Apparently mine is because I understood what he was describing but I certainly do not think my memory is at the level I need it to be to score a high IQ. I have a bit of a cognitive bottleneck there.
@@KingDecahedronBad news if you thought that was a good retort. We all kind of want proof from the guy who claimed that someone could access parts of his brains that others cannot.
Weed actually causes developmental damage when used before 25. people that used on a weekly basis experienced a measured drop of 8 iq points. I recall cognitive faculties also being severely impaired during immediate usage. It’s also impossible to ‘increase’ iq. This was probably a joke, but I’d just thought I’d say anyway🤷♂️
@@squiliumfancyson1957 Interesting how we justify our escapism. Weed fires at the parts of the brain that attribute meaning to things, and so distorts your reality, making you feel as if you’ve experienced things at a ‘deeper’ level. In reality, if your weed smoking was frequent, you likely just experienced slightly impeded, but normal, cognitive development. It could also be the case that you’re experiencing a phenomenon called the dunning kruger effect. Potentially you could’ve fallen prey to the “enlightened hippie” persona, though I would hope this isn’t the case.
Mr. Lagan precisely articulated what you feel to be true about god and the nature of the universe after taking a high dose of psilocybin or related substances. There is a sort of indescribable oneness that you glimpse, but it's fleeting and difficult to describe.
Max G " I just had to hear him claim you could ,,prove god by maths" to know for sure most the shit this guy says is utter bullshit. " If it just'' took you to hear that to assert your ignorant and flawed judgement based on that assumption alone then you are showing that you can't grasp the understanding of his theory to begin with. You clearly have a established bias and you approached his theory gravitating towards it.
@@tbonesteak7058 Not really. The statement that there's "no remotely clear definition of intelligence" is fairly strong evidence of bias. Intelligence is mainly about recognizing patterns & relationships between variables. There are certainly different forms of intelligence, different applications of it, but Max's statement was patently false.
@@Tyrosine0910 Everyone has varying levels of intelligence. This is useful and beneficial because a society run purely by scientists would be an awful society. The issue is that once you remove prestige, money, and status from the equation intelligence starts to hold less value... If no one knew you were smart, you had a job that did not pay much, you were never commended for being highly intelligent... would remove alot of what makes intelligent people in today's society proud of and happy for. Which I am in favor of. Remove prestige, status, and money and you will see that true intelligence is simply recognizing patterns, drawing conclusions quickly, making rapid mental notes, progressive but efficient brute forcing, and astuteness. Everything I described above is something a painter, sanitation worker, electrician, and the chasier at Walgreens all posssss. They simply utilize their intelligence in different ways. No one cares to observe how some of the best of the best work in these fields...
He would probably say something like .... Yes and here we can plainly see with our own eyes one of God's manifestations here to guide us through this particular realm number 46. And too the right is the perfect example off.... ..😂 CTMU proves god! Prove otherwise xoxo
After reading his CTMU, my mind was blown because a lot of the ideas he puts forth in his paper mirrored ideas that DMT aliens taught me (All objects and the spaces between them are aware/intelligent to a certain degree, reality is both the subject and object of perception, intelligence arises out of a collection of less intelligent objects and therefore God can be described as the collective intelligence of everything, and there is no separation between the self and reality). I just subscribed to his patreon and sent him a message asking if he's ever tried psychedelic substances, will keep yall posted
@@mechadonia great stuff and thank you for your input. I myself had an incredibly intense (let's call it a dream) in which everything made perfect sense. It's hard to explain but it changed my world view from devout atheist to utter and total believer. Not in organised religion (boy have they made a mess) but of "the whole" Langan says reality is a language or syntax talking to itself about itself. In my experience it was more like (for me) a thought thinking about itself to itself. It (as strange as it sounds) is about identity. It's like all of a sudden out of nowhere I have some answers to questions I simply had no chance of answering without "the dream" it's like a massive weight has been lifted.
"God is reality itself" -Carl Jung In other words, when you have a losing lottery ticket, that's God. When you win, that's God. There is nothing spiritual about it, it's just reality.
