www.kmov.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=102113
Chris Langan From a Recent Blog Entry (In Respond to John P's Comments to One of Langan's Interviews Posted on Youtube)
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Chris Langan
Hello, John P. I just noticed your blog, and surmise from your tasteless and disgusting thread title that I’ve unwittingly put your nose out of joint. Let me try to clarify what seem to be a few points of confusion here. First, about freedom being a privilege rather than a right: human activities interfere in proportion to social density and connectivity. The more people with whom you interact, the more chances you have to damage them in the course of exercising what you suppose are your “rights”, thusly infringing their “rights” to not be damaged by you.
Rights are therefore socially constrained, and free men need to be educated regarding these constraints, preferably starting at about the age of two. That’s why parents need to take care raising their kids, and why American schools (used to) teach civics and social studies. Moreover, where freedom is constrained by ignorance regarding possible action, to realize freedom is to dispel that ignorance. One thus “earns” one’s freedom through self-education, and it is in this sense that freedom is a “privilege”.
On to genetic screening. Natural selection once insured that human genetic lines contained a (nonzero) minimum of debilitating hereditary disease. The mechanism was harsh: those with such diseases tended to be weeded out of the gene pool before they could do much breeding. More often than not, the process was ugly and painful for all concerned. That situation is changing. Having partially exempted ourselves from natural selection through the systematic application of advanced medical technology - many people with formerly lethal genetic diseases now survive well beyond the age of procreation - we can now use that technology to painlessly regain the benefits of natural selection at the most efficient and humane juncture, before saddling an infant with a debilitating disease that may destroy his/her quality of life, or life itself, the first time a hole opens up in his/her medical safety net (or before).
Medical and genetic technology are now sufficiently advanced to detect, and may soon be adequate to correct, many hereditary diseases before they can be propagated. Applying this technology for the universal benefit of unborn children is a no-brainer, morally and otherwise. One could only marvel at the ethical reasoning of someone who believes that available screening technology should be ignored so that unborn children can be sentenced to lifelong hereditary diseases in the very process of conception. As for my willingness to oversee such a program: given my druthers, I’d simply help to educate people on the desirability of such measures and trust their moral sensibilities to get the job done. (Fortunately, such awareness is steadily growing on its own.)
My point, of course, was that if everyone else were in denial regarding the growth of genetic disease that results from unconditionally suspending the law of natural selection, as mankind is well along the road to doing for itself, then in principle, I’d accept the responsibility of trying to wake them up. In my view, anyone else who understands the problem should be willing to do the same. That all recommended procedures should be exclusively based on well-established science, as opposed to speculative theorization or politics or ideology, goes without saying. Incidentally, in the interview to which you link, Errol Morris was asking, and provocatively phrasing, all of the questions, and had complete control over the editing of my responses. Much of what I said, and much of the verbal context in which I said it, was omitted - the interview was shot over two full days and covers perhaps 15-20 hours of tape.
Errol apparently wanted to create a hypothetical scenario in which I was making certain decisions for humanity. Perhaps this was because he had already prodded me to admit that many of those who run the world are morons and ignoramuses (relatively speaking). If so, then mea culpa. However, I’d still have to say that many of those who currently run the world are relative morons and ignoramuses…and self-serving and ruthless ones to boot, despite all of their money, degrees, affiliations, and titles. That many people strongly agree with this observation is easy to confirm. It is equally obvious that those now running the world, and not me, are using their money and power to play “Nazi” and frog-march the public toward social, political, and economic goals that the people would never have chosen for themselves.
Regarding the CTMU paper I wrote, may I suggest that you consider taking some of the responsibility for your own incomprehension? The paper contains my ideas and not yours, and I wasted no words in conveying my ideas. As nearly as I can tell, you don’t understand why some of the words were included because you don’t fully understand the ideas to which they refer. If you disagree, then it’s up to you to provide cogent counterexamples and thereby demonstrate your understanding of the message. I predict that if you attempt to do this, popular respect for your level of (technical) reading comprehension will suffer greatly … not necessarily overnight, but in the long run.
The CTMU is quite a bit more than you seem to think it is, and you do the public a disservice by pretending to understand it when you plainly do not. Now let’s have a brief look at one of your own peculiar turns of expression. “One problem I’ve noticed with extremely smart people,” you write, “is that they begin thinking that their one brain is actually more powerful than all the other brains around them combined.” With respect to the greatest intellectual advances, this belief is quite true, and it happens to be based on certain undeniable facts that you, as a programmer and member of society, should understand.
First, collaborations often generate copious opinionative and interpersonal noise that interferes with communication and sound reasoning. Secondly, the hardest problems do not admit of efficient solution by distributed algorithms, where “distributed” in this case means “over many tasks, processors, or minds”. They do not break down into easier independent sub-problems that can be solved in mutual isolation; instead, they require some kind of grand synthesis or intellectual leap, and such leaps usually occur within single minds. Human brains contain myriad connections which are not mirrored by group structures, and these connections are the critical factors in certain key operations.
Unless these neural connections are properly configured and activated, the operations can’t happen. Sometimes advantages are afforded by bringing many minds together in collaborative groups, but these are usually insufficient to solve extremely difficult problems. Otherwise, groups like the RAND Corporation would actually have produced stable solutions for the major social and strategic problems that they were paid by the government to solve, instead of merely transforming them into new problems at which yet more tax revenue must be thrown. To simplify, there exist problems which are more than the sum of their parts, and therefore, it is not always true that:
“Correct solution = nonsolution + nonsolution + nonsolution + …”
or even that
“Correct solution = partial solution + partial solution + partial solution + …”As one likely example, what Isaac Newton accomplished - constructing a unified mathematical framework for classical mechanics - probably could not have been efficiently accomplished, and as a matter of historical fact was not accomplished, by the entire set of his peers. Perhaps his feat could have been duplicated by another genius like Leibniz, but probably not by any group of more pedestrian intellects. It’s true that in order to complete the set-up for any given stroke of genius, the efforts of many sharp intellects may be required. After all, Newton “stood on the shoulders of giants”. But more often than not, the culminating leaps occur within single, exceptional human minds. Thirdly, the following equation clearly does not hold:
“IQ 200 = IQ 100 + IQ 100 (+ IQ 100 + …)”Lest anyone mistakenly suppose that this linear relationship fails only with respect to IQ, equations like the following are also incorrect:
“Supercomputer = pocket calculator + pocket calculator + pocket calculator + …”
“Michelangelo = moderately talented guy with a paintbrush + moderately talented guy with a chisel + …”
And so on. I could go on, but this has already taken more time than I wanted to spend. I hope that you get the picture, as some of your readers already appear to have done. I also hope that you can learn to exhibit a bit more taste and civility in your choice of headings, instead of labeling your thoughts in a way that has “lowbrow” written all over it. (If this seems like too much to ask, try reading your own rule 6 for comments posted to this blog, ostensibly including your own: “No harsh, foul, demeaning or overly critical language is allowed. Disagreement and debate are perfectly fine, but let’s keep things civil.” It’s a shame when you don’t practice what you preach.)
Chris Langan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://onemansblog.com/2007/11/06/smartest-man-in-the-world-has-diarrhea-of-the-mouth/
Original Thread
. . . .
.MG Says: November 6th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
I’m not a quoting kind of guy, but one Ralph Waldo Emerson quote that always struck me was: "Every man I meet is in some way my superior." And it’s so true.. Sure you may be smarter, your mind may be more genetically superior based on some silly IQ merit test, but every man has relative wisdom we may never grasp or understand. From a lowly janitor or garbage man to the genetic physicist… Humility is good stuff
. . . .
. . . .
TheDane Says: November 6th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Scary stuff… The picture of him here looks kind of goofy as well. Kim:)
. . . .
. . . .
Jamie Harrop Says: November 7th, 2007 at 5:00 am
I’ve always said that there is a trend in that smart people tend to lack common sense and street sense. I’ve said that for many years after watching many very smart people lack in average common sense. Maybe it’s time I wrote an article… "The Theory of the Lack of Common Sense in those with Theories about Theory".
. . . .
. . . .
http://laurawilliamsmusings.blogspot.com/ Says: November 7th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Something my Dad said to me when I was little has stuck with me. I know it’s not his original statement, not sure where it come from but… "Someone may have a lot of book sense but they lack in common sense."
. . . .
. . . .
3gp Says: November 7th, 2007 at 10:05 am
What I do believe is people think and react according to the situation and circumstances they brought up. When someone has seen bad things in childhood he finds it hard to trust others. Same might be the case with him as-well. Or People start make lame suggestions and comments when they think they are smartest of the lot. If you are good in one thing doesnt means are perfect in every thing.
. . . .
. . . .
Tom Barr Says: November 7th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I am not buying that he’s over 140 IQ. I’ve been around miserable Mensas. I’ve been around those that got a perfect score on graduate school entrance exams and guys who got a perfect grade point averages in a school that boasts one third of those entering were high school valedictorians and virtually everyone was top 10% (hey some of us were very technical and had our GPAs dragged down by the random memory classes like World History and Civics). This guys thoughts and vocabulary don’t indicate that he’s mensa material. I am sure he could have worked his way out of bouncing on Long Island by doing some card counting down in a casino in Atlantic City, when they caught on to him, he could have revamped their security and cheat catching algorithms. I’d put him around 138.
. . . .
. . . .
Dan Says: November 8th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
That’s the real CTMU, you linked to a theory about theories, not the CTMU, try to link things properly when you’re going to bash them.
. . . .
. . . .
Jon Says: November 8th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
I think you’ve already explained the reason he is like that. Imagine you lived in a society where 99% of people where mentally retarded. To you society would be incapable of making decisions by themselves. You would want to make them instead.
. . . .
. . . .
Urbanist Says: November 8th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
I am smarter than everyone … give me all your toys Anyway, yeah, IQ = major social development problems and other things that will cripple them when it comes to the ‘real world’ … that’s nature’s great equalizer I guess.
. . . .
. . . .
Cornell Student Says: November 8th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I don’t understand why all of you feel the need to ostracize this man and engage in a circle-jerk about how having a high IQ means you can’t relate to the rest of society. Sure, he may have some crazy ideas, but just because they don’t coincide with what (American) society deems "politically correct" there’s no need to claim that he lacks common sense or humanity. So he doesn’t blindly parrot what society tells him is acceptable and right: that everyone has equal abilities. Good for him. Like it or not, the people who engineer our technologies, cure our diseases, and generally contribute to the development of mankind tend to have high IQs.
If it weren’t for those types of people we would still be sitting in caves picking bugs out of each other’s fur. It’s the engineer, the scientist, the doctor who advances our standard of living and society, not somebody with an average IQ who can get all touchy-feely and connect with other people’s "emotions". I suggest that those people stop giving lessons about equality and humanity and get me my order of fries and a Coke.
The sad thing about this person’s story is that everyone else was too ignorant to realize his potential. If the teachers in his high school and college allowed him to develop his interests, today we might be reading about his latest research in quantum physics or using his products instead of listening to the bitter rants of a bouncer. No wonder he’s bitter, it seems to me that he was marginalized by an educational system full of average people blinded to his strong intellect.
. . . .
. . . .
Nicholas Says: November 8th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
You know …. I think I am a useful guy and I have some utility and I want to do the best I can for myself… However, others can and will do better than I in many fields…. I am not going to use EVERYBODY is good at something BS… some people are just going to be better at useful things than I am … I can admit it …. why can’t other people! I think his is logical and correct and shows humility to the greatest extent someone that smart can … he even states that there could be others smarter than him …. he just has not met them… I think some people need to face reality and stop living in the "everybody is special in their own way" BABY WORLD.
. . . .
. . . .
John P. Says: November 8th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Hmmm. Well, I’m not speaking for everyone else here, but I think in the article I outlined some areas where I sympathize with Mr. Langan. I agree with you that he got a very raw deal as a kid. But you know what, a lot of people had rough childhoods. So, its one of those things… you get an excuse for NOT overcoming it, but you don’t get credit for overcoming it. Likewise with being intelligent. Having mental horsepower is great.
But it’s not an excuse to be a dick. I don’t care who you are, or if you are the smartest man who ever lived. The moment you start saying things like "freedom is not a right", and espousing the virtues of genetic engineering of the population at large you can expect me to call you out. (Watch the Bobby Fischer video over here for a prime example.)
No amount of IQ can make that right. There is no logic that can support these statements. Humans by their very nature are free. They should be allowed to pursue their own happiness. And despite what anyone thinks you don’t need to be brilliant, wealthy, or wise to be happy.
John P.
. . . .
. . . .
Moodah Says: November 8th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Having a good memory is NOT related to IQ. Most people miss the point where: If you have a massive IQ, do you really think that person is going to find anything an average person has to say "interesting"? The general idiocy of the common person is what turns great minds away from the masses. This is why some people should cherish being "ignorant".
. . . .
. . . .
Billco Says: November 8th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
It seems to me that his attitude is that since he is "smarter", his opinions should simply be accepted. But frankly, I don’t believe he is actually capable of comprehending anything that I cannot. Disclaimer: I’m biased because I allegedly have IQ up in the mid-150’s (hey, it’s been a few years!), and I can relate to a lot of the "scary" stuff Chris Langan speaks of like eugenic population control (god, I wish!).
Anyway, I think your one statement sums it up: if you’re capable of "comprehending" everything a genius can, then how could you not be a genius too ? Where’s your rocket ship ? Where’s your quantum computer ? What is Pi to the 83rd power ? The truth is, intellect goes far beyond complex math and world domination fantasies, it’s the unique ability to grasp grander concepts than the average human. Einstein is not just ‘E=mc2′, there was a process to reach that conclusion, one that we still don’t fully understand almost a century after its inception.
