Punting it out ~~~> ' E m o t i o n '
Raving Loonie
squirm, ache, grooooaan, ' What is it with aspies/auties and their
Vulcan obscession !!! ', etc.
And somehow, really sweating it to spit out this posting ... ( I'm not
sure "why" it produces such cognitive tension/headache/stress on me?
Hmmm ...
Hence: Punting
-------------------------------------------------
Here is the hard reality, IMO.
Emotions:
It involves the limbic system.
Primitive animals are rife with emotions. Emotions are probably invoked
by some neuroendocrinological mechanism.
It means that ...
Mice
frogs
cats
... etc, etc, etc ...
HATE
LOVE
FEAR
ANXIOUS
LONELY
... whatever ????
As in, emotions are very basic and simple tokens.
*Think*, ' Acid drip ', here ...
Aspies and auties are as full and awash in them as any NT or dog, for
that matter ...
Like it or lump it, 'End of story'. Accept it ....
Cordially,
RL
" Animal emotions
The limbic system is often thought of as a primitive part of the brain
as it is present in lower mammals and parts are even found in reptiles.
Animals need emotions to survive - they need fear as a trigger to
escape predators and aggression to defend their territory, young and
food. Charles Darwin thought emotions were merely left over from our
animal past. However, you rely on your emotions to make quick, often
complex, decisions. "
Terry Jones
<raving...@gmail.com> wrote:
>" Animal emotions
>
>The limbic system is often thought of as a primitive part of the brain
>as it is present in lower mammals and parts are even found in reptiles.
>Animals need emotions to survive - they need fear as a trigger to
>escape predators and aggression to defend their territory, young and
>food. Charles Darwin thought emotions were merely left over from our
>animal past. However, you rely on your emotions to make quick, often
>complex, decisions. "
>
> See http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/brain/293.asp
Well, that's not that simple is it? - Single celled, and simple
multicellular organisms, both lacking a limbic system, still survive
(and still advance towards food or other beneficial factors, and
retreat from undesirable / harmful ones).
Terry
Raving Loonie
> On 5 Apr 2006 05:13:41 -0700, "Raving Loonie"
> <raving...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >" Animal emotions
> >
> >The limbic system is often thought of as a primitive part of the brain
> >as it is present in lower mammals and parts are even found in reptiles.
> >Animals need emotions to survive - they need fear as a trigger to
> >escape predators and aggression to defend their territory, young and
> >food. Charles Darwin thought emotions were merely left over from our
> >animal past. However, you rely on your emotions to make quick, often
> >complex, decisions. "
> >
> > See http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/brain/293.asp
>
I may not like it or see it that way ...
Yet, raw emotions ( devoid of their involvement in larger
conceptualizations - read feelings ? ) ARE that simple.
.... neuroendocrinological signaling.
System wide, chemical drip.
They start there and they end there. It's all in how the mind
interprets, triggers and uses them.
> Well, that's not that simple is it? - Single celled, and simple
> multicellular organisms, both lacking a limbic system, still survive
> (and still advance towards food or other beneficial factors, and
> retreat from undesirable / harmful ones).
Such as plants, maybe?
Such organisms are most likely to be even more dependent upon chemical
signalling for communication and control.
Cordially,
RL
Hylander
I think Vulcan interest has more to do with being logical than lacking
emotion. Same goes for Data the android. Emotions can be there but not
given via expected body language. Oh they are definitely there.
Although, emotions are part of emotional "thinking" and that is likely
to be "illogical" Spock or no. Are emotions tokens? no.
Raving Loonie
> Raving Loonie wrote:
> > O.K. Here is my emotional song and dance routine ...
> >
> > squirm, ache, grooooaan, ' What is it with aspies/auties and their
> > Vulcan obscession !!! ', etc.
( Emotions are irrelevent concerning logic and objectivity. Right? )
> Are emotions tokens? no.
I use emotions in many ways ...
1) As contextual tags ...
similar to 'smell'
2) As verbs/operators ...
I use the emotion to shape, distort, and displace.
... my attention, my focal awareness
3) As a 'set delimiter/bounding-mechanism' ...
I often use my emotion in a ' tempest-in-a-teacup ' mode ... as in
restraining the emotion and it's effects to a limited space of
consideration action.
4) Emotions per se, are really simple things for me.
Example: Angry.
Angry is angry is angry is frustration is ... it's real basic.
Example: Love.
That warm, accomodating, accepting, listening buzz&blush.
