The Autistic "Rationale-dependant" thinking style; thoughts and personal experiences?

[Ronald Zeeman]

You may be interested in checking Claude Shannon's work on information theory information itself may be energy.
I got some interesting insights on this during my stroke, Great series of lectures available from the great courses watched them just after I got released from hospital. really got my mind working especially after I found out Ed Witten was following the same trail.

 

[The Pandector]

I respectfully disagree. It isn't necessary. It's a hindrance.

Maybe you missed my point, maybe not. My point was that, just as the spiritual person, the scientist projects his/her understanding of local events, far beyond actual vision. It’s only by faith in their local paradigm that they feel safe projecting that paradigm beyond their ability to obtain valid data. We see scientists routinely doing this in both in space and time. You can believe you have the key, but until you get there personally (space probes, whatever) and collect the data, you’re only taking it on faith that your paradigm, reliable here and now, is pertinent across the universe.

However, just as I take it to be reasonable to assume that the spiritual truths I find reliable here in my realm hold valid across the universe… it’s probably pretty reasonable for the scientist to believe his laws of physics apply beyond his ability to provide proof. It’s not possible to come to grips with the universe without faith.

 

[The Pandector]

I am still at that point in my life where I rely heavily on physics to understand my world. It does not mean that I have any disrespect for the people in my life that do have metaphysical beliefs. In general, if I don't know something, I don't have a problem saying "I don't know" or "I don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion." So it is with the metaphysical. Believe me, people of great faith have had conversations with me about the topic and my eyes just glaze over. "I believe, you believe that, but it's just not working on me." No disrespect.

"Faith" in anything is such an abstract concept to me. It's beyond my comprehension. It's like "luck". I've never, not once, ever, in all my years, ever experienced anything remotely resembling faith or luck. It's like "accidents". To me, no such thing. It's all a chain of events leading up to an eventual outcome.

So true for the vast majority. I have no simple explanation, but an observation. You don’t ‘get’ faith so much as it grows when you exercise it. Faith is an invisible bridge; until you step out over the chasm, you can’t have much faith that you won’t fall. I suspect that one PR problem Christianity has is when someone takes that first step of faith and learn that it works… they go a little fanatical. But then, when you find for yourself that it’s real, it’s hard not to feel a little fanaticism is in order.

Those who have experience with faith have learned its worth, while acting in faith seems totally illogical to those without it.

 

[tazz]

Maybe you missed my point, maybe not. My point was that, just as the spiritual person, the scientist projects his/her understanding of local events, far beyond actual vision. It’s only by faith in their local paradigm that they feel safe projecting that paradigm beyond their ability to obtain valid data. We see scientists routinely doing this in both in space and time. You can believe you have the key, but until you get there personally (space probes, whatever) and collect the data, you’re only taking it on faith that your paradigm, reliable here and now, is pertinent across the universe.

However, just as I take it to be reasonable to assume that the spiritual truths I find reliable here in my realm hold valid across the universe… it’s probably pretty reasonable for the scientist to believe his laws of physics apply beyond his ability to provide proof. It’s not possible to come to grips with the universe without faith.

Thanks. I think I got your point. I just disagree. You're comparing belief and extrapolation. Belief requires no evidence at all. Extrapolation requires evidence to extrapolate from. Belief allows one to say "this is true and I don't need to prove it". Extrapolation requires one to acknowledge that it might not be correct until the data is collected to shed more light on the situation.

 

[The Pandector]

Thanks. I think I got your point. I just disagree. You're comparing belief and extrapolation. Belief requires no evidence at all. Extrapolation requires evidence to extrapolate from. Belief allows one to say "this is true and I don't need to prove it". Extrapolation requires one to acknowledge that it might not be correct until the data is collected to shed more light on the situation.

We agree to disagree. However, you may have missed that I stipulated ‘spiritual truths I find reliable’. You say that extrapolation requires evidence, as opposed to belief not needing to prove it… implying that the extrapolater seeks confirmation and the believer does not. This, to me, is a false dichotomy. As if the spiritual person is not possibly twice the truth seeker as the scientific extrapolater. In my addled mind, it’s the person who is willing to look beyond the accepted wisdom that is most likely to advance the human race. Scientists tend to think ‘science versus religion’, whereas the spiritual truth seeker is free to synthesize from both physical and spiritual truth.

