Asperger's/Autism; a spiritual condition?

Post Reply New Topic

Western Science has given you the computer with which you can post your nonsense world wide.

ruveyn

ruveyn wrote:

If you think that quantum physics is predictable, then you obvious don't have a good grasp of it.

ruveyn wrote:



The invention of the computer was brought about by an eccentric man named Alan Turing.
He often grappled with the question of how mind and matter are entangled.



And ruveyn, we all know your name is ruveyn. It doesn't make sense how you keep adding your signature to the closure of your posts.

Last edited by Magnus on 20 Feb 2009, 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Quantum mechanics makes stochastic predictions which are successfully and precisely borne out by repeated experiments. It in no way violates the standard scientific approach to things.

Quantum mechanics is nondeterministic, meaning that it generally does not predict the outcome of any measurement with certainty. Instead, it tells us what the probabilities of the outcomes are. This leads to the situation where measurements of a certain property done on two apparently identical systems can give different answers.

Quantum mechanics yields up the eigenvalues for ever Hermitian operator (that is what an observable is). With these eigenvalues the odds can be computed exactly. Computing the odds is not the same as predicting an outcome precisely. Only the probability of an outcome can be known prior to a measurement.

ruveyn

I think certain people willfully ignore the fact that most of the scientific advances that count for anything occurred due to acts of creative perception that have more to do with intuition than empiricism. The scientific process depends initially on your making a hypothesis and finally on your interpretation (/?manipulation) of the data - two aspects which can be said to be subjective. At the end of the day empiricism is only a means of discriminating between more and less useful insights. Just saying.

It is empirical means that keep scientific creativity (which is essentially artistic, not spiritual) honest. Without a strong empirical modality which vetoes nonsensical speculation, our science simply would not work. We cannot produce a working description of the physical world (the only world, by the way) without an empirically constraint creatively generated science. As Einstein once said, all science is a free creation of the human mind. But it has to be correct science and for that to be we need to be in touch with the physical world (the only world) through our senses and extended senses (instruments).

We cannot deduce the physical world (the only world) from our minds a priori. We must get our artistic inspiration from an observed physical world (the only world).

Top scientist have a sense of wonder and curiosity. But they need to be kept honest too.

ruveyn

She was referring to mysticism.

Turing came up with one of several equivalent definitions of a recursively definable function (see Church's Thesis). One of the actual electronic computers that we have come to know and love was invented and designed by Tommy Flowers, who also worked at Bletchley Park. It was much faster than he so-called Bombe which was electro-mechanical. Turing's important contributions were mathematical, not in the engineering arts. Turing's main contribution to the war effect was applying the Bombe to the Enigma Codes in such a way that if the key was incorrect it would quickly produce an indication. Thus the way the correct key was found was to eliminate the wrong keys. In that, Turing won the war against the Kriegesmarine and saved England for which he was ill-repayed following the war.

And I sign my posts out of politeness, something with which you are not that well acquainted.

ruveyn

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.