Feelings are much more complex. ... Broad descriptions filled with
objects and emotions ( as tokens ) + distal thought sensations <
distal thought sensations are real big, yet go unrecognized, it seems >
I think there is a mistake made by everyone to confuse <distal
thoughts> with emotions and feelings.
Example: For me. For NT's? For anyone ~~~> YMMV?
buzz&blush is real simple
Warm&fuzzies is much more variegated ... it involves <distal thoughts
(awareness) >
Feeling ... A picture. A landscape considting of both tangible memories
and emotions. An oil painting. ( Perhaps, No <distal thought> because
it is below the noise floor )
An emotion such as 'angry' is like a phase state.
As with a computer ...
Bootstrap startup
Core dump
Hibernating
Online
.. these are different 'phase states', different emotions.
Again !!!!
Feelings ....
Notions, intuitions, psychic <distal awareness> ...
Are very different from emotion; are very differnet from each other.
Cordially,
RL
--
to·ken Audio pronunciation of "token" ( P ) Pronunciation Key
(tkn)
n.
1. Something serving as an indication, proof, or expression of
something else; a sign: "Tears are queer tokens of happiness"
(Eugene O'Neill). See Synonyms at sign.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=token
Hylander
Thank you for explaining that. It makes more sense now. Sorry, I keep
missing the point sometimes.
H
Raving Loonie
I vaguely recall hearing about mirror neurons ... something to do with
mirroring/imitating/bidirectional? I leave this aside.
I am a bit puzzled by your interest in it. My sense is that there is
more to it than a theory about emotion.
Strangely, I seem to have strong mirroring abilities. It is how, I
have this objective capacity for empathy, for example. Moreover, I'm
not sure how I do it. Thinking about it confuses me. ...
Most of all, regardless of the emotion context, the mirroring quality
seems, for me to have strong significance for my specific type of
abstract ability.
As my ex-shrink explained it; psychoanalysis/psychotherapy(?) is like
holding up a big, and very finely polished mirror to the patient, so
that the patient can see him/her self.
Seems as if I ran into troubles because I was better at building
mirrors than my ex-shrink.
Moreover, not only can one mirror people, one can also mirror nature.
See this posting that I have made elsewhere concerning mirroring, etc
...
It seems to me that mirrors are a member of the following set
mirrors
filters
alignment/registration tools/masks
See also my model of thought whichI shall post shortly as a new topic.
Cordially,
RL
Hylander
It has to do with imitating or like Terry mentioned, grimmacing when
someone hits their thumb with a hammer. I can't say I do that so much.
Maybe a little. Much of the expectations are learned. Because I can act
and learn I can imitate more rotely. Imitating peers or having the
desire or instincts to imitate them certain ways is not present in me.
It is what makes peers include others in their group. They have to
match a certain expectation and it is often not always by "agreeing
with everything" either. (which is how I would approach it). It is also
knowing when one is being "tested" via false pretenses. Part of it
helps in picking up lying and body language. It is one very
fundamental, very possible underlying aspect to autism as there is
definite evidence for it.
> I am a bit puzzled by your interest in it.
Why? It's not *just* a theory like Neanderthal theory. It's a finding.
I discovered before I knew about the word "mirror neurons". Finding it
was like finding autism. I had a label for nearly *all* the junk
scattered about in my life, for all the things describing me. How could
I not be interested? You do not seem to mirror well enough at least to
understand my "logical" interest in this. (it is not emotional but I'm
also aware of how I could be. ) In fact, I think it is because of
mirroring that people assume we have no emotions. We never picked it
up. So how can we produce. If we could pick it up and found interest in
it, like we do our deep interests...of course we could display it.
> My sense is that there is
> more to it than a theory about emotion.
Sooooo much more.
> Strangely, I seem to have strong mirroring abilities. It is how, I
> have this objective capacity for empathy, for example.
Usually, one will have good empathy for autistics or neurotypicals but
seldom both. There is evidence to support the claim I just made too. In
fact, the very essence of this thread shows it. I'm providing
superlatives for you on purpose. I can sense emotion. I too can sense
emotion but not imitate it if that makes sense. If you understood the
"inhibitatory" aspects of of mirror neurons, you'd understand how and
why this can be. This is because the mirror neurons do fire....halfway
that is. The other half is the half that makes them "dysfunction" (or
rather neuro_a_typical)
> Moreover, I'm
> not sure how I do it. Thinking about it confuses me. ...
