Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

Logic can be misused because it is only as good as one's starting assumptions. Moreover, even when you have some very nice sets of initial axioms, like those of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, logic necessarily leads you (if you can follow Gödel) to the conclusion that any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

And, it strikes me, that elementary arithmetic is small potatoes in in comparison to the grandiose goal of obviating faith through a logically-proven god.

This guy might be fun to have a beer with, though.

[1] I didn't come to this conclusion through the linked article alone. Watch the youtube video that ice_man posted, and you'll see it in the first 60 seconds of him talking. This video, by the way, is an excellent study in propaganda filmmaking techniques. (Watch all 3 parts.)

Well, not really, but it just made my morning to see someone being so reasonable (as in your last sentences) instead of just yelling "He's a pretentious idiot who can't talk clearly".

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huxley on Sidis