 

[tazz]

Scientists tend to think ‘science versus religion’, whereas the spiritual truth seeker is free to synthesize from both physical and spiritual truth.

I think this is an unfair stereotype. I think this is how the media pitches it quite often. But no scientist I've met thinks in this way. Also there's an unfair stereotype that spiritual people always believe they know the truth and stop seeking additional knowledge. I was trying, and I think successful, to ignore the stereotypes. I said belief allows one to say that this is the truth and no proof is needed. I didn't say that all spiritual people think that way. Science however does not allow anyone to say this is the truth and no proof is needed.

Additionally, scientists are free to explore anything, spiritual or otherwise.

 

[tazz]

I'm having trouble with the meaning of "physical truth" and "spiritual truth". How does either of them differ from something that is simply: true. I can believe anything I want, that doesn't make it true. Is that what you're referring to as a spiritual truth? Something that one believes but doesn't have any data to support it?

 

[Neri]

I'm having trouble with the meaning of "physical truth" and "spiritual truth". How does either of them differ from something that is simply: true. I can believe anything I want, that doesn't make it true. Is that what you're referring to as a spiritual truth? Something that one believes but doesn't have any data to support it?

The interesting question here, I think, is that how does one gauge "truth" from "untruth"?

It certainly seems to be both an individual and a collective venture.

We have moved into ontological and epistemological territory here.

And then there is one's proclivity toward one type of cosmology rather than another, that is under consideration here.

One could answer your "physical truth" versus "spiritual truth" as the former being physically observable and measurable and the latter observable from an internal vantage point that is experienced internally and thus not measurable in the same way as the former, although this is nor entirely accurate.

Rather this kind of empirical data collection is rather more anecdotal rather than peer reviewable. What would be deemed getting away from
"logic" here, would be to write off acecdotal data rather than consider that it's still evidence of observable patterns and phenomena.

The other thing to consider is that you don't know what you don't know. You only know your own experience and that is shaped by your perceptual framework, so there's that.

 

[The Pandector]

I'm having trouble with the meaning of "physical truth" and "spiritual truth". How does either of them differ from something that is simply: true. I can believe anything I want, that doesn't make it true. Is that what you're referring to as a spiritual truth? Something that one believes but doesn't have any data to support it?

Tough question. But it seems framed to imply that those invested in finding truth of a spiritual nature have no data to support their paradigm. Of course, that isn’t the case. What is most often true is that the trail of evidence the spiritual seeker follows is discounted by those trained in or accustomed to dealing only with physical truth.

A halfway analogy… The uninformed observer sees a dog slogging around in an aimless manner, finally disappearing mindlessly into the woods. The informed observer knows the dog is tracking something using its sense of smell. Even though the human can’t smell what the dog smells, he has witnessed the successful hunt and believes (acts according to the belief) that the hound has senses the human doesn’t have. Now, the scientist has ascertained the precise olfactory prowess of hound versus human, able to name substances and PPM. But, he can’t smell it any better than the original observer.

Recently discovered I’m autistic. That explains in a nutshell how I have lived an entire lifespan with decidedly different concerns and priorities than most all of the people around me. I cautiously concluded long ago that I’m not incorrect in my observations or faulty in my conclusions. Rather, I’m just tuned into a different set of concerns. I have physical sensations, problems and also acute sensitivities that even physicians often discount. That’s not braggadocio, it’s just fact that I have ascertained over a lifetime which simply doesn’t fit the paradigm of those specialists.

Came across this forum and discovered that there are plenty like me who are tuned into different priorities. Nevertheless, I’m part of a minority here, in that I’m tuned to a spiritual spectrum. That’s okay; I was born with receptors not many have, and that makes it very difficult for others to understand, just as I don’t understand or accept the value of going along to get along.