I have to think about it. That's the difference right there. I am doing
it using thinking ie: via signals from knowledge parts of my brain to
the hippocampus and then attempting to copy what you do via many small
steps. ie: mirror neuron, hippocampus, voila, no need to think about it
or go to the knowledge centers. Instinctive social imitation like the
monkeys.
> Most of all, regardless of the emotion context, the mirroring quality
> seems, for me to have strong significance for my specific type of
> abstract ability.
Are you sure thought that this is not just "empathy"? Are you able to
for example join a group of peers easily and have them accept you by
learning to imitate them or "be yourself" but know just enough about
them to where you know what they might be thinking and hence feel
comfortable enough to continue cajoling, flirting (with the gender
group matching one's sexual orientation), chit chatting etc around with
them etc?
> As my ex-shrink explained it; psychoanalysis/psychotherapy(?) is like
> holding up a big, and very finely polished mirror to the patient, so
> that the patient can see him/her self.
Yes. But that is *analysis* and not *imitative instinct*. Autistics can
be excellent at some psychoanalysis and even counselling because we see
objective sides to things and don't simply aim to please. (although
when frustrated with reading people, it can be that we do aim to please
a LOT).
> Seems as if I ran into troubles because I was better at building
> mirrors than my ex-shrink.
But you haven't quite been able to do so here. I think that is why
there is so much captured curiosity here.
> Moreover, not only can one mirror people, one can also mirror nature.
You might need to explain mirroring nature because you are going into
abstractions that are too lose for my definitions and hence wouldn't
apply. If you say I can mirror nature. Sure, why not. However, not by
my definition. It requires a human...preferably a simple peer most
likely.
> See this posting that I have made elsewhere concerning mirroring, etc
Yes, but it's all a definition that is too broad for what I'm
explaining. Sure, I agree if that's what you mean but since I'm talking
about mirroring via a special special kind of imitation (not just any
kind of imitation mind you), and you are not, you will need to adjust
to my definition to take a position of agreement or disagreement with
it. So far, I'm not sure you understand it enough to do so. You have to
look into what I'm referring to somewhat to understand. I have to
research for others here too btw. Not just one way street. I do so for
references in the UK for example because it is a mere fact that there
are many things simply not accessible to me, types of knowledge
pertaining to there not accessible to me here in the US where I am.
Many here are very sheltered. I prefer to learn and not judge. Others
tend to do otherwise and I don't understand it. ie: why.
> It seems to me that mirrors are a member of the following set
>
> mirrors
> filters
> alignment/registration tools/masks
Masks are used to bypass the need to mirror. There is a theory about
Mind Filters and "Vertical Thinking" and the "White and Grey Matter"
concept of autism. It does seem to be true that when we sense things,
it is overwhelming and all at once but then something strange happens.
It is like the information never gets completely routed. It seems like
breathing through a stirring straw at some point. That is more flow
than filter but yes, it's like the interpretation is filtered away and
nothing is comprehended. SPD and comprehension can work with verbal or
non verbal BTW but the "straw" effect is still there. Communicating
outward poses the SAME problem. There is all this knowledge, rote,
information, memory its that goes into one spot and then when one tries
to communicate it. It is slow and arduous...at least in real time. Some
of us become quite good communicators and even hypergraphiasic
(compulsive writers). It is because we can use the medium of text MUCH
easier. The human distractions of "to listen or not to listen" can be
ignored. The human body language can be ignored. etc etc etc. So yes.
Much of the crap I'd ordinarily need to filter is gone when I use this.
Plus. .....Praise God for Backspace!
> See also my model of thought whichI shall post shortly as a new topic.
Sure. Please also consider reading more of the topic I brought up or am
bringing up here because it got hard to bring up there. TIC :P.
Anyhow, to your topic of emotion. I have to say that autistics and
emotion are a non topic to me almost. Dr. Phil says we have too much.
Others say we have to little. None of them know WTH they're talking
about. It's not just "occasional" outburst either. It can be very very
frequent. Those who say otherwise simply have not been around a variety
of autistics for very long. They aren't always "vocal" though.
Regards...
H
Hylander
Raving Loonie wrote:
> > > I use emotions in many ways ...
I apologize if I sounded argumentative or ranty. I was really just
being direct and exhaustive in detail. I did catch an error of sorts. I
know you aren't stereotyping us per se of having or not having
emotions. You say you have emotions. You are just telling us about what
you experience. That is fine. If you are autistic, it is also fair
because you acknowledge having them. That's perhaps the most annoying
stereotype out there for many of us as well as inaccurate of course.
