Asperger's and the Uncanny Valley

Post Reply New Topic

This is nice.

http://www.shiftjournal.com/2011/01/26/ ... the-plain/

Enjoy.

I concur.

Nice allegory. I do not see any connection to the discussion or even aspergers. If there is one, can you tell me what it is? I have aspergers and do not understand abstractions well

I just like goats!

blaaaaaaaaaaaaah!! !

Yes sometimes I have trouble getting sarcasm, not uncommon for people with autism...anyways I am not stating anything is 'good' just because I think that. I have some ideas of things that could potentially lead to positive change but that doesn't mean they would or that I am a god who can declare something to be 'good' and expect that to make it good. Good intentions don't always lead to positive changes I understand that. But ok one example of something I think could be positive is if there was more focus on community in society, that is based on reading I've done and what I learned in sociology....but my claim that such a thing could be good is hardly infallible. So yeah still don't get how I am trying to be a god, or not taking responsibility for my actions by having ideas about things that could create positive changes...based on what I learn.

You implied when people try to change things for the better it can go wrong, hence the road to hell is paved with good intentions...so I gathered that your point was people shouldn't discuss or think about what changes could yeild positive results or push for said changes. So my question is how then are positive changes supposed to take place?....or maybe I misunderstood your point.

Also once again I never said nature cares what I think....and I never brought up the armed forces caring about what I think. I am still of the opinion that what works for wild animals probably doesn't work so well for humans....I am sure there are people who would agree and you clearly disagree. So fine you can stop informing me that nature and the armed forces don't care as I never suggested they did....I mean what is your point I shouldn't have a veiw point because nature and the armed forces don't care about it?

And sorry I didn't respond the way you wanted me to about what 'society is a human construct' means...what I mean by that is people created 'society' thus people are in control of it and have the ability to change it....not sure how else to explain what I mean by that. And yeah what I meant by destroy nature was more parts of it......forests, ecosystems ect.

I never denied cruelty towards humans exists but just because it does doesn't mean it's justified....and human behavior is not exactly comparable to hurricanes and volcanoes. Also though I suppose the cruelty towards humans depends on context, if someone rapes and kills someone I might find it justified if they suffer cruelty from others. Its the ostracizm and bullying of people with conditions like autism, or with a perceived 'difference' I don't see as justified. It exists and there's explanations for it....a justification would imply such cruelty should be excused an explanation just explains why it happens and leaves room for ways in which it could be improved.

And yeah I don't exactly know how to correctly quote and such for a conversation that's been going on multiple pages...I'd have to work on that...I'd agree I should have used the preview. Also it would seem I must not be wording a lot of what I am trying to say correctly....I've been under too much stress so its very possible I am not being too clear so yeah its possible I may take a break from this thread till I can collect my thoughts better.

What exactly do you mean? maybe you're not quite autistic? but that hardly applies to everyone here.

If you read my articles I avoid this problem by focusing on things that can be measure and/or things that almost all people consider to be good. For example most people consider longer lives, less disease, fewer unwanted pregnancies and less crime to be good. And by crime, I mean real crimes agains actual individuals where people complain about being hurt or loss of goods. Not imaginary "crimes against the state or society".
So now we can talk about: Does a certain course of action result in better numbers for these things?


How exactly did you go from not acting based on good intentions to not talking about how to act, why to act, and how we might evaluate the value of those actions. Seriously. Did you not realize that you are writing about two very different things --- actions, and thinking / problem solving?

You carefully decide what might be an appropriate action, and a way to measure its effects. it would probably be a good idea to have a time frame. If the action results in adverse effects, then who will be responsible for compensation?

Yes. Nature does not share your opinion. Except for 1.) fire, 2.) sophisticated technology, and 3.) reading and related levels of abstraction, I do not think that you can point out where something that humans do, animals do not, and that something that works for a large class of animals has not been found to also work for humans. Given that assumption, how did you come to your conclusion? Wait. do not tell me. Some respected authority figure told you and you believed it without bothering to do any research on your own. Thus providing another example of people being authoritarian. But you may prove me wrong by proviging some examples that show that there are things that work for humans that do not work for animals. Other than the items related to the three I mentioned above. After doing that (maybe but doubtful), you can move on to things that work for some species of social animals that do not work for humans.
.
Pretty much. Especially with regard to nature. You can understand nature, and thus work with her. If you try and fool her or ignore her you are on a path to failure and pain. Personally, I do not like failure and pain. Thus when I have a situation that I do not like, I seek out similar situations in the natural world, and find out how the residents there deal with it. Take the article that started this, about the keekorok baboon troop. If we learn from that, we can conclude that our world would be a lot better off if we really could kill off the top .1% That is not likely. (Though a lethal virus that keys in on a psychopathy gene would be nice) So how should we go about reshaping society so that it is flat / network / holocratic rather than hierarchial? Those are questions that I spend a fair amount of time thinking about. If you wish, you can contact me directly me at dpaladin at ix dot netcom dot com. You will be asked to prove that you are human.