That’s what genius is: the ability to push the limits of reality a teeny bit further each time. Brilliant chess players are mesmerizing to watch as they out-think even computers. Brilliant engineers come up with out-of-nowhere solutions to enduring problems. The dreaded bell curve is the very reason humankind will never achieve enlightenment. The average will always mob over the genius, and the retarded will eventually become the new average. Ignorance is bliss, they say; well I can tell you that being smart can be a curse!
. . . .
. . . .
Brian Roller Says: November 8th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
A point of inaccuracy in this article is that someone with an IQ of 3x is not 3 times as smart as someone with an IQ of x. IQ is ordinal data that is ranked by standard deviations, the difference between scores does not tell us much.
. . . .
. . . .
John P. Says: November 8th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
This is an excellent point Brian. And it also reinforces why it is so silly when people who happen to score higher on an IQ test adopt a major holier-than-thou complex!
John
. . . .
. . . .
John P. Says: November 9th, 2007 at 12:02 am
If you’re capable of "comprehending" everything a genius can, then how could you not be a genius too? Hmmm. Well, I never claimed to be - or not to be one. However, I’m surprised by the number of people who worship the genius factor here - though I guess I shouldn’t be. Its a very appealing thought to imagine oneself as a generally superior human being. It’s like winning a trophy without actually having to compete.
As a result, a lot of people want to self-actualize with the concept of being abnormally special. Heck, it’s sexy… it’s seductive… I’ll take one! The problem is, every ounce of human potential is as worthless as a glass of salt water to a man in the desert. The ONLY thing that matters is what happens when the potential is converted to action. It is a not just a fallacy, but a downright lie to claim that the advances of humanity come from the thoughts of geniuses. They do not. The vast majority come from people who are more or less average, but are committed enough to fulfill a vision.
John
. . . .
. . . .
Choda Boy Says: November 9th, 2007 at 12:02 am
I understand where Chris is coming from. I am not ready to allow humans to select who can or cannot reproduce, but I do understand we are changing the course or our own evolution by allowing "defective" material to survive in our genetic codebase. However, I also believe the compassion possessed by most humans, outweighs the brutality of pure natural selection. Basically, the guy is very intelligent and I would love to have an opportunity to have a discussion with him.
. . . .
. . . .
Waterbedouin Says: November 9th, 2007 at 12:36 am
It seems to me that people are very quick to attack the man because of a handful of logical, though unflattering, ideas about humanity as a whole. I can’t claim to have an IQ anywhere near his, but my experiences growing up and as an adult are similar to his.
He is right that unless we as a species make an active decision about what kind of humanity we want for our descendants, we will get the default, which is mediocrity setting the standards and discouraging those with greater mental gifts.
There are many kinds of intelligence, and many kinds of genius. The issue that he is addressing with eugenics/anti-disengenics is something that as a species we will simply have to address at some point in the centuries ahead, and unless some kind of cultural structure is in place to encourage the development of the species higher gifts, we and all of our descendants will be as limited as we are today. How moral is it to disregard methods we could put in place now over moral qualms that would dramatically change the future of the species as a whole?
I’m of the mind, as a citizen and a proud parent, that meaning is best found in leaving the world better than we found it when we were born. Just because some particularly evil bastards thought it was a good idea in the 30’s and 40’s doesn’t reflect on the merits of the concept, anymore than their political leanings condemn a cheap car for the people. If our culture at this time finds this unacceptable, at some point in the future another society in our place will decide to move forward with policies of directed procreation.
In the grand scheme of things, one century or another is a blink of the evolutionary eye. As long as directed breeding programs are not racially based and not so stringent as to limit variety in the gene pool, and in doing so decreasing the species ability to evolve, I don’t see anything immoral in the proposal. I think Mr. Langan was being honest and also slightly facetious when he said that he would be willing to run such a program. Who runs it doesn’t matter, so long as logical principles guide the policy and checks and balances are in place to keep things fair and to minimize any abuse.
. . . .
. . . .
Ugly American Says: November 9th, 2007 at 12:39 am
The vast majority of people would not want a chimpanzee to be their surgeon. This does not mean that we don’t like chimps. They can be cute. They can be friendly. But ultimately, they’re not qualified to use such a tool. Giving them a scalpel makes them a danger to themselves and others. Unfortunately, that’s what scientists and engineers have done by giving advanced technology to politicians.
. . . .
. . . .
Jon Says: November 9th, 2007 at 12:44 am
I dont think that their IQ is what causes the social development problems though, I think its more a lack of people of similar intelligence, personality, and interests that do. I’m so sick of hearing the blanket "everyone with a high IQ has social problems" rubbish.
. . . .
. . . .
Jon Says: November 9th, 2007 at 12:55 am
I was with you all the way up until your last paragraph - "There is no logic that can support these statements". You must be uber smart if you have already assessed that it would be impossible to make a resonable argument for this blokes point of view. In regards to freedom, I agree with what he is trying to say (in my opinion) but not with how he says it. Creating a ‘free’ world is not easy. I doubt you or I would feel ‘free’ in a world of anarchy?
. . . .
. . . .
Jon Says: November 9th, 2007 at 1:01 am
I think everyone should be allowed the reproduce, but in Australia at least it is often the ‘less successful’ who reproduce the most. Thats what needs to change in my opinion. Everyone gets a shot and making someone new - but we should be taking more changes with the successful DNA than the unsuccessful stuff.
. . . .
. . . .
Bugra Ayan » Blog Archive » The Highest IQs On Record Says: November 9th, 2007 at 2:32 am
[…] Christopher Michael Langan has a verified IQ of […]
. . . .
. . . .
Wiseman Says: November 9th, 2007 at 2:54 am
That guy is a f-ing douche bag-what i fascist narcissist. IQ tests aren’t everything. It can not determine what completely goes on inside your head.
. . . .
. . . .
Paulo Says: November 9th, 2007 at 8:27 am
John P., Youtube says the videos are no longer available. Ugly American,about "that’s what scientists and engineers have done by giving advanced technology to politicians", the example you gave before proves that the danger is not in the tools themselves, but in who uses it.
Therefore scientists, as those that develop tools (technologies = tools), are not responsible for the danger their tools might represent, specially because they don’t "give" these tools to anyone, they publish them as their duty and as it might be useful for good purposes. The use of these technologies is society’s and politicians’ responsibility.
. . . .
. . . .
Frans Says: November 9th, 2007 at 8:28 am
When i’m at highschool my IQ test is 120, after 4 years being cigarrete lover in college, now I test it’s 90?? OMG..
. . . .
. . . .
John P. Says: November 9th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Paulo, thanks for the notification on the videos. Occasionally YouTube videos are unavailable during maintenance windows and things like that, but they are back up and running in case you still wanted to watch them.
John
. . . .
. . . .
sb Says: November 9th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Come on! No common sense? The guy is a bouncer for christ sake. I think he has plenty of ‘common sense’ and he obviously has plenty of book smarts too. this guy is the real deal. but the truths he speaks are just to painful for the the everyone is equal ‘baby world’. i say let the smart guys take over and lets tighten up the mothership before we sink..
. . . .
. . . .
everlast Says: November 9th, 2007 at 10:19 am
What, so a little Eloi and Morlock type society then is the goal? Or maybe a 1984ish style US?
. . . .
. . . .
Smart People and Such Midspot Says: November 9th, 2007 at 11:01 am
[…] you know that the world’s 2nd smartest person (IQ of 195) is a bouncer at a […]
. . . .
. . . .
kevin Says: November 9th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Smart is a relative concept anyway….I like plain old ordinary….
. . . .
. . . .
RumorsDaily » IQ Tests Says: November 9th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
[…] of people with the world’s highest IQ scores (including Chris Langan who, at 195, must be the world’s smartest bouncer). In an effort to add myself to the list, I took the IQ test provided by another blogger. With […]
. . . .
. . . .
LazyS Says: November 9th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Suppose you lived a hundred years ago. How would you judge people? By their achievements? Or family origins? How well they wrote, or if they wrote? Why does a concept made up to measure intelligence as a single factor matter to any of us? That is more a matter of history and sociology than a pursuit of our true nature. I recommend reading The Mismeasure of Man and some Howard Gardener as an antidote to this obsession.
. . . .
. . . .
Ammon Says: November 9th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Cornell Student—You’ve got it all wrong buddy. It’s not thanks to the smart people that our society is so advanced. It’s thanks to the advancement of liberty. People with high IQs have existed for thousands of years, but to what advantage? Only by and through freedom are these things accomplished. Why else has our society advanced so much in just 200 years? Ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things when not tread on.
. . . .
. . . .
Billco Says: November 9th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
True, but spouting off wedgeless profanity and personal attacks certainly go a long way in determining what goes on inside yours. IQ tests are just that, tests. They’re not a tangible measurement, just a relative scale with no solid baseline. Just like any statistic, some people use it properly (in moderation), and others misinterpret its value and make rash judgements.
. . . .
. . . .
Billco Says: November 9th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Many things can affect an IQ score: mood, alertness/fatigue, overall physical health, nutrition (testing after a meal is a bad idea for most). You need to control as many of these variables as you can in order to get a trustworthy result. I wouldn’t worry too much about it
. . . .
. . . .
Billco Says: November 9th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Actually one of the goals of eugenics is to eliminate the "Morlocks" entirely. Keeping them around is just asking for trouble, in addition to being inhumane.
. . . .
. . . .
Green_Treefrog Says: November 9th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
"Smartest Man in the World Has Diarrhea of the Mouth". First of all, what a lovely title. You dislike what someone says and you say "it is shit". I think he makes some very valid points but I don’t think he is pessimistic considering what has happened during so many wars and through many bad regimes. He actually appears quite down to earth and balanced. But what he fails to see is that not all decisions are rational.
Some are intuitive. In fact many big deals that make people rich are based on intuition. And therefore leaving things to the most intelligent people (where I assume that the IQ test actually is a good measure for rational intelligence) will not work. It would, assuming our society had a pyramid structure and all people were completely rational; however this is only partially true. Another point would be that smart people like Edison provided us with the technology that allows earth’s resources to be accessed and consumed faster.
Had people have been even smarter they could have advanced faster than us and only the timescale would have changed. It is more our aggressive way of thinking, our lack of wisdom that is causing this problem. I see intelligence as a resource. Like any resource, if it falls in the "wrong" hands, there is a serious problem. But the idea of incorporating intelligent people (actually I should say of high fluid intelligence) into the decision making process does make sense. The question is just what about other intelligences? How do we measure them?
. . . .
. . . .
ionutz Says: November 10th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I think to right word is LOGORREHEALOGO = WORD in greek language (if I remember well)
. . . .
. . . .
zeroes Says: November 11th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I’m a psychologist and I’ve never understood the use of an IQ test to show a person’s intellect or how smart they are. A person with a very high IQ is generally a person that is very similar to a computer in that they are very good at problem solving, math and statistical analysis. Other than those things, the simple fact is that those people aren’t smart in a general sense, i.e. having common sense and humility, those people (regardless of bullying) are hypocrites and also show signs of intense jealousy and laziness after the age of 23. Sad really.
. . . .
. . . .
litho Says: November 12th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
What I’ve learned is that IQ is a measure of a type of intelligence. I had a very similar early childhood as Mr Langan. Talking and reading early, father died at an early age, school was boring, picked on for my intelligence. I have a measured IQ of 160. Nowhere near that of Mr Langan, but above average. I’ve found that this type (notice I say type, not level or vastness) of intelligence makes me very interested in certain areas that are quite different than people of more average IQ. There are some things I am very good at and many things that I am very poor at. I am very good at solving problems. I am very good at programming and math. I am very poor at understanding social situations.
I am very poor at staying focused on anything that I don’t find interesting. These differences between someone of my IQ and someone of average IQ create a distinct social tension that has made it difficult to build and maintain strong friendships. When IQ type intelligence displayed itself in school, there was resentment. Not because I was trying to make myself look better or lord it over anyone, I was simply trying to do my best, and I aced tests without trying. But I couldn’t carry a football or bounce a basketball. I didn’t know how to talk to a pretty girl. These things created tension.
I don’t see myself as superior or better than other people. I am much better at some things, and much worse than others, and what I’ve found is that my high IQ is simply an indicator that I have been given a great set of mental tools that need to be used well. Other people have been given a tremendous set of physical tools that should be used well. Still others have a tremendous set of emotional tools. If we could stop resenting others for having gifts we don’t have and learn to seek out others who have skills that complement ours and then make the most of what we have, we’ll have a much happier world.
. . . .
. . . .
max Says: November 12th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I agree with the comment made by litho, but i think that IQ is a measurement of a type of intelligence . I think people’s intelligence manifests mostly in two areas, social and mathematical. I’m really good at analyzing social situations. For example, I love politics and have a much better understanding of what’s happening in the world then most kids my age (I’m 15). I could explain to you everything that’s happening in the Middle East and Africa, and explain neocolonialism etc.
But I never made it into the gifted program in my school, which wasn’t that hard to get into, because (I think anyways) the questions were all mathematical. So i think the relevance of IQ as an indicator of intelligence should be reevaluated. I hope i didn’t come off as really pretentious and boastful in explaining that. Also, brain and head size really isn’t an indicator of intelligence. The largest recorded brain belonged to a retarded man, and there are plenty of animals with big brains who aren’t as smart as people whales and dolphins for example.
. . . .
. . . .
Chris Langan Says: November 15th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Hello, John P. I just noticed your blog, and surmise from your tasteless and disgusting thread title that I’ve unwittingly put your nose out of joint. Let me try to clarify what seem to be a few points of confusion here. First, about freedom being a privilege rather than a right: human activities interfere in proportion to social density and connectivity.