Now if you are not autistic, this has no consequence in terms of the
group topic but you are welcome to share how your feelings work if
perhaps it would benefit us. I do know what you are referring to with
the limbic system and I can agree with that yes.
Respectfully,
H
Raving Loonie
> Raving Loonie wrote:
> > Hylander wrote:
> > > Raving Loonie wrote:
> > > > Hylander wrote:
> > > > > Raving Loonie wrote:
> > > > > > O.K. Here is my emotional song and dance routine ...
What you have written below motivates (compels) me to think in many
directions which:
1) I have never explored. They seem to be usefull routes. It will take
time for me to move along them.
2) Are in directions which I would not choose to go myself, yet so as
to respect a dialogue, find it difficult to ingore.
3) I do have responses at hand for ... say 50% roughly of the focii
below, yet find myself wishing to deal with it at a more fundamental
level.
IMO, cognitive science sucks the big one. It's missing the underlying
structure ... that being "what is thought?" ... "How does it work
together, both in an integrated manner and independently?" Any subject
with cognition at it's core:
Psychiatry
Education
Philosopy
Biological theory of life
Information, complexity
jurisprudence.
AI, heuristics
Linguistics
I leave out psychology because the practitioners of that paradigm see,
to be hell bent on selfdenying their focus of interest, I.E. Trying to
behave like physicists
.. is mostly stuck in the stone age for the lack of this
understanding.
O.K. Let me scream it out. I don't know any other way to converge it in
10 months or less.
IMO, most of the stuff out there is utter bullshit or very ineffective.
It is a desperate attempt to reach out and create concepts in a
subject which lacks a foundation upon which to build.
I find the material that has been produced to be of excedingly poor
value for the effort, misleading and hideously diversionary when it
comes to achieving anything.
My own focus has always been to look at the foundations of cognition.
I am still thrown into complete confusion about the mirroring stuff.
Yes, I recognize that you are describing things at a higher level of
integration. My confusion is caused by confusing more fundamental and
general thought processes.
A brief example. ...
Linguistics and language. The "popular" belief is that language is
used to communicate between people. One could also pull in biocultural
considerations.
I know a very little bit about mathematical linguistics. Languague
could be viewed in that regard as well.
Yet, when I start my own exploration of languange and linguistics, I
came to realize that language was fundamentally; if not essentially for
communicating with myself. For being able to navigate, tag, remember
and inspect my own thoughts. Sharing my thoughts verbally or in a
written sense with others is like icing on the cake. Important, yet
secondary ...
Having just thought such, I come to the next realization. You may not
'like' it but knowing what I understand, here& now, it seems likely to
be so.
Body language is almost as old and 'hard wired' as simple emotions.
Proof? Darwin "Expression of the emotions in Man and Animals"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195158067/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-8308550-8659329#reader-link
The angry face of a dog is very similar to the angry face of a person.
My explanation as to why autisitcs have a hard time with emotions and
body language is very simple and abstract ( abstract as in strong
recurrent/repeated to many similar situations ).
This explanation, also predicts thus:
> I can sense emotion. I too can sense emotion but not imitate it if that makes sense. ..
My understanding and explanation didn't exist 2 weeks ago. I'm sorry
that the mechaism which I propose is so strongly convergent ... It's
just how it is <shrug> .
( I.E. Autistics choose to emphasize a linear quality to their
awareness. Imposing the linear precludes allowing for the nonlinear.
...It would infer doing less of what is done in the main.)
Out of respect of yourself and autistics, I really need to move ahead
in explaining it. I can assure you that what I am driving towards isn't
a put down or disenfranchisement of the autistic style. But ....
I REALLY DO, DO, DO HAVE the answer. Spitting it out in a hard
concrete description isn't easy.
( As I look back at what I am thinking, I almost feel that my
explanation need not be discordant with your 'mirror neuron'
realization. That *may* be the neurophysiological pathway that it
comes about.
I know that I might be very frustrating, irritating, selfinvolved or
boring ... I can't do much better than that, right now. I am
struggling. ... as are you and others who choose to read what I post,
struggling. It's hard, stressful.
I want to SCREAM ... this cognition stuff is so bloody incredibly
BORKED !!! ... It drives me to insane exasperation, each time that I
am reminded of the fact.
Example:
Thought is often viewed as cold, hard, .converged 'objectivity'.
Autistics are often talented in this.
There is more to thought than just the "focus"; the condesnsed,
indpendent objective considerations.
Part of cognition is also ...