What happened was that Langan gave an accurate and obvious read about his temperament, that he wouldn't hurt a fly even if it attacked him, which unavoidably means he's kindof a coward. And you could see the mild sting of it in the interviewers expression. Then the interviewer produced what I would call the highlight of this entire interview which was the question about whether or not he could laugh right now for no reason and it produced a moment of spontaneity which obviously impressed Langan quite abit and anyone else who bothered to notice. Then what happened was the interviewer got full of himself and the rest is history.
Langan was hitting too hard, can't have people asking themselves if GMOs are bad, they've actually been eating this stuff. So the ones in charge of media manipulation signaled the interviewer to change the subject.
The guy’s IQ is between 190 and 210(average of 200) and he’s the real life version of Ron Swanson. He took up bodybuilding in his teens and ended up throwing his abusive stepfather out of the house. He worked as a bouncer, fireman and construction worker for several years. The guy’s a total badass.
This is GREAT and its going to stick to history. Thank you for doing this interview, I have been trying to follow Mr. Langman for a while now but I can't seem to find much articles about him or his papers. Thank you SOOOOO much for bringing back Mr. Langman to the public eye! I hope you interview him more often.
I would love to do a podcast with either of these guys. Spike is a creative genius and Christopher seems extremely interesting, his intelligence and his story make him so amusing.
First of all, Spike Jonze is cool as hell man. To start his career filming skating videos and that Owen Wilson skating skit “Yeah Right”, to becoming an amazing producer today is sick. Second, I just found out who this guy is, and he’s fucking fascinating. The topics he can talk about, and the length in which he can, is so intriguing. Great video boys.
chris has his own and hidden thought and path.and very complex driving force for the thought how he loooks and perceive the world. he needs more attention and often to be appeared for public if he doesn't mind.
If we say a god is a personification of a force, we are off to a pretty good start because all gods through history seem to fit that definition reasonably well , monotheistic & polytheistic alike. I wish he began at a more basic level of his theory then built up. This particular interview explanation jumps too fast into what feels like "he is so smart we can't understand him"... but I'm sure we can if he was given time to explain the ideas in a more structured way.
@@TheDionysianFields well hang in there (as a practicing atheist) the "god" that the CTMU proves is certainly NOT even close to the utter crap theists would have you believe. In fact now I'm not so ...well, angry with religion because I realize they are trying to explain something so unimaginably beyond human comprehension that they are bound to muck it up (a LOT) now I feel compassionate towards religion the poor buggers with there stupid blind Faith crap. I hope we can all find common enough ground so as to agree it's hard to understand 😁 CTMU did it for me but it may be total rubbish to you. And that's ok. Again it's hard to understand but you're exactly on exactly the right path and if it was any other way we (you me and the universe) simply wouldn't exist. If you think that's hard to comprehend try getting your mind around the "reality" which is that Reality is merely god thinking to himself about himself.
@@TheDionysianFields lol seriously? A practical purpose for the proof of the existence of intelligent design / god. I'll give you my take on it (firstly it's hard to get ones head around) I personally have been a (very vocal) practicing atheist since I reached the age of reason. Religion would have you believe that there is an invisible Man living in the sky (what's crock of shite) but (and this is the clincher) after getting my head around the CTMU I simply can't find fault with either the math or the concept! And that shocked me because I have always been able to crush religious mumbo jumbo with logical ease. I got to go.... But for me it made sense ... Different strokes for different folks I guess
I've been looking after this ideas for the last decades. I've checked lot of different subjects on this. I'm glad to find this info. Happy to talk to other open minded seekers.
Honest question, not trying to hate on this guy or anything he seems really genuine and nice. But, does him having a very high IQ give his theories any more validity than anybody else?
simply having higher iq doesn't make you any more right than others, however it does increase the likelihood that you would be correct or atleast more accurate than others. At the end of the day none of us know, however a highly intelligent person will be able to reason with himself far greater than a stupid person, so while they may still be wrong, their prediction is more likely to be well thought out and reasoned
Meta-cognition sounds like a feedback loop to me. It can be anxiety-inducing. EDIT: What Langan says about coupling and the identity of reality reminds me of Alan Watts. It's something to the effect of: if you want to know what the inside of your mind is like, just take a look around. Perception is the same as that which is perceived.