The more people with whom you interact, the more chances you have to damage them in the course of exercising what you suppose are your "rights", thusly infringing their "rights" to not be damaged by you. Rights are therefore socially constrained, and free men need to be educated regarding these constraints, preferably starting at about the age of two.
That’s why parents need to take care raising their kids, and why American schools (used to) teach civics and social studies. Moreover, where freedom is constrained by ignorance regarding possible action, to realize freedom is to dispel that ignorance. One thus "earns" one’s freedom through self-education, and it is in this sense that freedom is a "privilege".
. . . .
On to genetic screening. Natural selection once insured that human genetic lines contained a (nonzero) minimum of debilitating hereditary disease. The mechanism was harsh: those with such diseases tended to be weeded out of the gene pool before they could do much breeding. More often than not, the process was ugly and painful for all concerned.
That situation is changing. Having partially exempted ourselves from natural selection through the systematic application of advanced medical technology - many people with formerly lethal genetic diseases now survive well beyond the age of procreation - we can now use that technology to painlessly regain the benefits of natural selection at the most efficient and humane juncture, before saddling an infant with a debilitating disease that may destroy his/her quality of life, or life itself, the first time a hole opens up in his/her medical safety net (or before). Medical and genetic technology are now sufficiently advanced to detect, and may soon be adequate to correct, many hereditary diseases before they can be propagated.
Applying this technology for the universal benefit of unborn children is a no-brainer, morally and otherwise. One could only marvel at the ethical reasoning of someone who believes that available screening technology should be ignored so that unborn children can be sentenced to lifelong hereditary diseases in the very process of conception. As for my willingness to oversee such a program: given my druthers, I’d simply help to educate people on the desirability of such measures and trust their moral sensibilities to get the job done. (Fortunately, such awareness is steadily growing on its own.)
My point, of course, was that if everyone else were in denial regarding the growth of genetic disease that results from unconditionally suspending the law of natural selection, as mankind is well along the road to doing for itself, then in principle, I’d accept the responsibility of trying to wake them up. In my view, anyone else who understands the problem should be willing to do the same. That all recommended procedures should be exclusively based on well-established science, as opposed to speculative theorization or politics or ideology, goes without saying.
Incidentally, in the interview to which you link, Errol Morris was asking, and provocatively phrasing, all of the questions, and had complete control over the editing of my responses. Much of what I said, and much of the verbal context in which I said it, was omitted - the interview was shot over two full days and covers perhaps 15-20 hours of tape.
Errol apparently wanted to create a hypothetical scenario in which I was making certain decisions for humanity. Perhaps this was because he had already prodded me to admit that many of those who run the world are morons and ignoramuses (relatively speaking). If so, then mea culpa. However, I’d still have to say that many of those who currently run the world are relative morons and ignoramuses…and self-serving and ruthless ones to boot, despite all of their money, degrees, affiliations, and titles.
That many people strongly agree with this observation is easy to confirm. It is equally obvious that those now running the world, and not me, are using their money and power to play "Nazi" and frog-march the public toward social, political, and economic goals that the people would never have chosen for themselves.
. . . .
Regarding the CTMU paper I wrote, may I suggest that you consider taking some of the responsibility for your own incomprehension? The paper contains my ideas and not yours, and I wasted no words in conveying my ideas. As nearly as I can tell, you don’t understand why some of the words were included because you don’t fully understand the ideas to which they refer. If you disagree, then it’s up to you to provide cogent counterexamples and thereby demonstrate your understanding of the message.
I predict that if you attempt to do this, popular respect for your level of (technical) reading comprehension will suffer greatly … not necessarily overnight, but in the long run. The CTMU is quite a bit more than you seem to think it is, and you do the public a disservice by pretending to understand it when you plainly do not. Now let’s have a brief look at one of your own peculiar turns of expression. "One problem Ive noticed with extremely smart people," you write, "is that they begin thinking that their one brain is actually more powerful than all the other brains around them combined."
With respect to the greatest intellectual advances, this belief is quite true, and it happens to be based on certain undeniable facts that you, as a programmer and member of society, should understand. First, collaborations often generate copious opinionative and interpersonal noise that interferes with communication and sound reasoning. Secondly, the hardest problems do not admit of efficient solution by distributed algorithms, where "distributed" in this case means "over many tasks, processors, or minds".
They do not break down into easier independent sub-problems that can be solved in mutual isolation; instead, they require some kind of grand synthesis or intellectual leap, and such leaps usually occur within single minds. Human brains contain myriad connections which are not mirrored by group structures, and these connections are the critical factors in certain key operations. Unless these neural connections are properly configured and activated, the operations can’t happen. Sometimes advantages are afforded by bringing many minds together in collaborative groups, but these are usually insufficient to solve extremely difficult problems.
Otherwise, groups like the RAND Corporation would actually have produced stable solutions for the major social and strategic problems that they were paid by the government to solve, instead of merely transforming them into new problems at which yet more tax revenue must be thrown. To simplify, there exist problems which are more than the sum of their parts, and therefore, it is not always true that:
"Correct solution = nonsolution + nonsolution + nonsolution + …"
or even that
"Correct solution = partial solution + partial solution + partial solution + …"
As one likely example, what Isaac Newton accomplished - constructing a unified mathematical framework for classical mechanics - probably could not have been efficiently accomplished, and as a matter of historical fact was not accomplished, by the entire set of his peers. Perhaps his feat could have been duplicated by another genius like Leibniz, but probably not by any group of more pedestrian intellects. It’s true that in order to complete the set-up for any given stroke of genius, the efforts of many sharp intellects may be required. After all, Newton "stood on the shoulders of giants". But more often than not, the culminating leaps occur within single, exceptional human minds. Thirdly, the following equation clearly does not hold:
"IQ 200 = IQ 100 + IQ 100 (+ IQ 100 + …)"
Lest anyone mistakenly suppose that this linear relationship fails only with respect to IQ, equations like the following are also incorrect:
"Supercomputer = pocket calculator + pocket calculator + pocket calculator + …"
"Michelangelo = moderately talented guy with a paintbrush + moderately talented guy with a chisel + …"
And so on. I could go on, but this has already taken more time than I wanted to spend. I hope that you get the picture, as some of your readers already appear to have done. I also hope that you can learn to exhibit a bit more taste and civility in your choice of headings, instead of labeling your thoughts in a way that has "lowbrow" written all over it. (If this seems like too much to ask, try reading your own rule 6 for comments posted to this blog, ostensibly including your own: No harsh, foul, demeaning or overly critical language is allowed. Disagreement and debate are perfectly fine, but lets keep things civil. Its a shame when you don’t practice what you preach.)
Chris Langan. . . .
. . . .
John P. Says: November 15th, 2007 at 4:07 am
Chris,
I’m quite glad you stopped by and issued clarification on the points you made in your videos. As you have noticed, there are those who have come before you and chastised my criticisms. Now, normally I do not engage in long drawn out comment debates with people, but then again that is because I usually get dragged in. In this case considering that I tossed the first volley it is only fair that it be your prerogative to determine when we are done and so you shall have that discretion. A few brief replies to your comments, and I’m going to bounce around a bit, so forgive me in advance.
Regarding the CTMU paper I wrote, may I suggest that you consider taking some of the responsibility for your own incomprehension? The paper contains my ideas and not yours, and I wasted no words in conveying my ideas. As nearly as I can tell, you don’t understand why some of the words were included because you don’t fully understand the ideas to which they refer.
… The CTMU is quite a bit more than you seem to think it is, and you do the public a disservice by pretending to understand it when you plainly do not.Indeed I made an error by incorrectly linking to a page that I believed was your Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe, which it turns out is actually your Theory of Theories. This was the reason for my accusatory critique that claimed there was "no point whatsoever".
If I recall correctly I came to that page via a Google Search, and after seeing the CTMU label across the top with no linkage to the homepage I assumed I was indeed staring at the CTMU and that the "Theory of Theories" label was actually intended to be a description of the CTMU. As in, "this is the mother of all theories." Bragging as opposed to title.
My mistake was partially due to a willingness on my own part to believe I found something that made no sense after watching the videos which outraged me, and partially due to a mistake on someone’s part for poor navigability and labeling on that page. So, I have issued a retraction and correction within the post. Having said that, I just skimmed through the "Introduction to the CTMU".
Obviously this is something that you have given a lot of thought to, and it would be ridiculous for anyone to presume they could read through it and just "get it".
You’ve spent decades developing these thoughts, and I spent minutes reading it. Had I come across this initially it would have made sense and I wouldn’t have assumed you were loony for thinking that a "Theory of Theories" was equal to a unifying theory of everything.
…try reading your own rule 6 for comments posted to this blog, ostensibly including your own: No harsh, foul, demeaning or overly critical language is allowed.
You know what. You are absolutely correct. Indeed that was the harshest blog title I’ve ever written. And it was insensitive and out of line. I apologize. I have changed the tasteless title of the article, though it is too late to change the URL associated with it without breaking a lot of links.
That really shouldn’t matter much but the title will, considering that this page will show up near the top of Google results for the search terms "World’s Smartest Man". The title will be adjusted when Googlebot crawls my site again. On to the responses:
Medical and genetic technology are now sufficiently advanced to detect, and may soon be adequate to correct, many hereditary diseases before they can be propagated. Applying this technology for the universal benefit of unborn children is a no-brainer, morally and otherwise. One could only marvel at the ethical reasoning of someone who believes that available screening technology should be ignored so that unborn children can be sentenced to lifelong hereditary diseases in the very process of conception.
You’ll get no argument from me on these points. If we have the medical technology to prevent disease or even to genetically engineer preferred traits I have no problem with people having the right to decide whether to employ them. However, your specific comment in the interview was: "…we have to let only the fit breed…it’s a privilege that you have to earn."
And this is a radically divergent assertion. In the first instance we have a situation where people have a choice to breed, and if we have the medical technology to improve upon nature they may choose to use it. In the second instance the comment means certain people just cannot choose to breed. They are exempt from freedom for genetic reasons. By this logic Steven Hawking would have been bred out of existence if his situation was not curable prior to birth.
As for my willingness to oversee such a program:given my druthers, I’d simply help to educate people on the desirability of such measures and trust their moral sensibilities to get the job done.Fair enough.
Incidentally, in the interview to which you link, Errol Morris was asking, and provocatively phrasing, all of the questions, and had complete control over the editing of my responses. Much of what I said, and much of the verbal context in which I said it, was omitted - the interview was shot over two full days and covers perhaps 15-20 hours of tape. Errol apparently wanted to create a hypothetical scenario in which I was making certain decisions for humanity. Perhaps this was because he had already prodded me to admit that many of those who run the world are morons and ignoramuses(relatively speaking). If so, then mea culpa.Hmmm. This is just a bad situation. And that information does add immensely to my understanding of the process. It is unfortunate that you allowed that much footage to be captured without a right of refusal clause with regards to its use. Of course, I’m making the assumption then that you would not have approved of it’s release in it’s current form. Especially since it comes across as if you just sat down and spouted this stuff off in like… one hour.
However, I’d still have to say that many of those who currently run the world are relative morons and ignoramusesWith a few exceptions this is, and always has been, true. As Plato reasoned in The Republic, those who are most appropriate to rule are always the ones who least desire it - hence the reason they are perfect for the job. I’ll have you know that I actually assumed your comment about being willing to administer a eugenics program was based on this logic. I doubted that you meant you wanted to do it. Just that you would.
…and self-serving and ruthless ones to boot, despite all of their money, degrees, affiliations, and titles.
One problem I’ve noticed with extremely smart people," you write, "is that they begin thinking that their one brain is actually more powerful than all the other brains around them combined. With respect to the greatest intellectual advances, this belief is quite true, and it happens to be based on certain undeniable facts that you, as a programmer and member of society, should understand. First, collaborations often generate copious opinionative and interpersonal noise that interferes with communication and sound reasoning.Although this sounds rational I don’t think I can agree. Yes, it is hard to reason with a cacophony of voices clamoring in disarray around you. But it seems to me that these copious opinions and noise get absorbed by each of us and just sit there waiting to be deciphered. So given the fact that I assume all information is good information I can’t call it "interference".
Secondly, the hardest problems do not admit of efficient solution by distributed algorithms, where "distributed" in this case means "over many tasks, processors, or minds". They do not break down into easier independent sub-problems that can be solved in mutual isolation; instead, they require some kind of grand synthesis or intellectual leap, and such leaps usually occur within single minds. Human brains contain myriad connections which are not mirrored by group structures, and these connections are the critical factors in certain key operations. Unless these neural connections are properly configured and activated, the operations can’t happen.Again, I cannot at this time agree. There are some very hard problems being "solved" with distributed computing models as we speak such as "http://onemansblog.com/2007/10/28/please-help-me-fight-cancer/".
Also, the famous "machine vs. master" chess matches between IBM and Kasparov demonstrate that a dumb machine with enough processing speed can simply cycle through iterations until they land upon a solution.
They certainly cannot be accused of "thinking", so if this is true it makes me wonder if, given the billions of humans alive, when it comes to solving difficult problems we aren’t also somehow cycling through iterations until someone happens upon a solution. That might be a bit of an over simplification, but hopefully you can catch my drift.
As one likely example, what Isaac Newton accomplished - constructing a unified mathematical framework for classical mechanics - probably could not have been efficiently accomplished, and as a matter of historical fact was not accomplished, by the entire set of his peers.Well I’m not going to argue that Newton wasn’t a Genius. But examples of genius changing the world do not serve to prove that it is a requirement to do so. Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin was a fairly disruptive technological leap at the time, but he was no Newton.
… But more often than not, the culminating leaps occur within single, exceptional human minds.