1) Finding the focus ... discovering what should be converged upon
and doing so.
2) Finding an alternate focus once one is already in place.
3) Recognizing a focus
4) Making connections to other focii ...
5) Creatively manufacturing new and novel focii wherein none existed
before.
6) Shifting and/or releasing focus.
These cognitive activites that I mention above are as essential, a part
of cognition as the focus and it's maintenance is.
They are different insofar as ... once a plausible focus has been
located and entered into... "how one arrived there" ... or looking
elsewhere, become non issues.
Once America has been discovered, the deed is done. 'Who cares any
more as to how it happened. ... It's in the past. What once was
important has now become irrelevent and hence can appropriately be
forgotten.
I want to scream my head off becuase the abovementioned 6+
considerations make up as much, if not more of the bulk of the
cognitive activity. ...
.. Yet, pass by unnoticed and uncommented on for some very real and
frustrating reasons.
<Whew!>
:-)
( I'll answer more, later *hopefully* )
Cordially,
RL
The autist formerly known as
that)
The Chewong of Malaysia according to the James Russel who is not a planning
officer in the erstwhile Shining City have only seven words for emotion
against Worf's (not the vulcan) forty for snow amongst the outuit (well they
are not hip nor in now are they?) and someone has said nary more than a week
ago that those seven were five too many :)
Zwei und nur zwei in Grecish Eu und Dys a euphonic dualism as to drive Dan
Browns detractors to gnow what they should gnaw bulgars notwithstanding.
--
şT
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Raving Loonie" <raving...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144239221.0...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Terry Jones
<raving...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>" Animal emotions
>>>
>>>The limbic system is often thought of as a primitive part of the brain
>>>as it is present in lower mammals and parts are even found in reptiles.
>>>Animals need emotions to survive - they need fear as a trigger to
>>>escape predators and aggression to defend their territory, young and
>>>food. Charles Darwin thought emotions were merely left over from our
>>>animal past. However, you rely on your emotions to make quick, often
>>>complex, decisions. "
>>>
>>> See http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/brain/293.asp
>>
>>Well, that's not that simple is it? - Single celled, and simple
>>multicellular organisms, both lacking a limbic system, still survive
>>(and still advance towards food or other beneficial factors, and
>>retreat from undesirable / harmful ones).
<snip restored to maintain context>
>
>I may not like it or see it that way ...
>
>Yet, raw emotions ( devoid of their involvement in larger
>conceptualizations - read feelings ? ) ARE that simple.
>
> .... neuroendocrinological signaling.
>System wide, chemical drip.
>
>They start there and they end there. It's all in how the mind
>interprets, triggers and uses them.
I think that you (and perhaps Darwin, it's not clear from that
excerpt) may be using 'emotions' to describe what I would call
'reflexes' (or at the most 'instincts').
A classic example of the 'reflex arc' is the 'knee jerk' response to
the Doctor's hammer, or pulling your hand away from a hot stove. These
are things which start to happen *before* the brain is even aware of
the stimulus.
Even though, as you correctly note, they may be strongly influenced by
the endocrine 'background' - AFIK 'emotions' involve & 'happen in'
the brain / mind.
>> Well, that's not that simple is it? - Single celled, and simple
>> multicellular organisms, both lacking a limbic system, still survive
>> (and still advance towards food or other beneficial factors, and
>> retreat from undesirable / harmful ones).
>>
>Such as plants, maybe?
>Such organisms are most likely to be even more dependent upon chemical
>signalling for communication and control.
Quite - So are you saying that in your terminology it's an 'emotion'
which makes a plant grow towards the light? Or not? (I can't figure
this out from what you wrote).
Terry
Terry Jones
<raving...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I leave out psychology because the practitioners of that paradigm see,
>to be hell bent on selfdenying their focus of interest, I.E. Trying to
>behave like physicists
IMHO they're trying to *look* as if they're practicing one of the
'hard sciences', while actually doing little more than a form of
speculative philosophy, based more on argumentation and selective
vision, rather than on dealing with *all* the evidence pro & con.
> .. is mostly stuck in the stone age for the lack of this
>understanding.
Yes, it's quite remarkable that the understanding of the human mind,
which needs little in the way of advanced tools (and so potentially
has had one of the longest timespans to develop), is in such a
primitive state.
>The angry face of a dog is very similar to the angry face of a person.
But the 'grin' of a chimp is a fear / threat expression, unlike the
same expression in a human.
