Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/26/24 in all areas

  1. I understand the point you're attempting to convey with all of this, which is that these are all at least some psychological evidence that parts of the mind may exist elsewhere in the body and, by extension, part of mind may exist external to the body. It's true that trauma changes the mind our brain creates, but the psychological effects of trauma isn't truly evidence that mind has lost pieces of itself with that truama--it's not evidence that parts of the mind exist in the parts of the body lost or exposed to trauma. The psychological effects of truama simply shows how easily brain's responses are influenced by truama, which is how easily the mind our brain constructs may be influenced by the data it receives through its sensory array. For example, congenital blindness doesn't suggest that parts of the mind are lost to what some are unable to see nor does it suggest that parts of the mind reside in our eyes. What blindness shows is how the lack of access to visual sensory data affects the mind our brain is able to construct--the parts of the brain associated with our responses to visual sensory do not respond or function as efficiently without that sensory data. In another example, the lost of a hand doesn't suggest that a piece of the mind is lost with that hand. The mind our brain constructs through the lost of a limb merely suggests our brain's reaction to the lost of access to the sensory data that limb has or could have provided. Psychological effects, to be clear, are not evidence that pieces of the mind reside elsewhere no more than the depression some experience on rainy days suggests that pieces of the mind reside in sunlight or is blotted out by that rain. The changes in our mental state are merely evidence of the fragility of the balance between the afferent influences on brain functions and our brain's efferent responses to those influences. That may be true, but the real magic is in the mind of the magician who head that hat likely sits upon.
    3 points
  2. Yeah, independent creation happens all the time*. Especially on a smaller scale than calculus. “you stole my idea” is pretty common, too *I’ve got a cartoon sketch about dinosaurs watching a triceratops and claiming to be tricurious, and Colbert made a similar joke on his show a few years later. Nobody stole the idea from me, and it’s a fairly obvious play on words. Not the only time something like this happened to me.
    2 points
  3. Yes, absolutely. But remember the context of this discussion - the claim was made that autism is a disease that’s due to blood toxicity, and can be cured on that basis. This of course is utter nonsense, and as an autistic person myself I’d really wish there was a way to rid us of such snake oil salesmen (and there are many of them). Autism - like other forms of neurodivergence - isn’t a “disease”, it’s a difference in brain physiology that has genetic, developmental and environmental factors involved. It cannot be “cured” in the classical sense, for that reason. It manifests across a range of areas - social, cognitive, executive functioning etc -, and impacts a person’s quality of life anywhere on a spectrum from very mildly to extremely severely. Succinctly stated, neurodivergent people tend to have support needs - we must live in a world that is fundamentally designed for neurotypicals (both culturally and evolutionary), but because we aren’t neurotypical, some expectations can be hard for us to meet and some situations difficult to handle, and we need support and accommodations to manage them. Some of us need only a little (or no) support and accommodation, others need a lot, and for some it’s debilitating, and they need 24/7 support and care. So in my personal opinion, it’s not about “curing” autism - which fundamentally suggests that we’re somehow deficient and need fixing, which is a questionable stance to hold. Rather, it’s about recognising that autistics may need extra supports and accommodations in certain areas, and being willing to offer those. There are also meaningful interventions available for at least some of the more severe and debilitating manifestations of autism, and I completely agree that these should be offered so long as the aim is to improve quality of life, and not just to make people “less autistic” and “more normal”. That’s an important difference. We will never be neurotypical, but with the right help we can become less dependent on external supports. There’s another thing I’d like to mention, which is not so often talked about - some commonly held life goals and values that are normal and generally unquestioned in the neurotypical world may not be shared by all autistics. For example, wanting and needing to be social and around others, wanting to acquire possessions and material goods, wanting to have family and procreate, conforming to gender norms, following generally accepted blue prints for how life should be lived, ideas around what has value and what doesn’t, concepts of what gives us meaning and joy in life etc. While this is of course very