And I believe we could find innumerable examples of the same caliber. Furthermore, we cannot assume that just because a few very smart people got lots of press for their advances to humanity, that all advances came about the same way. We have no idea about the relative intelligence level of the people who:
- First discovered fire.
- First used a tool.
- First constructed shelter.
- Planted the first crops.
And so on… Perhaps necessity has been the biggest mother of invention throughout time, and only in recent recorded history, when there wasn’t as much necessity, really smart people began advancing the ball just because no one else cared any more. That does not mean they couldn’t do it if they had to. We just can’t know this.
Lest anyone mistakenly suppose that this linear relationship fails only with respect to IQ, equations like the following are also incorrect:Unfortunately, this assertion is disproven by the previously provided example of Folding@Home and other distributed computing models. Theoretically, if you had enough pocket calculators and they had the right distributed computing architecture you could not only match, but eventually exceed the power of the supercomputer. It’s already been done with desktop PCs.
"Supercomputer = pocket calculator + pocket calculator + pocket calculator + …"
Thus begins the basis of my disbelief in the theory that only the super intelligent advance the human race. So, again, sorry I got carried away with my language, especially knowing what I now know about the creation of those videos. If you would like to respond to any of these comments feel free to do so at your leisure.
Alternatively if you would like to take any further discussions offline feel free to contact me privately. Finally, given the fact that my post may not have been representative of your positions in general I will extend to you an offer to write a guest article here on my blog to set the record straight. It will go up unedited and exactly as you wish.
Take care,
John
. . . .
. . . .
Sopmod Says: November 15th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Mr. Langan’s ideology is fascist, anti-freedom and elitist. The perfect roots for a villain. Thank goodness he is not in a position of power to inflict damage on people with small heads. Oh, and I kinda got a vibe that he was trying to sound intelligent, like how a child tries to act smart to impress the adults.
. . . .
. . . .
Billco Says: November 15th, 2007 at 10:33 am
It amazes me how people continue to attack Mr Langan, even after he’s blessed us with his very own rebuttal. I’m not hiding it, I side with his opinions on a GRAND scale… he’s one of the few people whose "fascist" propositions are actually in agreement with my own. If anything, I applaud him for having his own vision, which requires far more strength and resilience than the opposition’s stance.
I can see why you would call him a villain, because in his ideal world (and mine), a lot of you either would not exist, or at least would not be in the positions of power you currently enjoy. Today’s world is an idiocracy; people care not about where we’ll be in 10 or 100 years, they care about satisfying their petty animal needs here and now. The great majority of people of this earth will leave no legacy whatsoever, aside from a mountain of debt and generation after generation of aimless amoebic children, parasites to their own kind.
. . . .
. . . .
JC Says: November 15th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Bilco - I’m disappointed. Your post seems to carry with it an implicit claim to membership among the intellectual elite, yet your political opinions are about as facile as they could be. Fascist views do not require "strength and resilience" to hold. In fact, in the REAL idiocracies of the world, fascism has usually been the political tenor of choice. Franco’s Spain, Lenin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany (sorry, Godwin), Mussolini’s Italy: these were populaces content to accept the choices given to them and the status quo.
They were content to sacrifice their decision-making to those that they believed were "elite," because they found it comforting to have their choices made by others that they believed wiser than they. I find your discussion of your ideal world, where "a lot of [us] would not exist [or not be in power]," a little disturbing. Of course the problem of shortsighted decision-making is a serious one. The solution is not to switch to a system where decisions are made from the top down; I think our current system has enough of that already, and we’ve seen how well that works out, have we not?
Anyone can say, "we ought to simply put the smart people in charge," but it’s not even close to that simple. Who decides who the smart people are? Who keeps them in power? When you get any specific group and put them in power, whether it’s those with the highest IQs, or those of a certain religious sect, or whatever else, you will find that their goal very quickly departs from, "let’s do the best thing for everyone," and becomes "let’s do what will keep me in power."
Why would you associate a high intelligence quotient with moral superiority? Why would an extremely intelligent (that is, extremely rational) person, put into a position of power, not follow his self-interest like anyone else?
As Mr. Langan correctly points out in his interview, many people don’t understand "utility maximization," and it’s of course implied that he does. Well, if you’re in charge of the country, and you understand and are pursuing utility maximization, that does not by any means mean you’ll be acting in everyone’s best interest. You’ll be acting in your own.
The problems of our world are substantial to say the least. But the solution is not to restrict freedoms and put power in the hands of the few. I’m not sure what you’d like to use as a measure of national success, but per-capita GDP (advantaging more populous countries by using nominal GDP would skew our experiment) is probably the most simple.
Of the top 25 per-capita GDPs, 22 are Democracies (two of the three that aren’t are Middle Eastern petroauthoritarian states). Freedom and democracy equal success, and I’m not even counting the quality of life here. The solution is more openness, more education, more liberty, and more empowerment. Humanity is moving away from fascism for a reason; check out F.A. Hayek’s work on institutional evolution. Don’t take the easy way out, because it’s not a way out at all.
. . . .
. . . .
KOM Says: November 15th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
I used to think something similar. I won’t quote eugenics, specifically, but I used to believe that "stupid" people should be held accountable for their… stupidity. Then I had a dream one night that a virus destroyed much of mankind. A cure was finally synthesized from… a mentally retarded person. The point is that as a species, intelligence is only one aspect of survivability.
And as much as people would like to breed superior people, we can never predict what specific bit of "random" DNA have been saved in someone that will be immune to the changing environment (disease/climate/whathaveyou). To the extent that we don’t overwhelm our food/water supplies, the more the merrier. Because there’s strength in numbers… stupid, average, or otherwise.
. . . .
. . . .
Billco Says: November 16th, 2007 at 11:22 am
JC, I’ll be brief to point out my disagreement: by choosing the GDP as your example, you would be implying that money is a measure of success within society. Does money really matter that much that it extends above our innate traits ? Will the almighty buck make us better people ? I feel it causes the very opposite.
A high GDP nation just means there is more to be gained from its corruption. It is a fabrication of our minds, one that has been attributed far too much importance and illusory power in this world. Tyrannical leaders are driven by greed. Poverty creates tension, as the rich impose upon the poor. We might as well measure a person’s worth by the length of their ring-finger; unfounded, but nowhere near as insignificant as a number written on a piece of paper. We need to take a step back from the game and look at the world as a whole.
. . . .
. . . .
ali Says: November 16th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
This man frightens me and not because of his intelligence but because of his absolute lack of heart and regard for the importance of every individual no matter there IQ. His plan for a high IQ society mirrors that of Hitlers. I think that if he had grown up in a different household he would see the future of the population in a different light. I am not religious but having hope and faith, especially in man is the most important thing a person can have, without it we can harbor no true happiness within ourselves. In the video you can tell in his eyes how unhappy and bitter he is. He may be smart but he is not truly enlightened.
. . . .
. . . .
JC Says: November 16th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
GDP was an arbitrary example. My point is simply that Democracy and liberal society, despite their flaws, are by far the best thing we’ve come up with for governance, and any time you put a few people in charge - as Mr. Langan would like us to do - you have serious, serious problems. So, if you don’t like GDP as a measure of societal success, and you really want to argue for nanny-state authoritarianism, feel free to use any measure you’d like to show how people in authoritarian states are better off than those of us in Democracies.
To Mr. Langan, I would say, even if you’re well-intentioned, but as Lord Acton reminds us - excuse the cliche - power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don’t care how smart you are, it’s dangerous to hand over the reins to anybody. Further, I’m not convinced there’s any correlation between intelligence and ethical integrity, and why would there be?
. . . .
. . . .
ali Says: November 16th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
To add to what I wrote.. I realize the world is crappy Im not oblivious to the evils in the world but I have hope that we will reach some kind of equilibrium or work things out because i do agree it NEEDS to change . Im only 15 years old and hopefully have a long life ahead of me and would like the freedom to live it however i wish. I believe everything happens for a reason, who knows, it could be some average person who stumbles upon the answer. - well thats my soap box for the day.
. . . .
. . . .
Carl K Says: November 18th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Democracy sucks, and it’s failing. Now if we went back to being a republic, I would be happy. "Further, Im not convinced theres any correlation between intelligence and ethical integrity, and why would there be?" As someone once said, there’s a thin line between genius and madman… don’t look at me that way, I didn’t cross it yet…
. . . .
. . . .
Bryant Says: November 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Amazing comment. I love your last paragraph, especially. It is difficult to be intelligent i many areas, but not impossible. I have a 155 IQ, but I also excel mentally in social situations. This my seem anomalous, but it is quite possible. A well rounded mind is also essential for success.
. . . .
. . . .
Bryant M. -Harvard University Says: November 20th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
There is a great level of understanding of the maximization of utility concept in Langan’s ideas regarding Eugenics. These ideas, if taken into practice would jump start an intellectual advancement, but would invariably have many consequences, especially in regards to social, physical, and possibly emotional advancements. The average IQ would increase over time if only the intellectually fit were allowed to reproduce.
Along with this, competition would also increase, as elitist individuals would fall prey to their egotistical willingness and need to supercede others. This can become perhaps one of the negative results. Overall, the eugenics that Langan postulates is in effect an advancement solely on a fluid "IQ" intellectual basis, and fails to regard other types of intelligence.
The result would be a very constrained population in terms of decreased efficiency in many areas. Perhaps a better form of eugenics would involve easing the reproductive advancement of peoples of different strengths, intelligences, and abilities, which will lead to a more well rounded population. -just some random thoughts on the matter.
-Bryant M. - Harvard University.
. . . .
. . . .
Bryant M. -Harvard University Says: November 20th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Interesting
. . . .
. . . .
Billco Says: November 20th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Unfortunately, this assertion is disproven by the previously provided example of Folding@Home and other distributed computing models. Theoretically, if you had enough pocket calculators and they had the right distributed computing architecture you could not only match, but eventually exceed the power of the supercomputer. It’s already been done with desktop PCs. Yes and no. The work done by Folding@Home has little to do with supercomputers.
In fact each node is doing relatively simple calculations and permutations on a small dataset. The trick to distributed computing is you have to cut down your problem into bite-sized chunks that a single processor can chew on. The problem is that no single node ever sees the "big picture", therefore the types of problems one can solve are limited to brute-force scenarios.
What do you do when a problem’s finest component is still too large to fit inside the memory or processing ability of a single computer ? You can’t break it down any further, so the problem is technically unsolvable. Human minds are no different. You could round up a million people, each one doing trivial addition and subtraction, and their combined mathematical ability would be impressive. Take that same group and ask them all to calculate 17^131 divided by 113^28, brute force falls apart. There are some things the average mind simply cannot encapsulate, no matter how much effort is wasted on the attempts. Accept it, respect it, embrace it.
. . . .
. . . .
John P. Says: November 20th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Facts not in dispute:
- People often point out that geniuses like Einstein made world-changing discoveries.
- People often point out that Einstein’s IQ is 160.
- People often point out their own IQ, inferring it is roughly equal to Einstein.
Einstein’s contributions made him famous, not his IQ. People engage in hero worship of the high IQ society because it appears to convey pass-through greatness on the individual - even if they never actually accomplish anything notable themselves. Somehow it makes us feel better just to share even the tiniest traits with someone great. In fact we get the same feeling by being able to say something like "Oh yeah, I know Madonna."
What, is that supposed to impress me? Come talk to me when you are Madonna, then I’ll give you some props. The assertion that high IQ is a prerequisite to spectacular human achievement or advancement is not only laughable, but extremely bigoted. There are no facts to support this claim, and even those with only a reasonably high IQ will recognize that ever proving it is literally impossible.
Indeed, it only takes a single outlier to disprove the theory. So to go on espousing the virtues of IQ as a measurement of human potential is a waste of time. Besides, I guarantee right now there are plenty of average people out there working hard to actually change the world while plenty of "geniuses" sit on their ass all day in front of a Playstation.
John
. . . .
. . . .
Billco Says: November 20th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Maybe that’s because the smart ones realize there is no hope for humankind. Might as well have fun while we’re still alive.
. . . .
. . . .
John P. Says: November 21st, 2007 at 8:13 am
Now your talking Billco! I say we all party it up while we still can!
John
. . . .
. . . .
Wes Lambert Says: December 4th, 2007 at 5:15 am
Langans ideas regarding eugenics are ridiculous, laughable, and would be virtually impossible to implement. You people have to understand that a guy like Langan, by far the most impressive author that I have ever read, has the ability to make anything sound reasonable anything. If he were so inclined, he could easily convince most of you to help him overthrow the government!
Sure, it seems crazy, but its true! The world floating in Chriss noggin is something to be feared, if only because of its sheer horsepower. With a couple of lucky breaks, Chris could easily find himself president in ten years, a possibility which naturally worries the hell out of me. By the way, does anyone know if Chris has a blog? His writing style is orgasmic I cant get enough it!
. . . .
. . . .
Friend Says: December 6th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
No, John P., it’s because he knows what’s most important and he could prioritize life’s importance relative to time and people. He’s doing what he’s capable of doing, he’s not doing anymore or any less he could. Ideally, if everyone could understand the basic concepts of people being interrelated to each other, we would be in less of a mess. : )
. . . .
. . . .
SLK Says: December 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Hmm, well I believe this article proves Chris Langan right, no? I mean, your math in figuring out the differences between average people, geniuses, and the mentally challenged is quite off. In fact, where the hell did you get those numbers from? Technically he’d be 100% smarter than the average human. As far as his ideas on population control, sorry to say, he may be right. Our population has blown up uncontrollably and from the child-worship syndrome that grasps 1st world nations, I doubt that number will be curbed any time soon. And we will suffer the effects of this problem until we succumb to the results or slow down our growth.
. . . .
. . . .