It is anxiety inducing for the people that don't understand what's happening to them. I had a really really bad trip to weed. For one whole year, I perceived the world in third person, and could not regocnize myself in the mirror. BY GOD'S Mercy I recovered, but i will never smoke weed again. Stupid that I still smoke some after I was recovered because now I have to recover from. Weed induced anxiety. But yes, meta cognition is real, I somewhat always had these experiences especially when I was younger, in my childhood. I am 23 now, and I can relate and exactly know what he is talking about with being one with the universe. It just feels like it, sort of, not exactly. But being able to simulate it all is an amazing experience, and I feel only. People that are hypersensitive like me and langan, can achieve these things, maybe I'm. Wrong but idk
To sum Up id like to say that the power of cognition itself remains balanced because of the imposible exploration on both sides pf cognition at the same time, sorry for my english.
I’ve definitely experienced that during bouts of severe anxiety. I’ll get frustrated with my inability to just chill out and be present, and then I’ll think about the fact that I’m thinking about that rather than being present, then I’ll think about the fact I’m thinking about that, on and on
Notice how spike suddenly drops backwards in his chair to suddenly end the flow of conversation as Chris was about to get deep in how our current environment is corrupt. The media knows what it’s doing.
@@alexh2609 Oh, I see, and you are? and your contribution to humanity is? and you say? Bullshit! Well, I'm no Chris Langdan but let's hear what you have to say to back up your statement off "This guy is full of shit" Personally I would like to hear.
Plus, Langan has a book called Introduction to Quantum Metamechanics, which goes into great depth of quantum physics, as well as some Newtonian physics, which both are incorporated into CTMU syntax.
@@alexh2609 He's not full of sh*t at all... Check out what I've written about his theories; although his theory is very difficult to get an initial grasp on, it is profoundly sophisticated and rich. Please don't knock it 'til you've read it for an extended period of time... www.researchgate.net/publication/339663073_Semantics_and_Semiotics_of_the_Explanation_of_Reality_A_Brief_Look_into_Some_Semantic_Properties_of_Langan's_CTMU www.researchgate.net/publication/343774593_Tractatus_Logico-Syndiffeonicus_Langan's_CTMU_in_Wittgensteinian_Format
At 4:30 I find it interesting that langan would say that which distributes every where is an identity. For that which is distributed every where or is most common is also most general and thus not identifiable. Where the notion of identity I’m aware of is something that can be defined.
chris: "an identity is something that distributes over everything in a system" you: identity=something that can be defined, because it is different in relation to something else within a system so, something that is most commonly shared, cannot be defined because it's impossible to differentiate it from something else. because according to that definition, there is no 'something else'. am i understanding you correctly? so, here's my actual question: what if you put everything in comparison and you eliminate all the things that are not globally shared? would you not be able to identify it, because it would lack a reference, or something that it could be compared to? so, differentiation=identification? i'm a little lost. logic isn't my strength
cm:thear if you go to 4:20. Christopher langan says at the “highest level” identity is that which is distributed throughout. So, I take he’s referring to ultimate reality here, because he’s talking about the highest levels. So keep in mind we’re talking about the highest level possible here. So, now let me restate your question. 1:“What if you put everything in comparison and you eliminate all the things that are not globally shared?” 2: would you not be able to identify it, because it would lack a reference, or something that it can be compared to?” So, let me see if get your 1st question. If I take “everything in comparison”, I take it you mean that I’m taking everything that is differentiable. But let’s here. If we take it to mean that two or more things can be compared, what are we doing? We are finding the similarities and the differences between them. (Mind you langan says at the highest level that reality is syndiffeonetic= sameness and difference) Now, to even be ABLE to compare two or more things, they have to be on the same page. They have to be on the same page ontologically. In other words, they have to be relative to each other. Or you can say they have a relationship. Or you can say they both are “in” something that by virtue of which and through which they are brought into relationship with each other. Perhaps like love bringing people together. Now, if this unifying principle is not present, then the two or more things cannot be compared. Mind you this is at the highest and most general level. We can say for example that a landscape is