Theorem

Post Reply New Topic

We do have facial expressions and so on. Just subtle ones that few really pick up on. You do really really need to look for them to notice though.

Link please to some of these studies. (I have university access to them all)

It is an incredibly useful theorem if properly proven (something I will do when I have chance). It means that (a) there exists a "cure" for Autism and more importantly (b) we can do it on a partial level. So we could pick and choose traits, which would be amazing.

But the result I most like is that we can blame society pretty much for everything.

Arguing by society here are we? Sorry their society. Really bad form. Though happily I have a proof of my statement all in my head, just need to write it down at some point.

Think about it. Do you retain everything? Of course not. So consider what we do retain. If we retain more information wrt to noise, light, touch etc - we are going to be more bothered about it. Yes?

Everything. See my point on TOM (or more to the point TOS) to get an idea where I am going here.

Where?

The group which includes some people who don't have autism and misses off a load who do. Brilliant.

who said aspies were more inclined towards maths types things?

i thought the issue was more an unneven profile in abilities or a huge spike in one area (special interests).

You can find aspies who are arts based, language based, maths based, science based.

in fact, it can be anything. but it tends to consume and be the vantage point or perceptual point from which we "read and analyse" the world.

i am not the only dx'ed Aspie who struggles to add up or subtract without using my fingers.
but i can do other things maths aspies cannot do.

But i am still very patterned and systematic in my approach to things.

That is not a theorem. That is a hypothesis. Theorems have to be proved logically or mathematically.

ruveyn

Since nothing I have said so much as implies that people with AS do not make facial expression, nor relies on such a premise, nor is contrary to the premise that people with AS do make facial expressions, I fail to see what you view the relevance of this comment as being.

You seem confused as to where the burden of evidence lies.

You have asserted a theorem and made claims about things supporting the theorem. You should have posited evidence supporting these claims, or at least have independently verified that the claims you made were supported by evidence.

You comments strongly indicate that you have not done this, and I wonder why such an apparently poorly researched theorem is our duty to disprove (in your mind) rather than your job to substantiate (if you wish others to place credence in it).

I hope you are not actually attending a university as any university that fails to teach its students where the burden of evidence lies, is doing a very poor job indeed.

I doubt that very much.

I see no such cure. You would need to substantiate this with a great deal more detail than I can see in this thread. Nothing you've posited even hints at a cure so far as I can ascertain.

I cannot see how you have arrived at this conclusion.


That is not useful or explanatory so far as I can determine. In fact it seems rather counter-productive to me.

But to be very specific with you, if someone suggests that some aspect that memory relies on is operating differently, this is more specific and therefore more useful than a theorem that vaguely points the finger at memory, in much the way that it is less useful to discuss a "mobility problem" than to specifically locate the problem as a worn out hip in need of replacement.

You see a mobility problem could be any number of things, but a worn out hip tells us why there is a problem with mobility, what we might do about, and is predictive of the kinds of mobility problems and other symptoms we will probably observe in such a case.

If there is a problem with sorting and processing information, while this probably has implications generally for memory, it is a sorting and processing issue specifically. Moving away from specificity in favour of vagueness might be your notion of useful, but it's not mine.

I have 3 speeds of thinking, well really just 2. Those are: Lightning fast, slow, and ret*d. The ret*d speed doesn't really count because it consists of a total inability to process much of anything....like what usually happens to me in a social situation.


I could be wrong about this....but I think it isn't the quantity of sensory information that is a problem for us, rather it is the quality. I think when our perceptions are recording pleasant information, we can go at it non-stop without overload sometimes for days on end...as with stimming and our special interests.. But when those perceptions are unpleasant and/or nonsensical...we want to quit before we even get started. The reason for that is probably because we aren't interested in the pecking order games.

But then we should ask - why not? Why aren't we interested in playing these games and doing all the fun things people do with each other? The obvious answer is that the things people do with each other aren't fun to us, not usually. And why not?

There are 2 or 3 really good reasons why our idea of fun is generally not what NTs idea of fun is. We like to explore things in depth. We don't see a point in pretending to be one way when you are another way....and obtaining a higher rank is a ridiculous reason to us. This makes me laugh. NTs would walk on nails barefoot if it gives them a higher rank. We can't even crack a smile for a higher rank. That's how little we care about it. NTs seem to have no problem remembering every nuance and minor detail necessary to get them to a higher rank....and we can't be bothered. Such a waste of time. No memory effort alloted for that in the autistic wiring. We have infinite patience for our own routines, stims, and special interests. We have zero patience for social games. Is this because it is easier for us to remember things when we have control over structuring them?

If we don't naturally have a modicum of respect for what is taking place, we will be motivated neither to participate nor to remember much about what is occuring in a social context. The entire force of our attention will be upon not missing the first opportunity to make our escape. And we will be sure to remember every single detail in that endeavor, while simultaneously we are hatching our escape plan and how to explain our sudden departure..