individually different, not all of us autistics share these goals and values, so we end up in a situation where we are forced to try and fit into a society and culture that feels fundamentally alien to us. We can’t be our real selves, but must train ourselves to wear a certain mask and act a role so that we might appear to be able to meet the expectations of a neurotypical society, simply because it’s practically and logistically very difficult to exist outside that system. We feel like we don’t have a choice, so we live a life that’s at odds with who we are. This creates a lot of suffering and struggle. So at least part of our suffering isn’t due to autism itself, but due to demands and expectations placed on us by others to “be a certain way”. Such behaviour - called stimming - causes us no suffering. On the contrary, it feels soothing and comfortable, and dissipates the perceived pressure of sensory overload. I do it by (gently) pressing certain places on my hands for example, and it helps me to self-regulate. Who are others to say that this is wrong and needs fixing? I would suggest that the problem here isn’t this particular behaviour pattern itself, but how it is perceived by others. From a neurotypical point of few it appears meaningless, odd and not normal, and it is tacitly assumed that the one engaged in it does it only because he feels compelled to do so, and thus suffers. But it’s not like that - it’s a self-regulation tool, like people take a painkiller when they have a headache. Both help increase well-being. The problem is only that society has deemed taking painkillers to be acceptable behaviour, but not flicking your fingers. If you stop an autistic person from stimming, or shame them into hiding the behaviour, you aren’t acting to promote their overall welfare, even if as a result they might appear “more normal” and supposedly fit in better. I would suggest that training autistics to appear less autistic is generally not in our overall best interest, unless we ourselves specifically ask for such interventions. This is a difficult ethical question, particularly for severely autistic children - there’s ways and training methods to make them appear less autistic, so they can function better in neurotypical society. The price they pay of course is that they’re forced to be something they’re not, that they’re forced to play a part in a story they themselves haven’t read or understood. Are you really doing them a favour, are they really suffering less afterwards? Most people in the autistic community who underwent such childhood interventions seem to say that no, it wasn’t in their best interest, even if it did enable them to function better in society. The general consensus is that providing supports and accommodations on an individual basis if and when needed, is probably the best way for most of us. Sometimes that means we need a lot of support, and that’s the measure of a modern enlightened society - how it relates to their weakest members, who perhaps can’t contribute in traditional ways. Caveat: if the behaviour is dangerous, or injurious to one self or others, as sadly sometimes is the case, then of course intervention is necessary regardless.
    1 point
  4. Leibniz. See Leibniz–Newton calculus controversy.
    1 point
  5. I'm start with this statement which is rather erroneous but rather than point out the mistakes I will instead describe the quantum vacuum in accordance with the mainstream. From that the errors will become more readily obvious. I will be including related formulas so may take it a bit (in case of cross posts lol). Lets start with the period prior to inflation the hot dense state. We all agree its a tiny region at an immense density and temperature. In our models we feel the energy density is roughly \[10^{19} K\]. So everything is in that thermal equilibrium state. All particles are in thermal equilibrium. At that temperature if you apply the Bose-Einstein statistics formula you will find you have roughly 10^90 photons. This is an equivalency its actually a quark/gluon plasma state other particles can exist but recall we cannot distinguish any particle species. Here is the Bose-Einstein statistic. Don't worry I don't expect anyone to be able to use these formulas. \[ n_i = \frac {g_i} {e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT} - 1}\] In that formulas the effective degrees of freedom is 2 for photons. I gave you an article with the pertinent details earlier on. That's your low entropy state. Now lets look at the quantum vacuum including zero point energy. Were all familiar with the quantum harmonic oscillator. This was one of the earlier studies on universe from Nothing scenarios. Including Guth's original inflation which unfortunately had the effect of "Runaway Inflation". Now one of the problems you have in that quoted section is your likely not aware that when particles come into existence they have to obey numerous conservation rules. The relevant one is conservation of charge in this particular case this includes matter and its antimatter pair. For photons it is its own antiparticle the distinction lies in its