beautiful, and that my wife is beautiful, and a Porsche 911 is beautiful. What is common about them? Beauty. What is beauty? What is the general idea about beauty that makes it possible that we can distribute it across seemingly unrelated things? Is my wife beautiful the way a stallion or a landscape is beautiful? Am I saying that my wife is like a horse in beauty? So now, with respect to beauty, we eliminate “all the things that are not globally shared”. So, we eliminate my wife the Porsche, the landscape, the horse etc. what we should be left is Beauty itself. But what would that be? Well, when we compare all things I mentioned above, and called them all beautiful, what was in common? My position is that what makes anything beautiful is “the realization of the manifestation of a reflection of Oneness in the many” What is oneness first off? A pure pure oneness is The One. It is not many. For if the One were many, it would be many and not one. So, the one cannot be many And if not many, then the One cannot be composed of parts, for parts are many. And if parts stand in relation to a whole, then the One is not a whole for it is not made of parts. If no parts the one, has no beginning, middle or end for these are parts of anything. And if no beginning or end then the one has no extreme ends or limits. Therefore the one is unlimited. Meaning there’s no end to it. And if no limits or boundaries, the one has no shape to it. For shape is that which has limits. Again, if the one has no parts, then it has no other thing for which it depends on, so the one is independent. And if no parts, and not dependent on parts, then the one is not contextualizable or relativizable. In other words, The One can’t be relativized or contextualized precisely due to its not having no parts to depend on. And if no parts, the one has no distinction. And so it is indistinct. To summarize, the one is Not many Not made of parts Not a whole Has no beginning, middle or end Has no limits Has no shape Is not dependent Is not contextual Is not relativisable Has no distinctions. And so, you may notice that what the one is not, we are. Now, since the one is independent, it follows that we, being dependent, would ultimately depend on the One. And if we are many, and the many are many Ones, then there would be no such thing as many unless there was a one for the many to be based upon. Eg the number ten is ten ones unified as one. But without just 1, you couldn’t have 10 and so on Hopefully, you also saw, that the one is the most general, being that it is indistinct, having no parts, it is, in itself, non-dual. The one isn’t a homogeneity. For that implies a unifying of many. The one is just one, what ever it is, it’s just purely one throughout. But now, we see where beauty comes from. For beauty is the manifestation of of oneness in the many. The many, having no oneness in them, does not have it within themselves to generate or manifest oneness or unity. No lore than a rock can heat itself. So a rock is made hot by its proximity to a fire. And so the many are unified to the extent of our involvement with the one If I took every comparable thing away, to expose the most general thing, you’ll notice you can’t see it. Something purely indistinct is undifferentiated. You can’t tell it apart. And there’s nothing to compare it to. It is beyond relation and attribution. So, to answer your second question, no you wouldn’t be able to identify it. No Christopher langan takes as ultimate reality the joining of the One (as described above), and combines that with the many. Remember I said his term for this is syndiffeonesis. Or sameness/difference. He refers to this as “self-dual” Whereas the one is non-dual Everything I’ve said comes from Plato’s Parmenides. The one is in the first hypothesis of the Parmenides. Christopher langan seems to think that the starting point is Plato’s second hypothesis, where it talks about the union of the One and Being as a inseparable union of two different Forms. Whereby being I believe Plato might mean many, difference, Forms, ie predicates. And the one is what enables real predicates to have interaction with each other
@@tatsumakisempyukaku it seems like i did understand you initially, to some degree. but i didnt exactly realize the depth of your argument, therefore i couldnt put it into perspective with my own argument that was implied in the question. i also seemed to not have any concept of non-duality until now. interesting. thanks. i like it when i hit the borders of my intelligence
cm:thear I recommend first reading Plato’s Meno, then the republic. And then read his Parmenides. And when I say read, I don’t mean that you go over it in a perfunctory manner. I mean really go in deep. You’ll want to have in your mind the question, “what is it that unifies everything”. Or what is it or how is it that something within a category or class is related to everything within that class. This is the question in Plato’s Meno. What is Plato referring to? What is he gesturing at? Hopefully, you’ll see that the answer is in The One, which Plato refers to as The Good in the republic.
