Asperger's/Autism; a spiritual condition?

Post Reply New Topic

Thank you!! ! Whether there is anything beyond the event horizon, whether that thing or "no thing" is a person, whether that person can meaningfully be called "god," -- these things remain unknown and probably will remain unknown for the forseeable future. Some of us would like to go into that unknown in so far as it is possible, others of us are "crazy" to go there, many of us don't care and can't see the point. Some in each group are probably autists.

How could we know whether autism inclines toward greater spirituality? Its probably a mixed bag. We are freer than others from the secularism of modern culture and society, we dig solitude, we are used to being considered strange. On the other hand, we do tend to approach life logically and logic crowds out other uses of the mind which allow people to go deeper into the unknown. We can't trust our senses.

We can search for signs of autism in the great teachers, saints, prophets and mystics. But most of them are not recognized as such until after their deaths and psychological autopsies are pretty iffy. But we really can't leave the subject alone, can we?

That is so cool

Thanks Monkey.

ruveyn, you seem to try to find a way to prove that mysticism is useless. While you may believe that the world does not need mystics/spiritual people and would be better off without them, your going to have to live with us because we are not going away. I've tried to show you how people who have made major contributions to humanity were inspired by what would be referred to as mystical experiences.

You seem to ignore these facts. I believe you shield yourself from these mysteries because you are afraid that it will punch holes in your belief system. You may be an atheist, but that is no reason to let that define you. Many geniuses and inventors acknowledge these mysteries as playing a role in their creativity. You continue to deny this because it's your own superstitious beliefs that cloud your vision to the ultimate reality.

Kant needed this construction of the concious because he hasn't a material theory about the brain and its functions. We have such a theory, at least in the beginnings, therefore we are no longer in the need of such a construction.



It is not - not being aware about the physical background does not mean that something non-physical happens. When I would say "I am angry" it is a physical state of my brain. You argument would be that the statement "This is wet" would exclude the statement "Water is nothing more than Dihydrogenmonooxid", because realizing the state "wet" does not need a deeper understanding of the molecule structure of water. What we call "anger" (or any other emotion) is category in which strip states of our brain into categories.




We live in the universe we live in - this universe is governed by laws. Those laws contain logic. Because we can't take a stand outside the universe to observe this universe, our brans and thinking must obey this laws.



Which richer "reality"? In the roughly 1000 years mystical thinking governed Europe there was less progress made than in single year today.



"Real problems"? How we can cure AIDS? How we can maintain a higher standard of living for 6 bio. humans?



Even here - the notoriously non-mystical Stoics showed well working way to handle to dilemma. This dilemma is raised when the mind realizes the the reality does not fit with the wishful thinking. Accepting the world as-it-is helps here a lot.

Last edited by Dussel on 22 Feb 2009, 2:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

But: Kant used this knowledge about concepts to explain the non-empirical concepts of Newton's physics. Here is Kant outdated in some respect, because the "conceptual schemes" of a constant time and space is no longer supported by the empirical evidence we have. Without these born-with concepts we wouldn't reach the point of realizing that they are simply wrong.

The same is to perhaps to say with god. Maybe our brain is wired to see something "divine", our empirical knowledge can show us the flaws of this "default-setting" and can liberate us form such wrong ideas.

My belief system? It is simplicity itself. Things are what they are and nothing is what it is not. Nothing that is, is contradictory. And lo! The scales fell away from my eyes.

ruveyn

Well, that is an assertion. I would counter-argue that a material theory of the brain does not deny mental states, and their 1st-person experience, thus I do not see a reason why your reference to Kant matters too much.

Well, the issue is that the physical background is not the basis of the knowledge. The knowledge is based upon something non-physical. If something can be without the physical background, then there must be a non-physical element.

When you say "I am angry" you refer to a non-physical state of your mind, not of your brain, because you do not necessarily know about the link between the physical brain and your mind.

Well, no, you actually are completely misunderstanding me. "This is wet" is referent to a feeling provided about water. This feeling is non-material, as it is qualia. Saying "this is wet" is actually a statement about a mind experience provided by the material, not a statement about the material, beyond that this material conjures up experiences of wetness.


Brains obey logic, but the position that brains understand logic is not supported by your argument.

Rocks exist in a universe that we live in. This universe is governed by laws. Those laws contain logic. Our rocks do not take a stand outside the universe to observe it. Our rocks must obey the laws of the universe.

Have we then successfully argued for the sentience of rocks? No. Rocks cannot understand logic. Why then would human brains have to understand logic? They don't, the connection does not necessarily exist.


The additional relationship in reality that mystics see is something that people enjoy and find profound.


Well, the problems are subjective. I mean, you could be fine with AIDS, you could not care about higher standards of living, even wanting them to be lower for some groups. It is not as if these questions demand to be considered important, as such a notion is meaningless.


Accepting the world as it is does not necessarily help, but rather can be incredibly depressing, and does not necessarily confer the same positive benefits that an irrational belief could provide. Not only that, but there is a question about the proper way to understand the world as it is, as subjectivity and emotionality are integral parts of being in the world, things that it would almost be impossible to actually address the world without.

Those two statements are essentially identical. They're both saying the same thing.

ruveyn will do stuff like that. I was once tempted to correct him in saying that I did not need to be corrected, but I did not think it worth it.

True, but Magnus was perhaps misinterpreting the significance of nondeterminacy in quantum mechanics (although talking about eigenvalues and Hermitian operators may not be the best way to clarify things). The point is that quantum mechanics *does* make a very definite prediction over a large number of experiments, making it perfectly fine in the scientific paradigm.

ruveyn is an Aspie and is genetically programmed to do stuff like that.

ruveyn

What I was referring to is how a particle can appear in two places which is dependent upon the observer. When we are looking, it behaves like a particle. When we are not looking, it behaves as a wave.

I'm taking a graduate course on quantum mechanics this semester and am having so much fun learning all about these Hermitian matricies! (Half sarcasm there.) One thing that I finally got clarified for myself was the truth behind the whole observer deal. It has absolutely nothing to do with our minds. In the two slit experiment, "observation" of which slit the particle enters has nothing to do with our eyes. In experiments, physicists use a light source and shine it perpendicular to the path of the electrons right behind the slits. A detector then watches for a small burst of light as the electron hits the photon. So all this observation is, is simply collision of light quanta with electrons. Nothing mystical or supernatural about that. It's solid, hard, objective reality.

Something can be both a wave and a particle depending upon how light hits it?

"Wave" or "particle" are models to describe behaviour of "thing in itself" ("Ding ansich"). There is no reason to assume that both behaviours must exclude each other, but can be similar ways of description.

To understand nature on deeper physical level you emancipate yourself from the ideas you have from all-day experience and need to accept that the world is only to understand on very abstract and mathematical level.

There is a bit of confusion on what quanta really are.

from Introduction to the Quantum Theory, emphasis added