>( I.E. Autistics choose to emphasize a linear quality to their
>awareness. Imposing the linear precludes allowing for the nonlinear.
>...It would infer doing less of what is done in the main.)
It would *really* help if you could clearly explain what you mean by
'linear' in this context - It's a term you keep using, so you
presumably regard it as significant.
I do suspect that you're misreading that autistics 'choose to' think
in certain ways - As I've mentioned before, we often do what we are
*able* to do, rather than what we want / need / would choose to do.
In this instance John has mentioned it being as if input and output
was having to force its way through a 'straw'. I disagree slightly on
the mechanism, in that I think it's a processing issue rather than a
transmission one, but we agree that there is effectively a bottleneck.
So we think in the ways which 'fit our brains' - and the 'solution' to
that (if one exists), is to find new ways of thinking / new cognitive
tools, which *also* 'fit our brains', rather than trying to
'encourage' us to burn ourselves out running 'NT emulation', which is
what many of the 'professionals' end up as doing.
Terry
Raving Loonie
> On 7 Apr 2006 01:49:58 -0700, "Raving Loonie"
> <raving...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I leave out psychology because the practitioners of that paradigm see,
> >to be hell bent on selfdenying their focus of interest, I.E. Trying to
> >behave like physicists
>
> IMHO they're trying to *look* as if they're practicing one of the
> 'hard sciences', while actually doing little more than a form of
> speculative philosophy, based more on argumentation and selective
> vision, rather than on dealing with *all* the evidence pro & con.
In case you haven't noticed, you and myself both "think" about similar
things. We more often than otherwise arrive at similar conclusions. We
do it by very different routes.
We are both heavily involved with issues of 'perspective'.
When I read what you write, I could *assume* that you are very bitter;
that all of your assertions concern being misconstrued, that NT's are
living in their own small and restricted, confined universe. I could
say this because it *really does* represent much of what you say. I
also know that you are describing the perspective of situations. I
understand enough to know that what you express can be as easily
construed as 'calling it how it is' .. as it could be construed as ...
're-acting' and being passive agressive ... and not listening, etc.
No, you are full of perspectives. It's the real 'you'. We understand
many of the same things.
Live with it my friend. There ARE other people in the universe who can
appreciate what you, yourself perceive.
Why do I say this? ... You, know why. Be it Autism, ADD, NT ...
whatever being able to understand perspective makes a person very,
very lonely. We put into perspective. That is our skill. Others lack
this skill They cannot accept us. Others have their own ability.
>
> > .. is mostly stuck in the stone age for the lack of this
> >understanding.
>
> Yes, it's quite remarkable that the understanding of the human mind,
> which needs little in the way of advanced tools (and so potentially
> has had one of the longest timespans to develop), is in such a
> primitive state.
It remains untractable because it is a problem which deals with
perspective.
Plato's cave
Socratic method ( We already know what is to be known ... It boils down
to figuring it out. In other words .. Figuring out the perspective of
th situation. )
>
> >The angry face of a dog is very similar to the angry face of a person.
>
> But the 'grin' of a chimp is a fear / threat expression, unlike the
> same expression in a human.
>
> >( I.E. Autistics choose to emphasize a linear quality to their
> >awareness. Imposing the linear precludes allowing for the nonlinear.
> >...It would infer doing less of what is done in the main.)
>
> It would *really* help if you could clearly explain what you mean by
> 'linear' in this context - It's a term you keep using, so you
> presumably regard it as significant.
I need to email you about this. May I do so?
> I do suspect that you're misreading that autistics 'choose to' think
> in certain ways - As I've mentioned before, we often do what we are
> *able* to do, rather than what we want / need / would choose to do.
Of course. Each individual has their own perspective. There are so many
possibilities; it's as good as unique.
>
> In this instance John has mentioned it being as if input and output
> was having to force its way through a 'straw'. I disagree slightly on
> the mechanism, in that I think it's a processing issue rather than a
> transmission one, but we agree that there is effectively a bottleneck.
You are talking "perspective" ... Do you realize it?
> So we think in the ways which 'fit our brains' - and the 'solution' to
> that (if one exists), is to find new ways of thinking / new cognitive
> tools, which *also* 'fit our brains', rather than trying to
> 'encourage' us to burn ourselves out running 'NT emulation', which is
> what many of the 'professionals' end up as doing.
I have a completely different answer which has always been used. It
amounts to the same as you suggest, here.
Cordially,
RL
Terry Jones
<raving...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In case you haven't noticed, you and myself both "think" about similar
>things. We more often than otherwise arrive at similar conclusions. We
>do it by very different routes.