 

[Neri]

So I just had a phone disagreement with my very bright 18 yr old son, and I'm quoting my text response here, because it seems relevant to this current discussion. Excuse the slightly personal stuff at the onset, we were talking about "science" and I was trying to introduce a philosophical, etymological, ontological overview so we can get past this false dichotomous adage that pits "scientific thinkers" against "religious people" which in reality, is a erroneous premise, if you really want to apply logic to it. btw, sonno agreed with what I said, and we are all good now

"Well, it's ok. Annoying but ok. I'm used to being talked down to as if I don't know what I'm talking about, which is frustrating, but how it so often is. I'm not a conventional thinker and will constantly get push back or dismissal. Nothing new for me.

I'm standing by what I said. People need to have an ontological awareness of how they discern fact and truth from non-truth and propaganda, or it's way too easy to get caught up in false dichotomies of "science" versus "religion" or "science" versus "philosophy" or "hard science" versus "soft sciences" etc. these are black and white lens that are, truly, distorting lens. It's not an easy or short learning curve, but none the less, I apply my logical "savant" brain abilities to speaking this truth.

"Cosmology" is an overarching branch of "logic" etymoLOGICALly speaking. The list of "ologies" cover many scientific and philosophical branches of academia, and they all relate back to the platonic philosophy of "logic" "rationale" which then branches out in a vast body or bodies of written and spoken scientific disciplines and the underlying philosophies that drive these methodologies and subsequent theories and beliefs. "LOGIC comes from LOGOS. It's all in the etymology.

Dogma is dogma and inquiry is not dogma, it challenges dogma and sees how well it does in the light of examination. If that's not what "science" is supposed to be about, then how is it any different from just another religion?

 

[tazz]

The interesting question here, I think, is that how does one gauge "truth" from "untruth"?

If someone says "I understand internally that the universe works like this, it's a spiritual truth" then it is true that they believe the universe works in such a way, but such an assertion is not at all useful in working out how the universe actually works. Those two things are very different.

Using the phrase spiritual truth in this way stretches the usual meaning of the word truth beyond breaking point. I think we need to use a more appropriate phrase in that case. Spiritual truth is misleading. I'd suggest that hypothesis would be a better word. If we don't have any measurable data to support an assertion, then isn't it a hypothesis. That's a key step in advancing our body of knowledge: If x and y then maybe z - let's go see if we can find z.

But it seems framed to imply that those invested in finding truth of a spiritual nature have no data to support their paradigm.

Well, firstly, that's not how it's framed. I would suggest you're thinking that because you see the world of science in this way:

What is most often true is that the trail of evidence the spiritual seeker follows is discounted by those trained in or accustomed to dealing only with physical truth.

As I wrote before, this certainly isn't my experience when interacting with rigorous, critical-thinking individuals. The only time I see anyone discount evidence is when the topic is something utterly ridiculous such as when someone says we never landed on the moon and here's my evidence, or the earth is flat and here's my evidence. I think we can all be forgiven in those circumstances for not wasting our time looking at the evidence. People of science would usually find it extremely disrespectful and ignorant to just ignore credible evidence. It goes against everything the world of science stands for - the core of it being the scientific method.

And secondly, I was responding to your own example of a spiritual truth, and you saying that there was no way to assemble data to support it:

my understanding of how God is literally in conscious control of every quark and raindrop. There is no way I can assemble data to support that belief.

Now you're putting forward a different scenario; one in which the spiritual seeker is in fact following a trail of evidence - well, that's science! That's all science is - make an educated guess (or maybe even a wild guess), go find out if it's true, publish your method and results. Here, we can just use the word truth in its everyday sense. We don't need to get into ontology and epistemology because the sort of thing we're talking about here is simply observable fact. If we do [whatever] will the thing turn blue or red. We do the experiment. The thing turns red. So we've revealed something true about the world - do this, in this particular way, and the thing turns red. That's all we can say. The wider process of creating a working model of the universe based on lots of these observable truths is a different matter.