Kangoogle,

You do NOT have university access to all studies. To make such a claim is LUDICROUS! I can make a claim that I doubt ANYONE can disprove, and will HAPPILY pay for full proof to the contrary, complete with how. *****NOBODY*****(Except for specific research by an authorized person where the research is very specific and controlled and limited, of course) has full access to all studies about ANYTHING worthwhile!

You remind me of one person I knew one time. He claimed he developed a method to debug the logic in ANY program 100% automatically and programatically. The end result, it was claimed, would be NO errors!! !! I told him that was IMPOSSIBLE! I stated examples, etc... to show what I understood, and he said that was correct. He got his DOCTORATE on this! And he said I should read his thesis. I figured OK. I READ IT! It CEMENTED my beliefs further. He wouldn't budge! Not ONE inch! So I decided to give him a VERY simple example!

OK, Say you were writing a translation program to translate English to French and/or the reverse? HOW could it detect flaws in the translation routines?

SIMPLE HUH!? EASY problem! ACTUALLY, the above was used because it was obvious, and involved 2 interests I have. ALSO, it was a problem posed to the E.U. and to the U.S. Navy! HIS response? "OH, It can't do THAT, it only works with numbers.". Point of fact though, it really worked with NOTHING! You had to REWRITE the program in another language, and it ran both routines and checked the output. And he got a DOCTORATE for THAT!

So it is interesting that he made SUCH lofty claims, and degraded them SO much, and the truth is simpler still. Frankly, I liked him better as an insurance salesperson.

In psychology they dont

But I do have the most wonderous proof which covers nearly everything - well the sensory stuff is not absolute but probabilistic. I would not have made this thread if I was not close to proof.

Even a maths genius struggles with these things. Think as to how many maths people who are not on the spectrum somewhere - and how good are they?

= mathematical approach when stripped down modulo detail.

You said:

"But I DO have the most wonderous proof "

AND

"I would not have made this thread if I was not CLOSE to proof"

OK, WHICH is it!? The second statement seems to discount the first. AND, if you have such "WONDEROUS" proof, let us see it!

It may be a mathematical approach, but it is still quite different. It has always amazed me that something so relatively simple(logically), is so relatively hard for me. Still, I can do a lot of it in my head. And I HAVE found that some that are supposedly GOOD in math do WORSE in the basics than I do!

Here’s my theorem:

I lack an inner voice or conflict. I have never had to deal with an inner conflict so I don’t know how to deal with an outer one. In other words I don’t know how to parry with people. When I want something all I know how to do is just grab a club and start swinging. Figuratively speaking of course.

Lightening fact = intuition. The rest depends on the depth of stuff you are thinking about.

I could be wrong about this....but I think it isn't the quantity of sensory information that is a problem for us, rather it is the quality. I think when our perceptions are recording pleasant information, we can go at it non-stop without overload sometimes for days on end...as with stimming and our special interests.. But when those perceptions are unpleasant and/or nonsensical...we want to quit before we even get started. The reason for that is probably because we aren't interested in the pecking order games.
[/quote]
We have to memorise stuff to be affected by it though - even if only for a fraction of a second. We let more enter our short term memory it seems.

Because their society is not intuitive to us - so why should be measure ourself against it? More interestingly, would our society be isomorphic to theirs.

The opportunity is here - assuming I am right.

How badly do you want to be humiliated?

On THIS post? OH, PLEASE DO! What are you going to do? Don't tell me your first name is peter! NAW, that would be FUNNY! Are you going to tell me you saw a variant of that for sale for a lot of money? That is OLD NEWS! They had similar things back THEN also! Anyway, that is SAD!

Are you going to show me a way to get ALL information on anything? GREAT! ESPECIALLY since a lot of it isn't on the internet, or is on unroutable networks, etc.... As I said, I would PAY for that info!

Oh well, I'll wait. I have to get my laundry anyway, so I guess I can stay up a bit longer. I'm CURIOUS!

Kangoogle, I would be much surprised if anyone were impressed by such comments as you make above.

Who only knows why if you've got something worth our consideration, you'd waste your and our time with such things...which is why, I for one will not be bothering to even read what you've typed if you do not come up with some worthwhile goods (worthwhile in this context being evidence, arranged into either strong or better still logically sound arguments) soon.

It becomes difficult to believe you have anything other than bluff when you fail to have the necessary facts to counter objections (one of which I believe must be false anyway....poor showing indeed if you cannot even counter provably false objections), much less establish a strong argument supporting your primary claim.

Although even this will be insufficient to sway me personally. You see I cannot get past the fact that your primary claim "AS = memory+society" lacks meaning. What precisely do you think memory is? Some corporate biologically "whole" neuro-process, or a whole bunch of things that we humans sometimes group together (without even really knowing what we are or should be including and excluding) when it is convenient to do so as a "thinking tool"?