@@sharvin0161 I've watched all Chris langans videos there are. He says the same things. And repeats the same concepts. Wheres his universe book? 20yrs later? Nowhere. He's intelligent enough to have us fooled. That's all.
He understands that were not a fluke in the big bang but a process within that, when he speaks about "god" he says blatantly that were all god. material is god himself, made of the same shit just organized differently depending apon what it needs to be at that moment. this includes our minds, our brains and well our sentience. more than likely were all dreaming a dream we have forgot we started. to create the world we live in today, our lifes are just drama we create to entertain ourselves. like a movie but you are the movie
@@slappy8941 or hes capable of multiple lines of thought at once? You're trying really hard to sound smart while attacking people in the most idiotic fashion
The CTMU is a profound and challenging philosophy. To me, it echoes sentiments of the work of Emmanuel Levinas. For the Syndiffeonesis idea, Langan talks about how if two things are different, they are reductively the same--like a reflection...? How can we develop a sense of self without a sense of others? We humans are all the same--we're all human--yet we are separate from each other. I really enjoyed reading about John Wheeler's theories too, everything (reality) becomes the object of consciousness. I think all their theories on ontology and 'reality' boil down to the idea that the universe is conscious (our consciousness) as Langan explains and that outside are consciousness, Langan's 'unreality' has no meaning because it's simply beyond our consciousness. Yes, reality is self-contained but isn't that only saying that our reality is our perception?
If you want to understand better what he's saying read Plato's Parmenides and also the Theatetus. All of these ideas can be traced back to Plato. Later in philosophic history these ideas were developed more by the German Idealists (Fichte, Schelling, GWF Hegel) and the British Idealists, principally FH Bradley and TH Green. I should also remark that he apparently has not read much of this material, at least he doesn't refer to it, and that is I think something unbecoming of him.
I appreciate that another student of philosophy have noticed this this guy has plagiarized and rehashed lots of ancient philosophy. I’d add Berkley, Spinoza and the indian Kashmir Shaivite tradition as well .
It's not you, it's him. His explanations of his own life's work are completely incoherent, and that's no accident. A theory that's amorphous and nonspecific can't be disproven (and, by extension, is anti-scientific).
@WilshirecityBlues Ok, so what's his theory and how will it be tested? Scientific theories are *required* to be testable. The scientific method explicitly prohibits unfalsifiable truth claims like these. There's a reason he's a darling of the "Intellectual" Dark Web and not, say, Trends in Cognitive Science.
So what did he mean by seeing more when hes deeply asleep like theres a correlation between the dreams and other dimensions.. i want him to elaborate on that
so his definition of god is completely different compared to any religious scripture is defining it, so he is making his own definition and his definition is a higher power but with extra steps. in science we call it physics, kemistry and biology
I'd love to talk to this guy and hear more of his perspective on nuclear. It's arguably one of the cleanest mass energy sources we have access to right now that doesn't emit carbon once built.
He's talked about it before in another interview. He mentioned the 'closing of the energy loop' where the mass is all used up 100%, as E ~ m. The issue with Thorium reactors is we have to transport the excess waste into space, which ultimately requires us to send the nuclear waste into space. Now the problem with that is it is essentially going to be same problem with our current waste problem: it clutters too much around the areas where we inhabit. Unless we can get a Dyson running before we use up all our energy, we're not getting anywhere
@@2kfunky746 Marvin Minsky told me it would be much cheaper and safer in the long term to bury the waste in a subduction zone. Subduction zones are where the cold oceanic lithosphere sinks back into the mantle and is recycled. They are found at convergent plate boundaries, where the oceanic lithosphere of one plate converges with the less dense lithosphere of another plate.
I can connect with him, I believe he believes there's is a same reality. So of course they are becoming evolved, Chris langan iv followed you for a year and I Wana pick your brain.