This process does not deal in absolute truths. The world of science never says "we are the authority, we get to tell you what the truth is, and only we can discern the truth, and no-one else should even question us."(1) But that's what some religious leaders and cult leaders and atheist dictators would say. The issue with truth is not with faith or religion or science or spirituality. The issue is about the concept of worship - I don't mean that specifically in the religious sense of attending a church or whatever, but in the wider sense of looking to an authority who dictates the truth and doesn't offer any evidence. That concept sits at odds with the world of science which just says let's go take a look, and whatever we find, that's what we have to accept. It also sits at odds with the spiritual world as you now describe it - if you're saying that a spiritual seeker may follow a trail of evidence, that sits in opposition to anyone (religious, philosophical, spiritual, atheist) who would say that we already know the truth and we don't need to provide any evidence to support it.

(1) I am of course referring to actual science when I write "never". There are lots of examples where the world of science does this - such as not allowing women to practice science or even obtain a scientific education. But such practices are not part of the scientific method which is what I'm referring to here. It's also quite common for there to be resistance to new evidence - sometimes even scientists are entrenched in models that have worked for a long time and appear to reflect an absolute truth. But within the context of the scientific method, this is healthy scepticism. It prompts people to be even more rigorous, and do even more experiments, and eventually the world of science will accept the evidence if it keeps passing test after test after test...

 

[tazz]

I am worried that my posts have strayed off topic, but looking back to the original thrust of this thread I think this line of discussion is relevant.

Autistic people are often said not to have empathy - which I think is not the case, and I know others in this forum have also said that. Perhaps better to say empathy is expressed differently.

Autistic people are often said to have difficulty with communication and social interaction - which involves understanding language and expression.

Autistic people are often said to have sensory differences - light, sound, touch, and many other things, are experienced in unusual ways.

All of these things are about interactions between the individual and the universe. They are key aspects of the human condition.

Autistic people are often said to have black and white thinking, binary thinking, inflexible thinking. This is certainly true in my case and I know others have said something similar. Something is either true or not. The shades in between are perhaps (perhaps!) not so easy for the autistic brain to work with.

Well, you could interpret this two ways.

1) Something is either true or not. It's either a fact or not. Can we observe it? Is there any evidence? If not, I don't accept that it is true.

2) Something is either true or not. It's either a fact or not. Is it something decreed by an all-powerful authority? If not, then I don't accept that it is true.

Both approaches fit the (grossly over-simplified) description of autism I just gave. I could hypothesise that the concepts of strictly evidence-based observable facts, and dictated facts from some authority, would both be more compatible with autistic brains than the large messy area that lies between these two approaches to explaining the universe.

 

[Neri]

If someone says "I understand internally that the universe works like this, it's a spiritual truth" then it is true that they believe the universe works in such a way, but such an assertion is not at all useful in working out how the universe actually works. Those two things are very different.

Using the phrase spiritual truth in this way stretches the usual meaning of the word truth beyond breaking point. I think we need to use a more appropriate phrase in that case. Spiritual truth is misleading. I'd suggest that hypothesis would be a better word. If we don't have any measurable data to support an assertion, then isn't it a hypothesis. That's a key step in advancing our body of knowledge: If x and y then maybe z - let's go see if we can find z.


Well, firstly, that's not how it's framed. I would suggest you're thinking that because you see the world of science in this way:

As I wrote before, this certainly isn't my experience when interacting with rigorous, critical-thinking individuals. The only time I see anyone discount evidence is when the topic is something utterly ridiculous such as when someone says we never landed on the moon and here's my evidence, or the earth is flat and here's my evidence. I think we can all be forgiven in those circumstances for not wasting our time looking at the evidence. People of science would usually find it extremely disrespectful and ignorant to just ignore credible evidence. It goes against everything the world of science stands for - the core of it being the scientific method.

And secondly, I was responding to your own example of a spiritual truth, and you saying that there was no way to assemble data to support it:


Now you're putting forward a different scenario; one in which the spiritual seeker is in fact following a trail of evidence - well, that's science! That's all science is - make an educated guess (or maybe even a wild guess), go find out if it's true, publish your method and results. Here, we can just use the word truth in its everyday sense. We don't need to get into ontology and epistemology because the sort of thing we're talking about here is simply observable fact. If we do [whatever] will the thing turn blue or red. We do the experiment. The thing turns red. So we've revealed something true about the world - do this, in this particular way, and the thing turns red. That's all we can say. The wider process of creating a working model of the universe based on lots of these observable truths is a different matter.