SKILLz Says: December 22nd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Wow really enjoyed that comment…I feel I’m in the same situation. I have a extremely difficult time socially but excel mentally leaving the vast majority of my comrades in the cognitive dust. But when it comes time to correlate to someone especially on a emotional level, I can’t be confided in whatsoever.Matter a fact I dislike social situations all together and would sink a ship to avoid most.
~SKiLLz~
. . . .
. . . .
SKILLz Says: December 23rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
WHo Keeps erasing my posts???
. . . .
. . . .
david lane Says: December 24th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Intelligence may be narrowly defined in IQ tests, but the notion that seems to be getting more traction is that real intelligence is very multifaceted and can cover areas from physical perception, to emotional sensitivity. the man-as-a-calculator definition of IQ is a vestige of the past. we ought to be concerned with human intelligence in it’s myriad forms.
. . . .
. . . .
Billco Says: December 27th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I strongly agree with your last paragraph. The greatest achievements come from the elegant cooperation of several people that excel in their respective fields. Problems arise when people try to be something they’re not, or when they don’t even try to be anything at all. The greatest evils of society come from the selfish notion that one person can rise above, at the expense of all others. These are the individuals that need to be culled for the greater good.
There’s nothing wrong with being physically, mentally, or socially weak - as long as you own up to your limitations and work around them. I personally suck at most things non-cerebral, it’s no secret, so I won’t be helping anyone move a fridge anytime soon. Likewise, I don’t expect the building contractor to sit down at my workbench and spontaneously design a custom computer system from scratch. I use his skills to keep my apartment from falling apart, and he indirectly uses my skills to operate alarm systems, digital thermostats and that snazzy CAD workstation for his architect.
Together, we make great things. Individually we would fail. These people, regardless of their IQ, still have the ability to think constructively and function in society. The ones that are don’t, well just watch MTV or the evening news and you’ll find quite a few of them. High IQ or low IQ, anyone can be a worthless idiot with zero effort
. . . .
. . . .
DANA HOECKER Says: December 27th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
After unlocking my brain i can see we have a challenge to solve together.E=MC3 so the pyramids can and are capable of eliminating electromagnetic force,what does this imply A, ~o~ is here on earthB,the launch pad is now a fact C, the future path to space is accomplished with out wasting precious resources. D,the fourth diminsion can be explored by mankind E, i am in a new realm of knowledge F,we have a space shield system allready to save earth if we can repair it in time. please respond?everything doubt nothing! dana hoecker a7of1@hotmail.com
. . . .
. . . .
MARK Says: December 28th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Hello to all the geniuses and smarties of the modern time. I’m just a normal guy (no so smart with regular iq. i guess) with a complicated question. And am in dire need of someone besides the local idiots of my suroundings. My question is: What is all of your relative thought or opinion on life and our human evolution and religion. Do you really think sum giant bang or supernova greated us on acident. Or some unprofound "fate" placed us here for sum reason not known? I’m just real curious and would like someone smarter to speak to please. Thank you for taking your time on reading this. good night.
. . . .
. . . .
SLK Says: December 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
If Mr. Langan did respond to this, that is terrific, besides the fact it is a well written response compared to so many on here already. And I expect a lot of people to be upset with his views in their own narrow-minded ways. I believe a lot of American are greatly confused with the terms they use and the things they believe… and with the way media, information, and facts are managed, I can see why. People don’t like to be told what they should do, they believe they know well enough for themselves.
I’d say from society’s path, this is obviously not true. And Ammon, do you know what freedom is? Few Americans truly understand that, as it like many words in our dictionary have been obscured and lost most meaning at this point. I think you need to reevaluate your reality, my good sir. True freedom comes with equal responsibility and if we were truly responsible, we could probably establish government-less societies. Which we can’t, we need to be led. And as far as controlling human reproduction, please, anyone.. someone.. do this soon.
We are overpopulating, creating more genetic defects, and passing worse genetic traits on a daily basis. Your ideas of Hilter’s misaligned attempts at this with twisted ideals of racial superiority blur the possible need for this to happen. It’s not about race, but about passing on the best genetic traits we can for the future. That was the point of natural selection, that thing we stopped by taking out our basic need to strive for the best and settle for the easiest.
. . . .
. . . .
SKILLz Says: December 29th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I am in agreement. Cleverly spoken SLK.
. . . .
. . . .
patmanpato Says: December 31st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Correction: The smart ones realize they can provide no hope for mankind. It doesn’t mean there is no hope. It seems that no matter how intelligent someone may be, they will always think they’re smarter than they actually are.
. . . .
. . . .
John P. Says: January 1st, 2008 at 9:47 am
Patman, I agree with you. Why is it that although we are all permanently stuck inside our own little brains we assume our brains are somehow better than others? It truly boggles my little mind. John
PS - I see you’re trying out my Rapid Access theme! Let me know if you need any help with it or anything.
. . . .
. . . .
MARK Says: January 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 am
Hello to all the geniuses and smarties of the modern time. I’m just a normal guy (no so smart with regular iq. i guess) with a complicated question. And am in dire need of someone besides the local idiots of my suroundings. My question is: What is all of your relative thought or opinion on life and our human evolution and religion. Do you really think sum giant bang or supernova greated us on acident. Or some unprofound "fate" placed us here for sum reason not known? I’m just real curious and would like someone smarter to speak to please. Thank you for taking your time on reading this. Good night.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by RobbertM 2008-01-02 16:18:17
Just the single fact that we doubt about our existense and dont except anyone else who could be any better then yourself. Is what is making the world a disaster circle going around and around(eventually destroying our own existince because the planet cannot take it). Crhis L. states that if we create a new system with smarter people on top that we could find solutions.
With that sad already we start to directly misjudge that and see the not so bright sides of that idea.Altough the idea is in fact probably the only way that we could manage with in the future or even the only way to stay alive in the future. I do know that alot of people dont like having rankings like smart / normal / under average, but then why does it works so well for things like an army and i commenly hear these slogans about the army like ‘We are one’? So maybe we must put some foughts into this and work as one system.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by patmanpato 2008-01-02 17:25:56
If I understand correctly RobbertM, then I agree. But just like not everyone wants to join the army, even less of the population are going to accept this new system. It’s not a matter of being the correct or optimal solution. In fact, sometimes I think these "smart" people view life too simplistically (due to their inability to relate to humanity like the average person?).
I, and many I know, have had such controversial ideas for more sustainable systems (maybe not as well thought out and complete, of course), but as we grow up and understand what humanity is all about, we realize it isn’t that simple. These "optimal" solutions would (probably) cause a compromise on what makes us human and different from the next species.
Why I say these smart people think too simplistically is that they are unable factor in these constraints when coming to a solution. Maybe they come to a precise solution to a slightly simplified problem, whilst we come to a wildly inaccurate solution to a precise problem? We would have to weigh up the costs and the benefits. Who, however, understands all sides of the matter thoroughly enough to make such decisions? Evidently not the ultra smart, and not those not intelligent enough to understand the benefits side of things either. To be human is to be finite after all. Isn’t it?
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by RobbertM 2008-01-02 19:26:38
Well yes, what you sad is certainly right. I do want to note out that smart people are still also people and in conversations like these you see how people are crossing the broundrys of what is excepted. First skin color, believes and even gender. But with this i think there is a fourth exceptation wich is intelligence. I think in small words that the problem most are talking about here.
As with Chris Langans view he is judged hard on the fact that we cant feel for how he lives…the exceptation for that is diffrent for everyone of us towards that. I myself dont think it has much to do with that iq influences eq(social skills and such). btw i am dutch so my english can be a litle bit unreadable or wrongly interpetted. . . . .
. . . .
Comment by patmanpato 2008-01-02 20:02:47
I agree here also, if I understood correctly. I like the point made in the post, the difference between Chris and a genius, is as great as the difference between a genius and a retard. So we are definitely unable to understand or empathize with Chris and his way thinking and lifestyle completely. I’ll admit that. But I also believe that being ultra intelligent doesn’t automatically give you the ability to empathize with everyone else, just because we are less intelligent. Meeting half way is the difficult part, for both sides. This compromise is the only way, I believe, for the controversial ideas, like Chris’s, to get accepted in any way, even if they are clearly (to some) correct and optimal.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by John P. 2008-01-03 08:11:49
Patmanpato, I agree with you on two counts:
To be human is to be finite after all. Isn't it?I think the underlying assumption of this discussion is that something could be done to genetically improve the human race via a specialized selection process. That somehow we could breed-out the diseases, etc. First, I don’t believe that is true because new ones will pop up. Mother nature is going to adapt to kill us off as fast as we adapt. Secondly, lets just assume that is true. What does it get us? We’re still going to have competition for scarce resources, good and evil, war and pestilence - now we’ll just have people who live longer. But who really cares? As you point out, we’re still going to die, now we’ll probably just have more of an over-crowding issue.
This compromise is the only way, I believe, for the controversial ideas…Herein lies the answer. I have no problem with Chris’ philosophy - with one minor modification. It must be voluntary. Stupid people must be allowed to breed, but anyone that chooses to optionally go through a selection process to theoretically improve their lineage should have that right. I also think that the field of genetic engineering holds promise for improving the species. Soon we’ll be able to turn on the "smart genes" and supress the "cancer genes", etc.
John
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by JaccoN 2008-01-06 16:56:27
I think the real problem with eugenics is not the idea itself - It is how it is put into practice. Politicians have ultimately decide who was more fit in the past, and ultimately those decisions were biased or stupid. And trying to force something on anyone will eventually lead to rebellion, and even a stupid man can wield a brick or a gun. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve humanity, but it should be through encouragement instead of force. Free birth control in the form of pills and condoms, along with proper education in schools, could easily be given in those areas with high crime and unemployment rates.
And higher taxes could be imposed on those with multiple children, instead of a tax break - This would be especially fair, as those with children could pay for their schooling and heath care, instead of those without, and as a tax it would be required that they pay it, instead of leaving their children sick or uneducated. If anything should be forced it should be sterilization of those who neglect or abuse children, or those who commit violent crimes. It would be as simple as a vasectomy, or having the woman’s tubes tied.
A man or woman who commits an armed robbery, rapes, or murders someone else does not deserve the right of having children - nor does a parent who lets their children starve, beats them, or neglects them. And, while some might object to it, enough people would consider it fair to make it work. And once the average IQ goes up enough to make things a little more sane, say, in five or six hundred years, we could put a better plan into place.
This is all assuming, though, that genetic engineering doesn’t become common enough that all the people with 300 IQs don’t get together and figure out how to make it happen right away… And I hope they do some day. Even though I would be little more than a mentally impaired idiot in their world, I don’t think it would have suicide bombings, towers falling, or a man like President Bush getting even 1% of the vote.
Technology, society, everything would quickly become almost incomprehensible to me, a man with only a 153 intelligence, but I am smart enough to see that it would be BETTER, and I would be willing to be a very very stupid man, if it meant living in that world. Thank god I wasn’t born the only man with a 300 IQ though - It must be so lonely. It is bad enough being as smart as I am and looking at the world… The way it is going… Eugenics, genetic engineering, it all seems like almost too much. Almost too robotic. But it would stop us from killing each other, and that would be worth it.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Tom 2008-01-10 20:18:41
1) It is virtually impossible for us to know whether Mr. Langan is the smartest man or not. He might be lying about his IQ, the media might be giving misleading information. Even if he does get that IQ, assuming that there is some correlation between IQ and intelligence, it will still not be true that he is the most intelligent man on earth.
2) If you feel bitter because you outsmart everyone in your surrounding, then one clue is that you’re humanly biased and not entirely logical.
3) I think You are misintrepreting the infos. What makes you think that he lacks ability to relate to society? Mr. Langan merely said that he wants to be in charge of training people to not abuse freedom. There is no implication of any "unethical" things here.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by towerofbabel 2008-01-14 22:05:50
O.K., try to think of eugenics as a practice less narrowly defined than by the sentiments of faith based zealots or mob driven fascists. Imagine a sophisticated world in which people are equipped with the knowledge of genetic details prior to acts of breeding. How exhilerating would it be to climb into a photo booth at the local mall for the first time with your high school sweatheart knowing all along that that photoanalysis would reveal secrets of your unconceived child.
Within a matter of seconds the machine would spit out a list of probabilities and potential outcomes which you could base future decisions on. When the machine tells you that your child would have a better chance surviving as a beet farmer in Australia rather than a proctologist in S.F. you may just decide to stop having sex entirely.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Cyrus 2008-01-16 02:31:46
He is a smart man, but perhaps the environment of his life has given him a pessimistic view of the world. 1. there is faith in everything that we do as humans. it is the faith that what we perceive is a representation of reality, and that our interpretation of and adaptation to our perceptions will translate into adaptations to reality. it is absolutely certain that what we perceive is not reality.
for example, we don’t see air molecules. we don’t perceive that close to 100% of this monitor in front of us is space. thus, faith is what we use to live our lives in reality the best we can and attain the highest possible net happiness that we can in our lifetime. we are not meant to perceive reality, we are meant to perceive. that is why there are certain concepts the mind cannot comprehend: infinity (no beginning, no end).
the world quite possibly never began. the only logical explanation for the origin of the universe is that there was no origin. like i said, impossible to comprehend. another thing is that he seems to want to force communalism upon human beings, and we simply aren’t designed that way. we are a people of self-interested utilitarianism. and frankly, i don’t see the world ending that way. competition lets the strongest win and be the happiest, while the weak are not as happy. thus there is a gradient. with communism, like in ants, the strong and the weak have the same net happiness.
therefore the two systems are different but equal. communism benefits the whole, capitalism places benefit on a gradient. since i am of the strong, i am biased toward capitalism. mankind is bettered because mankind supplies deman, and the competition of capitalism surges to meet that demand. thus the same advancements are achieved. we shall not end. be happy while you can and worry about yourself, because serving yourself IS serving mankind and what it represents.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by SKILLz 2008-01-19 14:06:46
It seems to me Mr. Lagan is somewhat religious. According to CTMU he believes we exist in "God’s" mind. That said, God gave mankind intelligence to change things, to better ourselves and others. Also God gave us emotions morals and values. Doesn’t deeming the right to procreate by setting rules of who can who can’t contradict God’s intentions.