>
>We are both heavily involved with issues of 'perspective'.
My problem with the term 'perspective' in this context is that general
usage equates this to a 'point of view' (which is ok), *but* a 'point
of view' is taken as equivalent to a 'mental model' - But a 'mental
model' is *not* necessarily equivalent to simply a perspective / point
of view.
It's often *more than* looking at something from 'another angle' /
another 'side', where you can just see things previously concealed
(and loose sight of things previously 'visible') - although this is
involved too.
But it also involves 'filtering' (choosing *not* to see certain things
which are there), and 'projection' (imposing the 'vision' of things
which *aren't* there).
So in that sense 'perspective' / 'point of view' are poor metaphors
for what is actually happening - And I'm not clear whether you're
using 'perspective' in a 'strict' sense or in the above 'filtering &
projecting' sense.
>When I read what you write, I could *assume* that you are very bitter;
>that all of your assertions concern being misconstrued, that NT's are
>living in their own small and restricted, confined universe. I could
>say this because it *really does* represent much of what you say. I
>also know that you are describing the perspective of situations. I
>understand enough to know that what you express can be as easily
>construed as 'calling it how it is' .. as it could be construed as ...
>'re-acting' and being passive agressive ... and not listening, etc.
As far as I am able, I *am* 'calling it how it is' - *but* I'm also
very frustrated and indeed bitter, that I regularly *need* to do this,
especially with self-proclaimed 'experts' and with 'professionals' who
assert that they are trying to help me to adjust to 'reality'.
I am also frustrated by their persistent evasion / refusal to use the
'tools' which we *do* have available to examine differences of opinion
in a range of areas (basically the methods of science), to test which
of our views of 'reality' is the more accurate, the most predicative
of outcomes, etc..
>Live with it my friend. There ARE other people in the universe who can
>appreciate what you, yourself perceive.
The issue is predominantly a *practical* one, since as long as I
continue to live, I have to do so in a society constructed according
to the standards of the 'non-testers', the 'cosmetic thinkers'.
(Unless I have a major lottery win or something :)
>Plato's cave
Plato's cave is simply 'argument from analogy' - but while analogy can
be used to *illustrate* something, it can't [legitimately] be used to
*prove* it - Although that is what philosophers, politicians and
lawyers often seem to claim (when it suits their purposes).
>Socratic method ( We already know what is to be known ... It boils down
>to figuring it out. In other words .. Figuring out the perspective of
>the situation. )
I disagree - If I already knew, then I wouldn't be asking.
Socratic method can be quite dangerous - since someone who is mentally
'quick on their feet', and / or who has firm opinions on some topic,
can easily 'lead' another who may not have thought that topic through
to any level of detail, someone who needs *time* to think things
through, to analyse the arguments and the evidence.
(Try reading "The Symposium" from that perspective :)
This has been my own experience with most of the 'professionals' -
People can 'talk rings around me' in a real-time situation, *but* when
I have time to think it over, their ideas and arguments often fall
apart.
Very occasionally they may come up with a new perspective, but the
bulk of the time it's clear that they haven't thought their viewpoint
through as thoroughly as I have / try to do. [Or they may be
simplifying things to 'get the message across', but I doubt that,
since they usually can't / won't provide the 'missing links /
evidence' which might have supported their ideas].
>> >( I.E. Autistics choose to emphasize a linear quality to their
>> >awareness. Imposing the linear precludes allowing for the nonlinear.
>> >...It would infer doing less of what is done in the main.)
>>
>> It would *really* help if you could clearly explain what you mean by
>> 'linear' in this context - It's a term you keep using, so you
>> presumably regard it as significant.
>
>I need to email you about this. May I do so?
Sure - Is your gmail address a valid one? In which case I'll mail you
my back-up email address (I'm having intermittent problems with the
beeb.net one at the moment).
>> I do suspect that you're misreading that autistics 'choose to' think
>> in certain ways - As I've mentioned before, we often do what we are
>> *able* to do, rather than what we want / need / would choose to do.
>
>Of course. Each individual has their own perspective. There are so many
>possibilities; it's as good as unique.
I would read 'perspective' as mental / cognitive, not as neurological
/ physical - to me that would be like saying that the effects which
arthritis has on what I can & can't do is the result of my
'perspective'.
>> In this instance John has mentioned it being as if input and output
>> was having to force its way through a 'straw'. I disagree slightly on
>> the mechanism, in that I think it's a processing issue rather than a
>> transmission one, but we agree that there is effectively a bottleneck.