Lmao! You want this music as your background study music? 😂 Why? Do you envision yourself as some wild haired scientist in a white room with giant balls hanging up out of nowhere?
I agree with every word Chris said. He has a profound understanding of the nature of things, and from what I gather a very good working knowledge of human nature. Discussions on the singularity are fascinating, however I'd love to talk with him about Bobby Fischer's world view and how that made him persona non grata in America and in most of the western world and get his take on that topic.
Why would anybody take such an interesting dialogue which is great all by itself, and add background music that pans left and right for 14 minutes straight?
If you think you are something, if you think you are a substantial and independent self-existence, a solid or fixed entity, it is greatly troubling to discover that your secret center is no-thing, that you are empty of any substantial or independent self-existence. Discovering this, however, you then realize that this is the very nature of everything in existence. You discover that everything is impermanent, that everything changes. Reality is empty of any substantial and independent self-existence. Such is the nature of reality, this magical display of consciousness. The inside and the outside are not separate but are intimately connected. The reality of your experience is the magical display of your own consciousness. A change in consciousness brings about a corresponding change in the reality you encounter. A change in the reality you encounter is an expression of a change in consciousness. The individual, the collective, and the universal consciousness are completely interconnected and interdependent. You alone are not the creator of the reality you experience. Every living being is a unique individual expression of (consciousness)…and a co-creator (with Life) of the reality you experience. This is the ultimate reality. This is *God.*
@sami amin Yes, the ego-self is a reflection of reality. You aren't consciously independent of your own existence. You exist because you experience consciousness. An OBE experience is a temporary seperation of the ego-self (your consciousness) from your physical self. You can also experience this with Astral Projection or DMT where you again find that the infinite mind is more then capable of seperating itself from the physically limited body. So, in answer to your first question - by this line of reasoning - I don't believe 'spiritual' consciousness is seperate from everything. In fact it's far more likely that it IS everything that we experience.
He is living proof about how big of a setback growing up poor is. This guy could have went to the finest universities in the world but the financial process screwed that up for him.
@@slappy8941 Did you read that out of a college textbook? How can you say that when you don't even have a relationship with the creator of heaven and earth? At least with a relationship, you have something to derive from.
@@ronjohnson7699 you can't have a relationship with something that doesn't exist. You cannot argue an atheist hasn't had experience with god because the atheist knows that god doesn't exist. You cannot have a relationship if you think something doesn't exist
A Theory of Everything (TOE) is not a theory that "explains everything" down to the smallest detail. Due to problems like undecidability and Heisenberg uncertainty, it can't be exhaustively predictive. A TOE is a theory that explains reality in the large, comprehensively but with reasonable limits on specificity. The CTMU is the only theory that comprehensively explains reality - i.e., that excludes nothing real. Hence, it is the only possible TOE. (When physicists write of a TOE, on the other hand, they're usually talking about a unified field theory that merges the four fundamental forces of nature - strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetism, and gravity - into one, with everything else swept under the rug. If they had one, it would be a mere subtheory of the real TOE.) There are several simple overall descriptions of the CTMU, from a language that talks to itself about itself, to a self-simulation, to a system of identity operators. Those who deny the intelligibility of any of them are either deceitful, or dummies plain and simple. - Christopher Langan - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Zrm3MnPzKas.html medium.com/@variantofone/explaining-the-ctmu-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe-163a89fc5841 medium.com/@variantofone/explaining-the-ctmu-part-2-mind-equals-reality-e7c42aff9f70 www.dropbox.com/s/1xzwyqwmq2s4kls/CTMU%20one%20page%20manual.pdf?dl=0&fbclid=IwAR2H-ENywb5tVNnWGihcMh7x75P7hQAI7zkBK_hciNH80LoisXIprWvBHns www.amazon.com/Christopher-Michael-Langan/e/B084D3B973/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1 hology.org
@@friedstein4289 the CTMU is thé only theory that humanity needs in creating a durable and sustainable future that has the potential in reaching Immortality. It takes every theoretical in to superposition extracts that which is useful and where it can find a sub-theory molds it into its framework. It is Ultimate.