This process does not deal in absolute truths. The world of science never says "we are the authority, we get to tell you what the truth is, and only we can discern the truth, and no-one else should even question us."(1) But that's what some religious leaders and cult leaders and atheist dictators would say. The issue with truth is not with faith or religion or science or spirituality. The issue is about the concept of worship - I don't mean that specifically in the religious sense of attending a church or whatever, but in the wider sense of looking to an authority who dictates the truth and doesn't offer any evidence. That concept sits at odds with the world of science which just says let's go take a look, and whatever we find, that's what we have to accept. It also sits at odds with the spiritual world as you now describe it - if you're saying that a spiritual seeker may follow a trail of evidence, that sits in opposition to anyone (religious, philosophical, spiritual, atheist) who would say that we already know the truth and we don't need to provide any evidence to support it.

(1) I am of course referring to actual science when I write "never". There are lots of examples where the world of science does this - such as not allowing women to practice science or even obtain a scientific education. But such practices are not part of the scientific method which is what I'm referring to here. It's also quite common for there to be resistance to new evidence - sometimes even scientists are entrenched in models that have worked for a long time and appear to reflect an absolute truth. But within the context of the scientific method, this is healthy scepticism. It prompts people to be even more rigorous, and do even more experiments, and eventually the world of science will accept the evidence if it keeps passing test after test after test...

There is such a field, sometimes referred to as The science of Spirituality, writers like Yogananda, Rupert Sheldrake, Joseph Chilton Pearce, Deepak Chopra.

Really "The Spiritual Journey" is personal, which isn't really any different from questioning "science" when things don't add up. "Science" isn't and can't be based on consensus and "Religion" is personal, it's not a consensus thing either. Whomever says it is, is being an ontological gatekeeper and who gave them that authority? It's ALL based on both faith, and observable data, because you didn't watch and see all the empirical data you base your "scientific understandings" off, you didn't see it all with your own eyes, you took their word for it. Does everyone check everything, with their own eyes? No, they don't, they have FAITH in who they deem authoritative, and hopefully, they research and research and check to see if things add up, but NOBODY can have the time to check everything, themselves.

However, Spirituality is a "the proof is in the pudding" or a "You shall know them by their fruits" situation, if it improves your wellbeing and relationships and overall morale, it's probably working for you. It's very personal, so you could say it's concerned with "inner technologies" as opposed to the hard sciences approach, which leads to outer technology developments. Religion is the vehicle by which those "inner technological" methodologies get transmitted.

There are very dogmatic religious people and there are dogmatic science people. One is not superior to the other, because they both have blind spots. Logic teaches us to make up our own minds. It overarches all of it. And yes, ontology is relevant, because when it's not examined one can take for granted beliefs that we've been taught and dogmas, whether religious or "scientific" that might be unhelpful and just plain wrong.

 

[tazz]

It's ALL based on both faith, and observable data, because you didn't watch and see all the empirical data you base your "scientific understandings" off, you didn't see it all with your own eyes, you took their word for it.

No I think this is a really flawed comparison. And definitely does not represent what the science world does or what I'm doing when I read what the scientists are saying.

I don't think anyone in the science world expects anyone else to just take their word for it.

In practice, usually by the time the science world actually asserts something as fact, the results have been independently checked and the experiment repeated many times. So there's that, for starters. And even then, they're happy to be proven wrong.

Also, you say I'm taking their word for it - but I'm not. I've read a couple of papers on gravitational lensing. I didn't understand it all but it looked official and clever. And the papers have been peer reviewed. And the scientists got some awards. But I'm not just taking their word for it. I'm not that daft. I understand that I haven't checked the results myself so I can't say for sure that they are correct. I'm not qualified and I don't have the means to check. So I wouldn't ever say to someone "I believe them, it's absolutely true". I'd say "someone else did this thing and says that gravitational lensing is real - here's the link if you wanna go check it out".

But if, for example, I was building a 4 trillion dollar device to be sent into space to examine gravitational lensing in more detail, I sure as heck would check the previous experiments before doing so. So it's not like anyone in the science world ever just takes another scientist's word for it either. That's not how science works.

there are dogmatic science people.