Sort of. But the same could have been said about the Keekorok. Yet it required a nasty outside force of disease to change their society. If you think that we are different, then offer up a way for us to change our society, I also want to change it. As I stated, hierarchies are inherently prone to failure with unpleasant consequences for those in them and nearby. See Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union.


And the difference between "justified" and "i like it" is??? Find me an example where A does 'bad things' to B, where A does not believe that their behavior is completely 'justified'



A couple of possible solutions for stress: Run. Run till it hurts, then run more. When your first priority is immediately survival (that is what your body thinks when you run like that) other 'problems' becopme relatively minor. Take a good B complex and calcium. Melatonin may also help, especially if you are having trouble sleeping.

And you did much better this time. After I gave you some "tough love" Glad that you took it the right way. I am serious about your getting in touch with me directly. We have the same goals. I have just been working on it a lot longer.

I essentially do think this, but I would have worded it using "most NTs" and went on to say that they are acting under the influence of mind viruses and interpretations of intuition that are beyond their conscious control, even though it partially happens within conscious thought.

It's not that I like it. I don't like it.
It is just what I observe, and to pretend otherwise is a disservice to all, and would show a favoritism towards fantasy over reality.
I reluctantly accept it as the way things are. I wish I didn't have to.

I don't believe that the coded information to directly behave in a certain way is physically contained within DNA. I believe the DNA contains code for instructions that allow a link up to the system intelligence that does result in those behaviors. Just as certain fish species have DNA information that results in them swimming in synchronized schools.

DNA is physical and can only exert physical control over certain things. The system intelligence acts as the hive-mind, or a set of algorithms that reside completely within the human imagination, and are therefore not directly subject to the laws of physics.

Oddly, system intelligence is not "real", but is still a part of nature as it has observable effects on physical things.

It is disturbing to think that so many people are acting on instructions that are far beyond their control, but to ignore this is foolish.

Given the nature of our planet's delicate atmosphere, and the nature of most natural disasters such as impacts or mass volcanism, it would seem a safe bet that there have been many periods when the genetic mutation rate was through the roof. During such a time it would be very easy for the UV to prove selective, and not just in humans.

The UV is an algorithm, and so no, technically it isn't "real", but it still has real effects in the material world. Algorithms are not something that make themselves obvious like a visual display of a peacock. To nab algorithms one must use logic to reverse engineer processes based on observation. That is how we discovered natural selection.
Natural selection is not something you can touch, but to deny its existence would be foolish.

I recently stumbled across this site while researching my book. It was developed bythe same man who did this:
http://www.neoteny.org/

One of the few people that I have come across who is WAY.... smarter than I am. Unfortunately he had a brain aneurysm / stroke, and is not not very functional.

Finding that out took some research. I loved that link.

His ideas about neoteny kind of line up with recent research that seems to indicate the we started to become fully human about 50K years ago when, according to sull structure evidence hormones started to feminise humans.
Do a search on this, and choose your article.

They lifted that whole concept from Freud - an essay entitled 'das Unheimliche' -' the uncanny' The addition of Valley seems spurious, although I quite like it.

Just curious: Did you take the two minutes to look up the term "uncanny valley" ? I suspect not or you would not have said that the term seems spurious.

That is a great link with a ton of great information.
Much of it agrees with my own thoughts on the subjects.
There are also some ideas and associations that I hadn't much considered before.


The UV is absolutely a factor for ASD folks and I observe the effects almost daily.

As I said I thought the UV was likely driven by periods of high mutation rate as opposed to pathogen, but the more I thought about it the more I think that high mutation and high pathogen would have occurred together, both for similar reasons, as an interaction with each other.

The UV explains why many species are very uniform in their appearance and behaviors.
The uniformity may also be related to what Dr Jacob Bronowski called "stratified stability".
The changes in the code take place in steps, and then stabilize.

One of tje few things that I hate and despise is pompus insiders who use initials (UV) to demonstrate their insider knowleege without having the courtesy to explain that those initials mean or where they got them. It is rude, arrogant, childish, and a few other things that I am to busy to bother thinking of now. (Was this a bit subtle for youi ) I am sure thjat they the words for which they stand are in the article somewhere, but a quick glance did not turn them up, except in the word juvenile (how appropriate)

Did you take the two seconds to read what BelleAmi said properly? They said the addition of "valley" seems spurious not the term "uncanny valley" itself.

It doesn't take that many brain cells to figure out that UV could just stand for...BOOM ..."uncanny valley" which is right there in all it's glory in the very subject of this topic.

Though olympiadis could have used something like "uncanny valley (UV)" atleast once so as to be really clear.

But I like your anger...and love the carefree way you get mad at people with nary a thought...