Personally I completely believe yes the world would be a better place however I’d be almost fearful to vote to enforce such a law because what if its wrong from God’s standpoint. God did give mankind freewill to breed, believe in whatever, even sin if he wants to and the bible says to be ‘like God’ so shouldn’t we also give everyone freewill? Then again, since God did give us intelligence to conform rules and make laws to better the world who know maybe it would be right? Either way its a touchy subject if your a Christian.
~SKiLLz~
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Kevin Sharkey 2008-01-21 11:00:30
1. IQ’s are normalized: 100 is the average. The average could never be 300.
2. Everyone seems to be conceding that this guy is intelligent, certainly out of our league. Don’t! What has he ever done? Have you read his CTMU essay? He says:
A theory needs onlyThat is so full of inconsistency, unfounded claims, and ambiguous language… I don’t even know: Firstly, I think a theory needs to say something. I can say “Oranges fun fun fun fun reading sky,” which is about oranges, and stated in english, which is capable of describing oranges, but doesn’t say anything at all. Furthermore, a natural language has so many meanings and ambiguities that such translation is anything but trivial.
1) a subject
2) a language which can coherently describe the subject, and it can be translated into a formal language, and then subjected to tests for truth/consistency.
Even in a ‘formal language’… look up "Entscheidungsproblem” on wikipedia. If he is so intelligent, why doesn’t he do something with it? If he deems himself so much smarter than everyone else, why not do something challenging instead of bouncing at a bar? This guy is a crack, not a genius. Feynman was a genius, JW Gibbs was a genius, Beethoven, Chopin, etc. The test for genius is life.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by SL Kyle 2008-01-21 10:23:36
Sadly I’ve been getting updates to this message board, about this topic.. so please, unless you actually have some intelligent, informed response.. stop! Reading the CTMU and understanding it requires knowledge in various fields that, I doubt, anyone on here has any experience in. It’s not something a layman can sit down, read, and completely understand.
I’m not arguing its legitimacy as fact, but it is a well-written theory on reality and not an easy thing to understand. Secondly, at different levels of intelligence come different levels of understanding things as well as viewing subjective reality. Hence why certain people can wrap their heads around particular subjects while John Q. Public has no idea where to being..
I mean, calculus isn’t for everyone. And Kevin Sharkey, Chris Langan is doing something with his intelligence, look up what the man has been doing! He was a bouncer during that interview, which was years ago, he has moved on since. Your unfounded, slanderous arguments aren’t even amusing.. just sad and egotistical.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Kevin Sharkey 2008-01-21 11:00:30
Perhaps he is doing something productive, that is great. But I doubt he did anything to compare with the people that I named. Einstein and Darwin are slouches?
Their theories have had a profound impact on society. Perhaps Chris Langdon’s will too, though if you want to bet, I would give you some long odds on that. At the very least, it is premature according to my definition of genius. Who is being egotistical? He is the one that is claiming that he is out of the range of normal people, and I am refuting that.
I don’t claim to be super intelligent, I am one of those normal people. We all are. I think calculus is for everyone, which is naively idealistic, I realize. What fields in particular does it require? I am a math/chemistry major, and it certainly isn’t either of those. A logical paper has a number of easily accepted axioms, and then each subsequent idea follows logically from what came before. That doesn’t seem to happen in his paper. And his concepts of the possibilities connected with formal languages seems to ring of Hilbert, or Russel-Whitehead.
They were defeated 70 years ago: Look at the work of Alonzo Church, Kurt Gödel, Alan Turing, John von-Neumann, Stephen Kleene, etc. Langdon’s first blurb on that video is the concept that everything can be broken down into binary… First of all, binary is meaningless without the frame of reference of an architecture, but all formal languages are either too weak to say just about anything, or else they are ‘fuzzy’: there are statements which can never, even in principle, be proven true or false unless the language is inconsistent.
That is Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. It does require the knowledge of certain fields, I agree. The author doesn’t seem to have this knowledge (he would have to acknowledge the intelligence of his predecessors to do that). However, I think that a layman can read and understand it all. Wikipedia knows all about this stuff, or you can go to a library if you want to be more old fashioned about it.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Manorexia 2008-01-23 12:36:31
This man thinks he is a genius, yet he cant wake up every morning and shave and works in a bar, if that is a genius i will most definetly stay at my current devolved level.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Billco 2008-01-23 22:23:35
That is an extremely short-sighted comment. Just because he doesn’t spend his days building rockets or curing cancer, does not mean he isn’t intelligent. Some people say that my own career is beneath my abilities, and they’re absolutely right. I like it that way, because it’s easy and reliable, low stress and fun coworkers.
It leaves me with spare time to work on my own projects, which are significantly more advanced that my 9-to-5 job. One thing when you’re exceptionally smart, is that it can be difficult to market those evolved abilities. In particular, I refuse to help some greedy nihilist use my skills to get even richer at the expense of human-kind at large, or manipulate me with money. I could easily double or triple my income by selling out to corporate America, but those dreams aren’t mine. I suspect Mr. Langan is faced with similar obstacles. Heck, I’ve worked in bars before, and I enjoyed it!
I liked getting up late, doing my shopping in the afternoon when all the crazy people are working their boring jobs, and enjoying the tranquility of city in the early morning. So before you go parading your white-collar lifestyle as the be-all end-all of happiness, consider the possibility that different people have different goals.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Compton Saunders 2008-01-26 04:10:47
Socrates believed that logic should be used to see how valid our believe is. So let’s make the following statement : ” Only if highly intelligent people rule the world they will save mankind”. Now imagine that this statement is false, irrespective of the convictions of the author. Search for scenarios or context where the statement is not true. (“Finding all the things which something is not, brings us closer to what it really is)
Could mankind ever survive if it is not ruled by highly intelligent people?Yes it is possible, we as humans have saved many species from extinction and are constantly working towards more sustainable ways of life. History shows that we as humans constantly reinvent ourselves in order to survive
Could highly intelligent people rule the world and not save mankind?Yes, it is possible that even though we have really smart people at the helm, they could be too logical and forget the human factor which they have to simplify in order to get to a practical solution. This could effectively destroy the essence of human society, which will be the end life as we know it. These exceptions thus lead us to believe that the original statement has to be altered to incorporate these possible scenarios. Saving mankind can be significantly aided by the help of highly intelligent people. This makes more sense –So where are all the really intelligent people?
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by matt 2008-01-31 13:46:55
Why would you make the vastly unsupported statement "Smartest Man in the World" when all you have to base it on is a single IQ score. There are so many things wrong with that, let me count the ways. Unless Mr. Langan has taken repeated IQ test scoring consistently, an IQ score is not even statistically valid.
Secondly, even if Mr. Langan does score consistently high on IQ tests, keep in mind these tests are standardized and all this really says is that Mr. Langan is particularly apt at solving problems that are posed in a particular form, on IQ tests this usually means using first-order predicate logic–if you don’t know what fopl is, it means "black and white" or "wrong and right" logic. In defense of Einstein, the brilliant man was not a man of particular aptitude in Mathematics or Logic as he said himself on many occasions.
An IQ test cannot measure a persons creativity or resourcefulness which perhaps contributes to what we describe as "intelligence" ever so more than being a logic machine–computers can do that for us. There are many other ways of measuring "intelligence" by means of trail by fire; for example: a chess player who dominates the World Championships for several years (Mikhail Tal, Kasparov, Bobby Fischer, Lasker), a scientist who creates–keyword is creates–the fundamentals for a field of study previously ignored (Einstein).
Furthermore, as a Mathematician I vehemently reject the statement that Mr. Langan is the smartest man in the world, even if you base that statement on an IQ score. If you truly seek the "smartest" man in the world look no further than Carl Friedrich Gauss who advanced the study of Math by great leaps in the short years of his studies.
Most likely Gauss’ IQ could not be rated as all the IQ tests currently used would fail to provide a sufficient challenge, for truly Gauss was the master of logic. The thing that elevated Gauss to such heights however was not his powerful logic–for to Mathematicians logic is but a tool–but rather it was his profound understanding, as well as his unmatched creativity and resourcefulness.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by John P. 2008-01-31 22:32:18
Matt,
I actually question why anyone would make the vastly unsupported statement that Chris Langan is NOT the smartest man in the world. I can only assume that it is because people fail to do any research at all. For example: Chris Langan. Carl Gauss is DEAD. He is only in the world if you mean literally inside the world. You said:
Unless Mr. Langan has taken repeated IQ test scoring consistently…Um. Yes. He has. And I’m sure if you’d like a demonstration, for the right price he’d be happy to take any test you’d like him to. This is simply a well vetted fact. I’m so sick of people telling me all this crap about different ways to measure intelligence. It’s a load of shite. The bottom line is that Langan is smarter than you, me, anyone you’ve ever know, anyone you will ever know - and very likely anyone else alive on the planet right now.
Even if you don’t want to admit to that, he’s in the top .00000000001% or something insane. If you’re a mathemetician you should know the difference between rare and impossible. So, if you people would like to just get over that and focus on what the man has to say rather than claiming “he can’t possibly be that smart“, we’ll all be a lot better off not having to listen to that blithering, whiny stupidity.
John P.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by matt 2008-02-01 04:03:26
John,
Although I respect your opinion as after all is said and done this is your blog and you have paid for your space in the web to post your thoughts, I have chosen to respond to your response in a critical way. First, Wikipedia is a largely unreliable source of information when dealing with biographies as is the case here. Please visit here for an illustrating example. In your response to my post you argued that indeed your statement that Mr. Langan is indeed the “smartest man in the world” is well founded.
In the same response you wrote, “The bottom line is that Langan is smarter … [than] likely anyone else alive on the planet right now.” It seems you have asserted that he is the “smartest man in the world” when clearly you aren’t even sure yourself. When I referred to Gauss I was not too concerned with the fact that he was dead, I merely wanted to present any interested reader with a example of what is coined as a mental titan.
The fact that you participate in standardized IQ tests created by humans suggests that you want to prove something to either those people who are testing you or society. I had hoped that by introducing Gauss to the discussion, I would highlight the subtle difference between performing for the masses and performing to achieve something.
As a personal note, I have no trouble in admitting someone may be “smarter” than me if they score higher on an IQ test than me. I have not completed any IQ tests myself save for one online–which did not seem reliable at all–and placed me at 140+, I can only assume the questions maxed out at 140 or perhaps the free version only goes to that level.
Anyhow from completing this test I can say–only from this experience–that the logic questions were a joke, the math questions were trivial and questions that dealt with literature required me to scour my limited vocabulary. The only questions which presented any sort of challenge where the visual patterns; however, this was expected as spatial visualization is one of my weaknesses. Please do not take the anything in this paragraph as a generalization of all IQ tests, I’m merely speaking from personal experience.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Tom 2008-02-01 15:42:53
Stop measuring the intelligence and commenting about it, just be. That would save lots of your time and help you to reach your goals more effectively.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Billco 2008-02-03 16:27:07
Perhaps we should also stop measuring people’s ability to drive, and just let them do whatever. There’s nothing wrong with trying to determine whether someone is smart or not. The problem lies with people’s interpretation of that value. I don’t put that much stock in the IQ test, but I can certainly appreciate the difference between a smart person and a complete imbecile.
It’s usually easy to determine whether someone is equal to you, or above/below your intellect. I wish we could somehow standardize that, without favoring any one field like sciences or math. I’m a whiz at those things, but I have shortcomings in other areas. If we could more easily identify each person’s skills, and weed out the monkeys, we might be able to tack on a few more centuries before the human race goes dark.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by SKILLz 2008-02-02 19:13:32
John P cudos…Now, I’m a student at Middle Tennessee State University (WhoOOO HoOOooOO Go Raiders Baby) now thats out tha way…haha. Chris Langan I think is very intelligent, I also think he’s a bit arrogant but rightfully so, pssh, if my IQ was that high I would probably be too.
I have read the prelude to his T.O.E. Its skillfully written and is in fact logical and actually made me ‘think’. I’m fairly smart haha I suppose, I’m a pre-med student and was encouraged to go to college through a psych exam which measured not only my IQ but also cognition and determining logic. I score astonishingly high, thus here I am. Anyways, as I stated I do support most of Chis’s ideas and acknowledge that he is, indeed very intelligent.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Neosapience 2008-02-05 10:57:41
Intelligence and education are 2 different things. A smart person with no education is actually be more dangerous than a stupid person with no education.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Neosapience 2008-03-29 17:52:23
Sorry, I was a bit tired when I made that post and didn’t bother to elaborate (I also made a stupid grammatical error). Anyway, intelligence (or I.Q.) is measured by administering a non-biased test which is supposed to gauge an individuals raw mental abilities. These tests do not rely on learned or memorized data (such as language, math, etc…) and are thus highly accurate at determining a persons natural intelligence level.