No there aren't. A dogmatic science person is no longer doing science. Do you have a specific example of dogmatic science?

 

[tazz]

However, Spirituality is a "the proof is in the pudding" or a "You shall know them by their fruits" situation, if it improves your wellbeing and relationships and overall morale, it's probably working for you.

It's difficult to discuss areas of disagreement online without coming across as perhaps more confrontational than is intended. So in the interests of civility I wanted to point out that I liked this bit of your post. I think it speaks to my earlier post about "is it useful". If it genuinely is helping, if it's useful, it's difficult and probably unnecessary to argue against it.

 

[Neri]

No I think this is a really flawed comparison. And definitely does not represent what the science world does or what I'm doing when I read what the scientists are saying.

I don't think anyone in the science world expects anyone else to just take their word for it.

In practice, usually by the time the science world actually asserts something as fact, the results have been independently checked and the experiment repeated many times. So there's that, for starters. And even then, they're happy to be proven wrong.

Also, you say I'm taking their word for it - but I'm not. I've read a couple of papers on gravitational lensing. I didn't understand it all but it looked official and clever. And the papers have been peer reviewed. And the scientists got some awards. But I'm not just taking their word for it. I'm not that daft. I understand that I haven't checked the results myself so I can't say for sure that they are correct. I'm not qualified and I don't have the means to check. So I wouldn't ever say to someone "I believe them, it's absolutely true". I'd say "someone else did this thing and says that gravitational lensing is real - here's the link if you wanna go check it out".

But if, for example, I was building a 4 trillion dollar device to be sent into space to examine gravitational lensing in more detail, I sure as heck would check the previous experiments before doing so. So it's not like anyone in the science world ever just takes another scientist's word for it either. That's not how science works.


No there aren't. A dogmatic science person is no longer doing science. Do you have a specific example of dogmatic science?

Loads. But you'll have to give me some time, and you probably won't like it.

 

[tazz]

you probably won't like it.

Let's not jump to conclusions.

Loads. But you'll have to give me some time

Just one is enough. I'm curious.

 

[Neri]

Loads. But you'll have to give me some time, and you probably won't like it.

Rupert Sheldrake does a lot better job explaining "dogmatic scientism" than I ever could. I could show you a lot of different things, as you've asked. But @tazz I don't want to be ungentle with you. I don't know how much you mean that question or is it a rhetorical question.

 

[Neri]

Let's not jump to conclusions.


Just one is enough. I'm curious.

Oh cool Rupert is a good choice then, I think.

 

[tazz]

In that video he explains my point very well and I think he and I would agree...

Science as free inquiry is the sort of science I've been talking about. Sheldrake says it's a good thing. So do I.

Science as a dogmatic "world view", is the sort of science that he says is a bad thing. So do I. In fact, I'd go even further and say it's so far divorced from useful science, that it's misleading to refer to it as science at all.

Going back over our conversation, I think we've been ships passing each other in the fog. You're criticising what he refers to as the "world view" type of science. I'm talking about what he describes as the good sort: "science as a method of inquiry based on reason, evidence, hypothesis, and collective investigation."

I think this is where the problem arises, and it's no more complex than this: Science (the non-dogmatic actual real science that Sheldrake likes) has an extremely high bar when it comes to quality of evidence. Sometimes people who are not part of the professional scientific community make a claim and they think it has pretty good evidence, and they admit that it isn't complete but they think it's good enough to be taken seriously and inspire others to do more research in that field. But in reality the evidence is nowhere near the standard required in the professional world of science. Lacking the appreciation of just how high the standard needs to be, it seems unfair to be dismissed. So people cry "foul" and think that they've come up against a dogmatic establishment. Really, they're just talking to people who require a much higher standard of evidence; people who according to their own ethical and professional standards, would happily accept evidence if it was sufficiently high quality - even if it overturns everything they thought they understood about the universe. Every scientist I know (which isn't many but I guess it's more than a handful) would be happy to be proven wrong by some exciting new discovery - it opens up doors for new exploration.