm requirements are that it (1) have a subject, and (2) be stated in a language in terms of which the subject can be coherently described. Where these criteria hold, the theory can always be “formalized”, or translated into the symbolic language of logic and mathematics.
stopped right there
Doesn't seem very genius to me :^)
>>8050083
what's with the faggy obsession with IQ
>>8050100
Your <120 IQ is showing, friend. I never said thta Langan's IQ makes his work coherent - it is just too advanced in reasoning and too abstract for some people to grasp, including you evidently.
On your second point, many major discoveries were mocked (e.g continental drift, general relativity) before being accepted. How would you react to being told your way of thinking was TOTALLY flawed? That is how "academia" feels about Langan's paper.
I won't address your third point, which is a childish ad hominem attack.
>>8050122
poo
>>8050118
It's what "lazy, but smart" 4chan procrastinators make use of when confronted with something that is beyond their heads.
>>8050132
muh projector
>>8050132
>>8050038
>replying to this obvious bait
Trully, a thread for intellectual titans.
>The life of Man, viewed outwardly, is but a small thing in comparison with the forces of Nature. The slave is doomed to worship Time and Fate and Death, because they are greater than anything he finds in himself, and because all his thoughts are of things which they devour. But, great as they are, to think of them greatly, to feel their passionless splendour, is greater still. And such thought makes us free men; we no longer bow before the inevitable in Oriental subjection, but we absorb it, and make it a part of ourselves. To abandon the struggle for private happiness, to expel all eagerness of temporary desire, to burn with passion for eternal things--this is emancipation, and this is the free man's worship. And this liberation is effected by a contemplation of Fate; for Fate itself is subdued by the mind which leaves nothing to be purged by the purifying fire of Time.
Something about this just makes me happy. So, so beautiful. Sorry, I've nothing insightful to say right now, I just wanted to share one of my favorite parts of "A Free Man's Worship"
(text here: https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/fmw.htm )
>>8050835
>Something about this just makes me happy.
wasn't you told "to abandon the struggle for private happiness" :3
>>8050807
>he's le smart according to my arbitrary empiricist metric so he's smart
Low IQ detected. IQ absolutely correlates with almost all measurable aspects of intelligence, but it's an AVERAGE, something a low-to-mid IQ person has trouble grasping, hence posts like yours.