Education is almost entirely done through memorization. Just because someone can recite every word from entire set of encyclopedias, does not make them intelligent (it just means they have a phenomenal memory). Some would argue that memory is part of intelligence. I would say that a great memory is not a requisite for genius, but it certainly couldn’t hurt. So, as I was trying to say before, people that are smart but poorly educated tend to make huge mistakes that often result in tragedy. Stupid people that are highly educated aren’t usually in a position to cause such catastrophic problems and thus are less dangerous.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Saim Baig 2008-02-19 12:15:35
Yes he is intelligent for sure. His Education must not be mixed with Education.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by Trevor 2008-03-04 16:54:37
I think that Chris’s theory for society is too likely to be hijacked and turned into something malignant. The smartest and most intelligent people are not always the dominant ones (although maybe this is because the most intelligent lost power in the beginning, and never could gain it back), and his system, I think, would inevitably be manipulated. My understanding is that the government would have totaltarian power, and without checks and balances, would be like a queen in chess. You have all the power, or none of it.
Also, I think that an attempt to set up something like this would go the way of communism, because they both have the same fault. There’s no compensation for human fallibility or our nature. It would take a lot of indoctrination or radical change of some sort to get parents to submit to recieving a kind of sterilizing device for their child. Like communism, it looks good on paper, but in practice I think the idea just wouldn’t work. I’m sorry if I misunderstood what he was saying, and I might be too specific in my criticisms too. Just trying to contribute.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by JL 2008-03-06 07:49:28
This guy is fooling himself, and sadly many others it seems. I read his works on http://www.ctmu.org/ and a number of points are in order: Firstly, no new ideas appear to be here, as far as I can tell. His whole introductory discussion really is just a primer on the scientific method, but dressed up using words that obfuscate the method rather than illuminate it; with the apparent aim of appearing either as a:
- 1. New idea altogether
- 2. Super intelligent breakthrough
“In contrast, the CTMU deals directly with the outstanding paradoxes and fundamental interrelationship of mathematics and physics”.For starters, there is no “intrinsic” fundamental interrelationship between mathematics and physics. The fact that anyone (you or I, or Chris, for example) can draw such an interrelationship is because, as he acknowledges, these abstractions or models of reality are in fact such; and any interrelationship between the two can necessarily and arbitrarily be drawn. However, it is equally likely for anyone to arbitrarily draw attention to the lack of such interrelationships, either in part or in whole to any subset combination of any of these two discipline’s areas of sub-specialization.
His “metatheory”, or theory of theories, goes on (again in obfuscating scatterbrain steps) to point out how the “….theory of information, while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality.” [Abstract, The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory] Neil Finn said the same thing on the Crowded House album “Woodface” when he sang “colour is its own reward”.
In other words, this is nothing more than a tautology dressed up to appear as a theory. Reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic description of reality?
We already have this! A rock is intrinsically and reflexively self-processing, and manages to describe itself. However, no one has a theory of a rock, as it is completely self-describing. Sure, we have words to describe any given instance of a rock, such as “hard”, “smooth”, or “rough”, or “crumbles when you throw it”, and of course these language constructs used to describe any given rock are of necessity limited.
And of course, what is a rock, really? I mean, past any descriptors and chemical models (which contain descriptors themselves, right down to the boson, meson or quark), but this abstract is itself able to be reduced to nothing more than a series of tautological statements that cannot (within itself) be proved or disproved.
The paper also fails to acknowledge its own existence in the mind-matter duality postulated within; as such, it attempts to self-define as being in an upper-level vector presiding down upon the duality, and hence immune from either its “undecidability” constraint or its “uncertainty” state.
Godel showed this last century, and he does not even address or acknowledge this! Anyway, this whole point he makes on the mind-matter duality is moot; at least to some mundane variety genius like me who ranks like an imbecil when standing in the shadow of the self-proclaimed and non-validated nor peer-reviewed “genius” like CL, who at least knows that it is moot, as neither can mind be separated from matter nor can it ever be shown by any construct or any mind that in fact they are separate.
. . . .
. . . .
Comment by JL 2008-03-06 08:28:04
Postulate 1: The smartest man in the world is dumber than you think.
Postulate 2: Obfuscation in language is designed to veil stupidity, or at least relative stupidity, or to hide a lack of real understanding on a subject.
Postulate 3: A smart man says it simply, but no simpler. For example:
- Statement 1: I walked briskly to the store to see my friends, and found that the store was closed, so I sat and thought for a while.
- Statement 2: That being which I reflexively perceive as myself on the basis of some unknown anchor that tied my recognition of my self as being consistent with that self, perambulated at a rate that exceeds in velocity a pace considered dragging, towards a land-use activity which contains a crystallization of items for sale, to see those other selves that that aforementioned being, in said being’s mental framework, perceive as being less hostile to aforementioned being than enemies and somewhat convivial, and exposed through the interface between matter and my mind that the place of crystallized sale-items was, not altogether open, so herein thrice before referenced being rested with said being’s (herein known as "I") body supported by the buttocks or thighs as opposed to the perambulation I had been previously engaged in, and I instigated my neurons to fire more quickly in my pre-frontal cortex.
By Dave Small (c) 1987
Reprinted from Current Notes magazine.
http://www.skepticfiles.org/crank/tesla0.htm
The Greatest Hacker of All Time
. . . .
. . . .
The question comes up from time to time. "Who's the greatest hacker ever?"Well, there's a lot of different opinions on this. Some say Steve Wozniak of Apple II fame. Maybe Andy Hertzfeld of the Mac operating system. Richard Stallman, say others, of MIT. Yet at such times when I mention who I think the greatest hacker is, everyone agrees (provided they know of him), and there's no further argument. So, let me introduce you to him, and his greatest hack. I'll warn you right up front that it's mind numbing. By the way, everything I'm going to tell you is true and verifiable down at your local library. Don't worry -- we're not heading off into a Shirley MacLaine UFO-land story. Just some classy electrical engineering...
THE SCENE: COLORADO SPRINGS, CO.
Colorado Springs is in southern Colorado, about 70 mile south of Denver. These days it is known as the home of several optical disk research corporations and of NORAD, the missile defense command under Cheyenne Mountain. (I have a personal interest in Colorado Springs; my wife Sandy grew up there.) These events took place some time ago in Colorado Springs. A scientist had moved into town and set up a laboratory on Hill Street, on the southern outskirts. The lab had a two hundred foot copper antenna sticking up out of it, looking something like a HAM radio enthusiast's antenna. He moved in an started work. And strange electrical things happened near that lab.
People would walk near the lab, and sparks would jump up from the ground to their feet, through the soles of their shoes. One boy took a screwdriver, held it near a fire hydrant, and drew a four inch electrical spark from the hydrant. Sometimes the grass around his lab would glow with an eerie blue corona, St. Elmo's Fire. What they didn't know was this was small stuff. The man in the lab was merely tuning up his apparatus. He was getting ready to run it wide open in an experiment that ranks as among the greatest, and most spectacular, of all time. One side effect of his experiment was the setting of the record for man-made lightning: some 42 meters in length (130 feet).
THE MAN: NIKOLA TESLA
His name was Nikola Tesla. He was an immigrant from what is now Yugoslavia; there's a museum of his works in Belgrade. He's a virtual unknown in the United States, despite his accomplishments. I'm not sure why. Some people feel it's a dark plot, the same people who are into conspiracy theories. I feel it's more that Tesla, while a brilliant inventor, was also an awful businessman; he ended up going broke. Businessmen who go broke fade out of the public eye; we see this in the computer industry all the time.
Edison, who wasn't near the inventor Tesla was, but who was a better businessman, is well remembered as is his General Electric. Still, let me list a few of Tesla's works just so you'll understand how bright he was. He invented the AC motor and transformer. (Think of every motor in your house.) He invented 3-phase electricity and popularized alternating current, the electrical distribution system used all over the world. He invented the Tesla Coil, which makes the high voltage that drives the picture tube in your computer's CRT. He is now credited with inventing modern radio as well; the Supreme Court overturned Marconi's patent in 1943 in favor of Tesla. Tesla, in short, invented much of the equipment that gets power to your home every day from miles away, and many that use that power inside your home. His inventions made George Westinghouse (Westinghouse Corp.) a wealthy man.
Finally, the unit of magnetic flux in the metric system is the "tesla". Other units include the "faraday" and the "henry", so you'll understand this is an honor given to few. So we're not talking about an unknown here, but rather a solid electrical engineer. Tesla whipped through a number of inventions early in his life. He found himself increasingly interested in resonance, and in particular, electrical resonance. Tesla found out something fascinating. If you set an electrical circuit to resonating, it does strange things indeed. Take for instance his Tesla Coil. This high frequency step-up transformer would kick out a few hundred thousand volts at radio frequencies. The voltage would come off the top of his coil as a "corona", or brush discharge. The little ones put out a six-inch spark; the big ones throw sparks many feet long. Yet Tesla could draw the sparks to his fingers without being hurt -- the high frequency of the electricity keeps it on the surface of the skin, and prevents the current from doing any harm.
Tesla got to thinking about resonance on a large scale. He'd already pioneered the electrical distribution system we use today, and that's not small thinking; when you think of Tesla, think big. He thought, let's say I send an electrical charge into the ground. What happens to it? Well, the ground is an excellent conductor of electricity. Let me spend a moment on this so you understand, because topsoil doesn't seem very conductive to most. The ground makes a wonderful sinkhole for electricity. This is why you "ground" power tools; the third (round) pin in every AC outlet in your house is wired straight to, literally, the ground. Typically, the handle of your power tool is hooked to ground; this way, if something shorts out in the tool and the handle gets electrified, the current ruches to the ground instead of into you.
The ground has long been used in this manner, as a conductor. Tesla generates a powerful pulse of electricity, and drains it into the ground. Because the ground is conductive, it doesn't stop. Rather, it spreads out like a radio wave, traveling at the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second. And it keeps going, because it's a powerful wave; it doesn't peter out after a few miles. It passes through the iron core of the earth with little trouble. After all, molten iron is very conductive. When the wave reaches the far side of the planet, it bounces back, like a wave in water bounces when it reaches an obstruction. Since it bounces, it makes a return trip; eventually, it returns to the point of origin. Now, this idea might seem wild. But it isn't science fiction. We bounced radar beams off the moon in the 1950's, and we mapped Venus by radar in the 1970's.
Those planets are millions of miles away. The earth is a mere 3000 miles in diameter; sending an electromagnetic wave through it is a piece of cake. We can sense earthquakes all the way across the planet by the vibrations they set up that travel all that distance. So, while at first thought it seems amazing, it's really pretty straight forward. But, as I said, it's a typical example of how Tesla thought. And then he had one of his typically Tesla ideas. He thought, when the wave returns to me (about 1/30th of a second after he sends it in), it's going to be considerably weakened by the trip.
Why doesn't he send in another charge at this point, to strengthen the wave? The two will combine, go out, and bounce again. And then he'll reinforce it again, and again. The wave will build up in power. It's like pushing a swingset. You give a series of small pushes each time the swing goes out. And you build up a lot of power with a series of small pushes; ever tried to stop a swing when it's going full tilt? He wanted to find out the upper limit of resonance. And he was in for a surprise.
THE HACK: THE TESLA COIL
So Tesla moved into Colorado Springs, where one of his generators and electrical systems had been installed, and set up his lab. Why Colorado Springs? Well, his lab in New York had burned down, and he was depressed about that. And as fate would have it, a friend in Colorado Springs who directed the power company, Leonard Curtis, offered him free electricity. Who could resist that? After setting up his lab, he tuned his gigantic Tesla coil through that year, trying to get it to resonate perfectly with the earth below.
And the townspeople noticed those weird effects; Tesla was electrifying the ground beneath their feet on the return bounce of the wave. Eventually, he got it tuned, keeping things at low power. But in the spirit of a true hacker, just once he decided to run it wide open, just to see what would happen. Just what was the upper limit of the wave he would build up, bouncing back and forth in the planet below? He had his Coil hooked to the ground below it, the 200 foot antenna above it, and getting as much electricity as he wanted right off the city power supply mains. Tesla went outside to watch (wearing three inch rubber soles for insulation) and had his assistant, Kolman Czito, turn the Coil on. There was a buzz from rows of oil capacitors, and a roar from the spark gap as wrist-thick arcs jumped across it. Inside the lab the noise was deafening.
But Tesla was outside, watching the antenna. Any surge that returned to the area would run up the antenna and jump off as lightning. Off the top of the antenna shot a six foot lightning bolt. The bolt kept going in a steady arc, though, unlike a single lightning flash. And here Tesla watched carefully, for he wanted to see if the power would build up, if his wave theory would work. Soon the lightning was twenty feet long, then fifty. The surges were growing more powerful. Eighty feet -- now thunder was following each lightning bolt. A hundred feet, a hundred twenty feet; the lightning shot upwards off the antenna.
Thunder was heard booming around Tesla now (it was heard 22 miles away, in the town of Cripple Creek). The meadow Tesla was standing in was lit up with an electrical discharge very much like St. Elmo's Fire, casting a blue glow. His theory had worked! There didn't seem to be an upper limit to the surges; he was creating the most powerful electrical surges ever created by man. That moment he set the record, which he still holds, for manmade lightning. Then everything halted. The lightning discharges stopped, the thunder quit. He ran in, found the power company had turned off his power feed.
He called them, shouted at them -- they were interrupting his experiment! The foreman replied that Tesla had just overloaded the generator and set it on fire, his lads were busy putting out the fire in the windings, and it would be a cold day in hell before Tesla got any more free power from the Colorado Springs power company! All the lights in Colorado Springs had gone out. And that, readers, is to me the greatest hack in history. I've seen some amazing hacks. The 8-bit Atari OS. The Mac OS. The phone company computers -- well, lots of computers. But I've never seen anyone set the world's lightning record and shut off the power to an entire town, "just to see what would happen".