circular polarization. anti-photons are Right hand polarized while photons are left hand. This rule also applies to other particles such as neutrinos. Hopefully you can see a problem with your negative and positive universe scenario. Particularly since anti matter is readily formed in numerous processes including stars. https://www.space.com/21889-solar-flares-antimatter-particles.html not to mention we collide matter particles and can can produce antimatter. Knowing that how would this correlate to you negative and positive energy universes ? Something to keep in mind, just like an electric circuit where you cannot measure voltage by placing your test leads on the same copper wire until you have a potential difference between the two lead points. One cannot determine how much energy a vacuum contains between any two coordinates with there is no difference in its potential energy. We can however look for indirect evidence Casimarr effect is one example. The main problem with the zero point energy quantum vacuum is that observations vs calculation show an error margin of 10^(120) aka the vacuum catastrophe. There are plausible solutions to this still underway. \[d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2]\] \[S\kappa(r)= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}\] lets start with the FLRW metric we wont need curvature so we can keep it set at k=0 c=1 following formulas will be in normalized units. We need to describe two field of lets go with photon/antiphoton for simplicity. Under QFT we have two operators the creation/annihilation operators. They further correspond to their propagators as well but we don't need that detail. QFT uses them to model how particles are created subsequently destroyed. This link details how it applies to the quantum harmonic oscillator aka zero point energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_annihilation_operators#Ladder_operators_for_the_quantum_harmonic_oscillator In essence the positive and negative modes of the harmonic oscillator propagates the operators. Where the operators correspond to particle I wont go into too much detail to see if you have any comments/questions up to this point. However this is the zero point energy field and how it can give rise to particle production in essence.
    1 point
  6. The solution is for people who are not themselves autistic, and who evidently don’t understand what autism even means, to stop proposing “solutions”. I am autistic, and I am not a problem that needs to be solved.
    1 point
  7. Ahhh perfect timing, I needed a new snake oil supplier. How much ya got? Yup. I'm all for hijacking this weird af thread for as long as it lasts to talk about autism. Just so people are aware of what is meant by spectrum, it is a collection of symptoms and behaviours of which many conditions, neurological and psychological states share a lot of overlap. Because of this, many react to words like "cure" or "low functioning" negatively due to a misconception amongst autistic individuals and their advocates to be expert authorities on the "condition" because they or someone they know doesn't fit into certain boxes. The two divergent models of disability also plays a significant role in this. Those who's issues lie within the medical model of disability absolutely need effective treatments and cures. Those who's issues lie within the social model of disability require their environments to be treated or cured. To make this more confusing, most of the conditions still have overlap. Hypersensitivity to light is an example often associated with AS conditions. The medical fix may be via optometry and the social fix is accomodating lighting installations. I do get what Dim is getting at though and agree with the sentiment. The generalised psychiactric labelling of what is clearly many different conditions, for the purpose of simplified medical signposting is confusing enough for medical experts and downright dangerous in it's invitation to invite public misunderstanding and stereotyping of austism spectrum conditions to the degree where even the sufferers and their advocates just don't get it. It's similar to but obviously not as bad as if they decided that instead of specific cancer diagnoses, all medical signposting would say is "Cancer spectrum disorder" and just hope the person on the treatment end knows what to do. Because cancer spectrum disorder could be anything from a small mole to stage 4 stomach cancer or an inoperable brain tumour. What many psychiatrists fail to grasp is that the act and implications of psychiactric labelling have broader ramifications than just how they as individual doctors treat them, but how everything outside of the doctors control is going to treat them. Just so we are clear, cancer most certainly is a disease and I don't believe autism is anywhere near cancer nor do I believe people with autism are a disease. My criticisms revolve around medical signposting and careless, thoughtless, lazy labels. A cry for more precise terminology is a standard that most scientific fields adhere to. Exhibit A, pluto is no longer thought of as a planet.
