Asperger's/Autism; a spiritual condition?

Post Reply New Topic

bunny.....it is these obnoxious aspies who are most likely to be the next step in evolution.

Consider this: The most obnoxious aspies are hybrids...NT/Aspie. IMO it is only a matter of time before they start playing the NTs more than the NTs are playing them. There is really nothing holding them back except brutal conditioning as children at the hands of NT bullies...and these cruel NTs are very effective culling agents for the aspie population.

When aspies are bullied, the weak ones become severely dysfunctional through psychological maiming. But the strong aspies will pass through these childhood rites of initiation relatively unscathed...except for their latent anger which can then be channeled into ambition for financial power and social prestige when they mature. Because their natural tendency toward in-depth thinking can be tapped as a productive contribution to society...they will be highly valued and much in demand. They already are in demand. As more and more of these strong aspies become powerful, successful and influencial, they will gradually begin to reproduce more aggressively.

When considering the possibility of aspies being the next step in evolution, it should be assumed the most obnoxious traits of autistics would become dominant. Why??

Because in our present civilization we reward narcissists. We make them our leaders. We like to elevate those who are narcissistic and charismatic. When you combine those traits with aspie geek aptitude you get a winning combination for the continued acceleration of a technological civilization. Granted it will take a few generations to work out the social kinks...because the hybrid NT/Aspie will need to make some minor adjustments in the social order to enable them maximum performance efficiency. And there would be no reason to prevent them from doing so.

Now the mystics among us may well be the perfect mates for these geek-narcissist hybrids. It is said opposites attract.

Are you saying 98% of people use Ketamine, LSD, mushrooms, and MDA?

bunny.....it is these obnoxious aspies who are most likely to be the next step in evolution.

I can't tell you how much I doubt that. Why do Aspies make statements like this anyway? Because to self-glorify and self-aggrandize is to forget one's insecurites and inadequacies. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculously arrogantly stupid.

Physical and chemical influences can change and alter our mind (ageing, drugs, injuries, etc.). Specific influences do cause very specific alterations - the dementia caused by ageing is different than the dementia caused by Alzheimer or drug abuse. A lobotomy lead to two separated minds in one head, other specific injuries do have very specific alterations of the mind. The same is to say for drugs (legal and illegal). A few atoms more or less on a molecule can alter the very specific influence of this substance in the mind drastically to an other and similar specific way.

If our mind is not a function on a mere physical and chemical level, how this, in some cases very specific, alterations can happen? If our mind would something "outside" the physical world there should be something remaining which could not be altered, but there is nothing which could not be altered this way. Therefore we must conclude that our mind is at the end nothing more than a very complex physical process.

The process runs via the validation of our predictions: When I apply a logic reasoning in e.g. calculating the temperature of a boiler at a given state and I measure an other temperature than I know that something in my reasoning was wrong. The constant feedback from the empirical world provides us humans with a correction mechanism which erases the logical flaws in our model of the world.

I just say that you can reproduce such "spiritual experiences" with a few mg or even µg on command, like switching a light bulb.

How have you come to that conclusion?

Now the mystics among us may well be the perfect mates for these geek-narcissist hybrids. It is said opposites attract.

Are you suggesting we conduct a controlled study??? Because I warn you, the US government IS listening. cyclops

Well, ok, but a function of physical and chemical processes does not equal BEING these processes. Our mind is already, by necessity, outside of the physical world. For instance, seeing the color red, is not the same as being informed about the wavelength of external radiation, or even having the neurological processes described to you.

If seeing red is different from this information though, then seeing red is not the same as either of these, and therefore the mind is non-material.

Basically the argument goes like this:
1) Qualia are non-material
2) Qualia exist
3) Ergo, non-material things exist

Both 1 and 2 are pretty easy to accept, there is first person evidence of both claims. Therefore, the 3rd claim is valid.

But the issue with that interpretation is that you are saying that logic is a theory, but logic is what judges theories. Ergo, I would counter-argue that your view is confused as it puts makes logic its own product.

I just say that you can reproduce such "spiritual experiences" with a few mg or even µg on command, like switching a light bulb.

No - if you use e.g. LSD, agreeable a chemical substance, than your idea of "seeing something red" may change to "seeing something green" or "tasting something red". If you take Ketamine (not to much!) you may feel "red" directly in an abstract way, if you take take MDA you may develop a deep emotional love or hate to "red" as an entity.

We try to understand first what happened in unaltered brain: The signal "electromagnetic radiation of wavelength ca. 650 nm arrived at the eye and some receptors become active". What your brain does it checks with former experiences what to do with this information, put it in line with information gained prior and decides not to touch the hot iron or to prepare for hot sex night. This processes have nothing supernatural, but are complex data processing processes.

I deny 1) - and therefore 2) and 3) are irrelevant.

It is own product, but our logic must based on the physical processes in our brains, thus this processes are based on the same principles which are ruling the world outside our brains, it is consequent that both must be closely related.

Are you suggesting we conduct a controlled study??? Because I warn you, the US government IS listening.

Um... ok, this does not refute anything I said at all. In any form or fashion.

I never invoked the supernatural. The issue though, is that the difference I drew was clear, you are just side-stepping the problem I put forward, either seeing red is knowing about the mental processes involved with red, and the electro-magnetic signals, or it is different. And it seems pretty obvious that it is different.

1 is a definition, that is why it is so easy to accept. 2 is a premise, and one that you can deny, but leaves me to think that you are absolutely absurd. Denying 2 is like claiming that trees do not exist. You cannot deny 1, because that's how qualia are defined. I mean, this Dresden Codak comic makes that clear in the reference to the realm of qualia. http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_059.html

1) Qualia are non-material
2) Qualia exist
3) Ergo, non-material things exist

But how can logic produce itself before it is validated? The notion seems deeply flawed. As well, your psychology is profoundly questionable, given that your position involves denying a large number of natural intuitions, which if we say a relation exists, would seem as if they would be much more valid than you suppose, as intuitions and emotions and mystical things are based upon physical principles, but their processes do not generate truths by your own system of thought. Thus either mysticism is valid, or logic isn't by
the mechanism you propose, at least if I understand you well.

It shows that your perception of light of wavelength of 650 nm ("red") is able to alter with matter (aka drugs). Therefore the process in the mind of recognizing "red" is material process, like processing the electrical impulses for the keyboard to actual letters on the screen. Nothing more.

It not different - it ruled by the same physical principle: There is no physics of the brain and an other one outside the brain.

1) is not a definition, but a statement. Qualities of matter are not non-material, they are the material. We define the material world with the attributes we apply to different kinds of matter. When I say "This is a piece of purified silver." than I do compare the attributes of the object and make a synthesis in my brain, according to empirical knowledge and definitions what attributes "silver" has and bring via this process the sensual phenomena (reflection of light on the surface etc.) into an orderly array and finally attribute to the name "silver". The attributes ("qualia") of any object in our sensual perception are are clearly material, even defining matter.

Via the evolutionary process - even a relative primitive animal must have some born-with logic: When I eat than I am no longer hungry, when I move than my position in space and time changes. A hard-wired understanding of this ideas is needed just to survive. When A than B. It would be more than surprising if such hard-wired logic would just gone lost with humans. The difference is that our concious mind is aware about this logic.

No, it is a definition. Qualia is the term that is used for non-material sensation. It is not the same as quality. Not only that, but you haven't really refuted the notion qualia are non-material. I mean, basically, you say that qualia result from material, therefore they are material, but that doesn't prove a darn thing. Citing the difference between hearing about the wavelength, and the neuroresponse to red, and seeing red is an argument. Frankly, I still think you are trying to side-step this issue.