For a few moments, there in Colorado Springs, he achieved something never before done. He had used the entire planet as a conductor, and sent a pulse through it. In that one moment in the summer of 1899, he made electrical history. That's right, in 1899 -- darn near a hundred years ago. Well, you may say to yourself, that's a nice story, and I'm sure George Lucas could make a hell of a move about it, special effects and all. But it's not relevant today. Or isn't it? Hang on to your hat.
THE SDI AND THE TESLA COIL
Last month we talked about an amazing hack that Nikola Tesla did -- bouncing an electrical wave through the planet, in 1899, and setting the world's record for manmade lightning. This month,let me lay a little political groundwork. Last October I attended Hackercon 2.0, another gathering of computer hackers from all over. It was an informal weekend at a camp in the hills west of Santa Clara. One of the more interesting memories of Hackers 2.0 were the numerous diatribes against the Strategic Defense Initiative. Most speakers claimed it was impossible, citing technical problems.
So many people felt obligated to complain about SDI that the conference was jokingly called "SDIcon 2.0". Probably the high(?) point of the conference was Jerry Pournelle and Timothy Leary up on stage debating SDI. I'll leave the description to your imagination -- it was everything you can think of and more. Personally, I was disturbed to see how many gifted hackers adopting the attitude of "let's not even try".
That's not how micros got started. I mentioned to one Time magazine journalist that if anyone could make SDI go, it was the hackers gathered there. I also believe that the greatest hacker of them all, Nikola Tesla, solved and SDI technical problem back in 1899. The event was so long ago, and so amazing, that it's pretty much been forgotten; I described it last issue. Let me present my case for the Tesla Coil and SDI.
SOVIET USE OF THE TESLA COIL
You will recall I said that Tesla was born in Yugoslavia (although back then, it was "Serbo-Croatia"). He is not unknown there; he is regarded as a national hero. Witness the Nikola Tesla museum in Belgrade, for instance. There's been interferences picked up, on this side of the planet, which is causing problems in the ham radio bands. Direction finding equipment has traced the interference in the SW band to two sources in the Soviet Union, which are apparently two high powered Tesla Coils.
Why on earth are the Soviets playing with Tesla Coils? There's one odd theory that they're subjecting Canada to low level electrical interference to cause attitude change. Sigh. Moving right along, there's another theory, more credible, that they are conducting research in "over the horizon" radar using Tesla's ideas. (The Soviets are certainly not saying what they're doing.) When I read about this testing, it worried me. I don't think they're playing with attitude control or radar. I think they're doing exactly what Tesla did in Colorado Springs.
COMPUTERS AND GROUNDING
Time for another discussion of grounding. Consider your computer equipment. You've doubtlessly been warned about static electricity, always been told to ground yourself (thus discharging the static into the ground, an electrical sinkhole) before touching your computer. Companies make anti-static spray for your rugs. Static is in the 20,000 to 50,000 volt range. Computer chips run on five to twelve volts. The internal insulation is built for that much voltage. When they get a shot of static in the multiple thousand volt range, the insulation is punctured, and the chip ruined. Countless computers have been damaged this way. Read any manual on inserting memory chips to a PC, and you'll see warnings about static; it's a big problem.
Now Tesla was working in the millions of volts range. And his special idea -- that the ground itself could be the conductor -- now comes into relevance, nearly a hundred years after his dramatic demonstration in Colorado Springs. For, you see, in our wisdom we've grounded our many computers, to protect them from static. We've always assumed the ground is an electrical sinkhole. So, with our three-pin plugs we ground everything -- the two flat pins in your wall go to electricity (hot and neutral); the third, round pin, goes straight to ground. That third pin is usually hooked with a thick wire to a cold water pipe, which grounds it effectively. Tesla proved that you can give that ground a terrific charge, millions of volts of high frequency electricity. (Tesla ran his large coil at 33 Khz). Remember, the lightning surging off his Coil was coming from the wave bouncing back and forth in the planet below.
In short, he was modifying the ground's electrical potential, changing it from an electrical sinkhole to an electrical source. Tesla did his experiment in 1899. There weren't any home computers with delicate chips hooked up to grounds then. If there had been, he'd have fried everything in Colorado Springs. There was, however, one piece of electrical equipment grounded at the time of the experiment, the city power generator. It caught fire and ended Tesla's experiment. The cause of its failure is interesting as well. It died from "high frequency kickback", something most electrical engineers know about. Tesla forgot that as the generator fed him power, he was feeding it high frequency from his Coil. High frequency quickly heats insulation; a microwave oven works on the same principle.
In a few minutes, the insulation inside that generator grew so hot that the generator caught fire. When the lights went out all over Colorado Springs, there was the first proof that Tesla's idea has strategic possibilities. It gets scarier. Imagine Tesla's Coil, busily pumping an electrical wave in the Earth. On his side of the planet, he was getting 130 foot sparks, which is a hell of a lot of voltage and current. And simple wave theory will show you that those sort of potentials exist on the far side of the planet as well. Remember, the wave was bouncing back and forth, being reinforced on every trip. The big question is how focused the opposite electrical pole will be. No one knows. But it seems probable that the far side of the planet's ground target area could be subjected to considerable electrical interference.
And if computer equipment is plugged inot that ground, faithfully assuming the ground will never be a source of electricity, it's just too bad for that equipment. This sort of electrical interference makes static look tiny by comparison. It doesn't take much difference in ground potential to kill a computer connected across it. Lightning strikes cause a temporary flare in ground voltage; I remember replacing driver chips on a network on all computers that had been caught by one lightning strike, when I lived in Austin.
Imagine the effect on relatively delicate electronics if someone fires up a Tesla Coil on the far side of the planet, and subjects the grounds to steep electrical swings. The military applications are pretty obvious -- those ICBM's in North Dakota, for instance. It's possible they could be damaged in their silos, and from thousands of miles away. Running two or more Coils, you don't have to bee exactly on the far side of the planet, either. Interference effects can give you high points where you need with varied tunings. Maybe, just maybe, the Soviets aren't doing "over the horizon" radar. Maybe they just bothered to read Tesla's notes. And maybe they are tuning up a real big surprise with their twin Coils.
"STAR WARS" AND THE TESLA COIL
You've heard of the Strategic Defense Initiative, or "Star Wars". We're searching for a way to stop a nuclear attack. Right now, we've got all sorts of high powered research projects, with the emphasis on "new technology". Excimer laser, kinetic kill techniques, and even more exotic ideas. As any of you know that have written computer programs, it's darned hard to get something "new" to work. Maybe it's an error to focus on "new" exclusively. Wouldn't it be something if the solution to SDI lies a hundred years ago, in the forgotten brilliance of Nikola Tesla? For right now we can immobilize the electronics of installations half a planet away. The technology to do it was achieved in 1899, and promptly forgotten. Remember, we're not talking vague, unproven theories here. We're talking the world's record for lightning, and the inventor whose power system lights up your house at night.
THE TESLA COIL WORKS
All we'd have to do is build it. You might not believe the story about Tesla in Colorado Springs, and what he did. It's pretty amazing. It has a way of being forgotten because of that. And I'm not sure you want to hear about the SDI connection. Still, as you work on a computer, remember Tesla. His Tesla Coil supplies the high voltage for the picture tube you use. The electricity for your computer comes from a Tesla design AC generator, is sent through a Tesla transformer, and gets to your house through 3-phase Tesla power. Tesla's inventions... they have a way of working..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://journeytothebeginning.blogspot.com/2007/04/alien-civilization-perspective.html
Alien Civilization, a Perspective
. . . .
. . . .
When showing for the first time a couple of years ago, the movie Independence Day sure had captured the heart of millions of people with its thrilling plot and stunning computer graphic effects. It’s a movie stuffed with alien spacecrafts and actions, so to speak. After such a long time, the exhilaration should have all lost in the void that embeds planet earth.
But one question lingers: how likely is an advance alien civilization visiting earth to be combative in nature, eager to fight and conquer anything that stands in the paths of their spaceships? My guess is, we are not likely to come across an alien civilization bound on conquest and annihilation.Let’s look at some facts first; manned space travel is no ordinary feat, at least in our terms.
The vast amount of resources, energy, and technology needed to build a spaceship, to cater for people (I mean aliens) who travel with it, to avoid any potential danger, to power it and the time needed to traverse celestial distances is simply unimaginable to any of us. It may sound ignominious, but our current scientific knowledge and technology is so limited that we cannot even overcome the technical difficulties at theoretical level.
The sheer amount of cost spent just to escape the confines of our home planet is a testimony of our primitiveness. In 1964, astronomer Nikolai Kardashev proposed a general method to classify how technologically advanced a civilization is by measuring (I shall omit all the technicalities here) the total amount of energy a civilization could utilize.
By the Kardashev scale, a type I civilization is able to harness all the power available on a planet. A type II civilization is able to harness all the power available from a star and finally a type III civilization would be able to harness all the power of a galaxy, which, in the case of our galaxy, the Milky Way, equals to about 10^36 Watt (1 followed by 36 zeroes). Currently, our civilization is a type 0.7, which consumes 10^13 (10 trillion) Watt. By extrapolation, it’s estimated that the earth will reach type I sometime around 23rd century.
. . . .
Naturally, an alien who comes knocking at our doors must have belonged to at least a type II civilization and as a corollary of that, they must at least be several millennia ahead of us in terms of science and technology. At the same time, one should always keep in mind that despite how advance our alien friends might be, there must have been a time when their ancestors were living a savage lifestyle, much like how our ancestors lived theirs dozens of millennia ago.
And as a life form, they need energy to keep things going around. In order to secure access to certain resources, some sort of nation states could have been formed to protect them from others.There have been many occasions, whether on TVs, books or games which feature aggressive and combative alien races, yet these alien races have somehow managed to rally themselves under a single planetary government.
Given their combativeness, it makes one wonders how they could reconcile with one another in the very first place! My point is, throughout the course of history, an alien civilization which is combative in nature would have fought so many wars with one another that they are likely to have destroyed themselves before they even have a chance to colonize other planets. Even if they managed to escape the fate of self-annihilation, constant wars and conflicts would have hindered progress significantly if not totally.
In addition, unless they learn how to live with each other peacefully, more wars will eventually break out. The more advance the civilization becomes, the more deadly the weapons deployed and the direr the consequences will be. On the other hand, civilizations which have come to realize the importance of sharing resources and working together would have a better chance to become a space faring species. Not only due to the fact that they could avoid any potentially devastating conflict, but cooperation would have allowed them to do just about anything more efficiently, from scientific researches to dealing with planetary issues.
As a conclusion, instead of worrying about being exterminated by some alien civilizations, we should instead worry about ourselves. Whether we will become a space faring species in the next few millennia or we will destroy ourselves would largely depend on how good we could reconcile with each other, and how willing we are to set aside all our differences and work together for the sake of our children.
Posted by Kok Theng at 12:37 AM
. . . .
. . . .
Michelle Wong said...
Wow, you are greedy indeed. An alien civilization can bring out so many hypothetical questions about technology, or even philosophical/sociological views. Hmmm, here is some of my 2 cents of thought:
- Energy requirement. I think as for the energy harvesting point of view, let's may be assuming it in this way. Driving your car to Singapore will take 3 full tanks of petrol. So since you can't drive all the way to Singapore with 1 full tank, you would have at least stop twice to refill. Then, can the same analogy can be applied here? And the second suggestion would be that we need a lot of petrol/coal/natural gas or whatever energy supplier to generate 10^13 Watt because these listed supplier above is producing only so much energy per unit mass. But what if the alien is using different material which generate 10 millions time of energy for the same unit mass? That planet might not be the exactly the same planet as we have now, not only in terms of composition of matter but could be also the different matters (and I wonder is the chemistry periodic table is fixed and no more additions or expansions?).
- The mindset of alien civilization. This is very interesting to actually think it in hypothetical way, if I am about to dream of the Utopian society :P But putting that aside, I would have to ask myself the few obvious question. What is their motivation to explore the universe? The reason I ask myself this question is that since you suggested that a LOT of energy is required, they must be looking for something before investing such enormous amount of energy! (of course, we presume that They think humanly like us *cost-benefit analysis*, which might not be true as I will ask later). Since you had proposed that it could be due to escape from genocide/warring/conflict, should we be worried about if our planet is habitable to them, or they will just pass by? :P I read this somewhere about the question: if 2 different species of animal meeting up together for the first time in their lives, for example like Galapagos tortoise vs Orang Utan, what would be the reaction. They said that the observation made often than not is actually neutralism, instead of jumping straight to fighting. Of course, they said it based on evolutionary psychology (I think it is in George Miller's The Mating Mind). Now, the trick question is, will human-alien relationship be something like neutralism or fighting over reproduction/survivality? Another interesting point of yours would be: what makes these aliens so great in producing such advanced technology to be able to travelled to this space. We might think they must have such high intelligence, philosophical undertakings (if they manage to be so peaceful and have no conflict at all), or supreme collectivist mindset (you know, just be collective, like the ants in the hive), and so on. But take a step backward: put yourself into the ant shoes and have a look at human being. If you look at human from the eyes of ant, you would be wondering what makes them travel so fast, or you as a fish, wow, human being actually floating on the water at one moment and sinking into water next and so forth. At the end, actually we are comparing it in a very different realms: one being ant/fish, and another one would be human being. Why I brought this up? I would think that if there is any alien to be met in the future, let's not presume too much on why or how they become where they are from the very human perspective, i think some call this anthropomorphism. And coming to your last point: how good we could reconcile with others in ensuring our survivality, i think a lot of philosophers/great thinkers have expounded heavily on this subject by understanding human nature and the prospects of it. There is only 2 points coming to me at this moment: Hegel said "What experience and history teach is this — that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it." and resources will become scarcer and rarer, and may be we are bound for collision, 2 persons wanting the same thing. But what resources or at what rate, I have no idea ;)