>
>You are talking "perspective" ... Do you realize it?
Yes and no - Since developing useable 'work arounds' may well depend
on the *precise* 'mechanics' involved.
Terry
Raving Loonie
1) You are arguing and disagreeing with me. .. *This* is how you come
across to me, if I don't think about it. ... *This* is how I probably
come across to you and others ...
A most disagreeable, fellow :)
2) You are concurring and demonstrating "such" by elaborating for me (
In the main ... )
It takes a degree of sober contemplation and maturity of understanding
to recognize that #2 is by far and away, the more appropriate
inference.
Why?
You huge reserve and capacity to elaborate, immediately ...
Implication: We sail roughly the same waters. It's nice to meet a
fellow traveller.. :-)
Gmail is "open".
Cordially,
RL
Terry Jones
<raving...@gmail.com> wrote:
(3) It's a process of 'exploration' - the development and testing of
ideas, some of which may work, some of which may not. A
'collaboration' of which the final results (if any) are as yet
unknown.
(And accepting that the 'stopping point' may well be the result of
reaching the limits of stamina, rather than of having reached a
satisfactory conclusion).
>We sail roughly the same waters.
Or the same rough waters :)
>Gmail is "open".
Sent.
Terry
Hylander
Terry Jones wrote:
> I am also frustrated by their persistent evasion / refusal to use the
> 'tools' which we *do* have available to examine differences of opinion
> in a range of areas (basically the methods of science), to test which
> of our views of 'reality' is the more accurate, the most predicative
> of outcomes, etc..
Amongst many kinds of frustration...yes. I wrote a bit about this in
"My autism is causing everyone to hate me" in the part where I start
out as "I was going to write about this earlier" about half way down
where letters are being enumerated with examples of the expert methods.
They refuse to use all kinds of tools.
Yes, I did see where you were talking about "non-linear mental models"
in this threads (and also saw mention of my straw metaphor for
informational input/output). I think I can just about agree that there
can be transmission OR processing involved in the bottleneck. ie:
1. Sensory overload - transmission issue. (or rather transmission
receiving or preliminary sensory processing since it is all somewhat
"processing" in a common broad connotation for "processing"). (that
same sensory overload is also regarded by some as the reason savants
can somehow retain photographic or auditory perfections of what they
sense ie: Australian Mind Institute or some organization wrote about
this in a well known publication on Savant Syndrome)
2. Coming up with the right word for a concept/reading comprehension
exercises - processing bottleneck.
There might be a few other causes of difficulty. ie: information
storage to "expression" via tongue or hand...ie: too many thoughts, too
much information. internal information overload. I get that a lot.
Just thought I'd cover all the discussions in one reply (sorry :P)
H
Raving Loonie
it earlier but have only just located it. I plop it down here, .. as
good a place as any ???
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050331_laughter_ancient.html
Cordially,
RL
Chakolate
> http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050331_laughter_ancient.html
>
This was interesting, thanks.
(quote)
Meanwhile, there's the question of what's so darn funny in the animal
world.
"Although no one has investigated the possibility of rat humor, if it
exists, it is likely to be heavily laced with slapstick," Panksepp
figures. "Even if adult rodents have no well-developed cognitive sense of
humor, young rats have a marvelous sense of fun."
Science has traditionally deemed animals incapable of joy and woe.
(end quote)
Shows you how much 'science' knows. My cat has a joke he just loves, to
wit:
Doc is naturally a biter, has a real hair-trigger bite reflex. Pi, OTOH,
just copies Doc and bites to show off. Whenever Pi was in my arms and
he'd bite me, I'd throw him down, not hard enough to hurt, but hard
enough to let him know I meant it.
So now, whenever he's in my arms and is ready to get down, he bites me
and jumps down. You can almost hear him laughing.
And cats and dogs do grieve, so it's ridiculous to say they're incapable
of woe. 'Science' may not have known that, but every cat slave always
has.
Chak
--
In a rational society we would want our presidents to be teachers. In
our actual society, we insist they be cheerleaders.
--Steve Allen
Hylander
I basically agree. Laughter is not unique to humans. Dogs and Monkeys
for example do laugh. I haven't seen cats do so as much but they get
excitable and express that in other ways. ie: high arch in the back and
wide smiles and eye closings. Sometimes a slight gape. Humans can laugh
aloud perhaps....but other animals can laugh. I know this seeing
animals doing this over many years.
H