    1 point
  8. An interesting tidbit here is that Sunlight on Earth is much more intense that we need to see but that the human eye is a very poor judge of light intensity. An interesting experiment is to look at a 40 watt fluorescent light bulb inside and outside in the sun. Indoors the 40 watt bulb will be almost too bright to directly look at comfortably but outdoors the 40 watt bulb will all but vanish in the sunlight. Plants need significantly less than full sunlight to grow as well, it depends on the species of plants but Earthy plants (underwater plankton) can grow and reproduce at 1% of Earth's surface light intensity. From my own hobby of growing coral I've been made aware of how important light intensity is and how bad the human eye is at judging light intensity. many under water ecological niches are defined by light intensity.
    1 point
  9. What is the purpose of science? What does the word mean? Knowledge. But let it be more like wisdom: knowledge applied. And that it be applied for the common good. We will see multiple branches of science will be needed to be connected so for us to get somewhere. This is a thread that is intended to give place to sound discussion, but to immediately awaken the people with potential, because understanding is only given to some, and those in some moment should stop the having nonsense discussions with those that can't understand, stop waiting for approval or consensus from the rest, and get to it. This is a thread that will touch some delicate topics, but doing it responsibly, and above all, providing solutions. Solutions are confirmed when one carries them. That is a call to action. Reality and a little bit of thinking will show us pretty much the picture I'll share you my personal experience. I am a scientist. Life made a scientist. When I had some health problems, I was already enlightened enough so to understand "I shouldn't go doctors." So what I did was to study by my own. But for the first years I did it just like them, using the same blinkers. I wasted a lot of time thinking according to the "neurotransmitter-ligand model", and I didn't see the complete picture or kept things simple. So just because of missing solutions, I kept studying. And why is it that I understood that I shouldn't go doctors? For the same reason that you should. They prove to not know much. Society is the result. So reality and a little bit of thinking set us in the right direction. One must study on his own. Science is multidisciplinary, and should be, to get us somewhere Imagine a man has discovered the panacea, yes, it's a way of saying it, but it would be the most alike: hemodialysis. The question would be: "Really? It has been all the time sitting around and doctors have been missing on it?" Yes, could be. When doctors are masturbating, watching pornography, thinking all the time about where is it they are going on vacation next week, getting paid when not solving anything, and seeing all the rest doing the same, these things could happen. It's social engineering. Maybe we could have some skinny cowards for doctors, in which those that do not be, would simply be women, that are not brought forth to carry the job of real men. So even if hemodialysis would be the panacea, how could it reach the people? When it has been dissuaded, hidden, entangled in bureaucracy, and those interested could see the shadows of mafia dogs when getting close. I came explaining in another thread how is it that "autism" is a symptom of poisoning, caused mainly by organochlorines of the DDT-type, and they would be detoxed by hemodialysis preferentially, or, on its absence, by proper bloodlettings. Now, how many actually have carried this instruction? It's not such a big deal. Remember hemodialysis is not about the kidneys, but about cleaning the blood. So first thing we should see is, it has been dissuaded. And if we really mean business, we would see lots of times the nephrologist would be inviting us to flee. That's how these things happen. For cowards, for evil-blind people. Can't you see a society filled with damaged people is a loss, something dangerous? We have been slow-cooked for ages. Then, out of nowhere, those that have done this close on us their plan, and now we want soldiers! Now we want real men! Ah! But those that should that been taking care of them have come looking the other way, now money is good for nothing. Remember we are not to expect approval or get consensus. Majorities have been bred to be useless. So, let's say a person manages to get an autistic healed, the blindfolds fall from her eyes. How would the message get to the masses? Mainstream media is taken by those that have done this. Understand? Now we will see who is truly a scientist. Get all the things put together. Be a scientist: stop jerking off, practice semen retention if you are smart, understand gender roles, and submit to the laws of nature if you want to do well in life. Science pays well. True science brings results. Have that for a testimony. Guillermo Yacante Afonso.
    -4 points
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.