Going back to our roots, Aspie/Autie Poll time

[epath13]

It's hard not to say "genetic". I'm sure my dad and his mom have it. It probably ran on my grandma's side of the family. Both of my kids have it.
But here's the deal, I think a lot of people on the spectrum with more severe symptoms have other conditions that may affect their functioning. I think Autism may be considered a combination of disorders in some cases. And all those disorders or even illnesses influence each other... not sure how else to say this like in my younger son's case. I think his processing issues are much more severe than mine but it seems there's the same pattern. And I believe the combination of genes he's got from me and my husband may altered the way those difficulties manifest themselves in him. I'm not denying that some environmental factors may have altered the manifestation... but then again - nobody knows. I give one little example. I couldn't recognize speech very well until the age of 5 and with some words till 7. I could speak (starting with a few words probably at the age of 2 and full sentences around age of 4) but when I heard other people talking sometimes it sounded like gibberish to me. I was fascinated by that gibberish and really wanted to figure out how those words really sounded like, what they really were (I actually knew those words mostly, but I didn't recognize them). Maybe my great interest actually motivated me to figure it out and eventually helped me to hear it right. Now it seems to me that my son may have similar issue, but for him it's also hard to pronounce words. But that may not be due to Autism but due to Apraxia. He seems so similar to me, but his symptoms (that at some point were mine) have been altered.

In the future I see Autism being split in many different symptoms; those symptoms are addressed separately and only jointly when it's appropriate.

 

[Maelstrom]

Please don't steer this thread into the direction of Aspie Supremacy or putting down NT's. Thanks.

Well I probably don't count as I'm a mongrel auspie. But I think the world would be wise to throw pieces of fried chicken and flowers at me and hope I stay in my cave.ha ha! I love nice warm soft NT girls.

 

[Maelstrom]

It's hard not to say "genetic". I'm sure my dad and his mom have it. It probably ran on my grandma's side of the family. Both of my kids have it. In the future I see Autism being split in many different symptoms; those symptoms are addressed separately and only jointly when it's appropriate.

Hi epath13 I agree with you, the tipping of the scales is both positive and negative which could also indicate a problem in cell division trees bonding and separation issues with adjacent lines or chemical replicacation flags being miss routed. Hereditary stuff can be confusing generations can skip or cross, recessive stuff can lay dormant and pop up. I think figuring out this stuff will take a long time, there are too many variables involved.

 

[Aspergirl4hire]

I don't agree that I chose my life, but I do believe that my choices affect it. If there had been a choice, I would have chosen people who wanted a child, not a narcissist born as an unwanted child and a probable HFA with a severely abused childhood is a nasty, nasty combination.

I'm emerging from the diagnostic shock and finding ways to "explain" the visible aspects of what I do to people, and starting, finally, to disengage a little from identifying myself as my condition. It feels very weird, because my mind is my self, but it's not all myself.

 

[Aspergirl4hire]

Pop was sitting in the living room after church the other day with my gun range ear protectors on, a little auti likely. Mom has the charm of a block of ice at church likely aspie some. And even tho I'm the sweetest son I get to be the black sheep baaaaa!

I've done that after business meetings, hiding the plug from my noise-canceling headphones to disguise the fact that I'm not actually listening to anything so much as not listening to everything!

 

[Harrison]

Harrison, getting a little metaphysical here, if you'll forgive me, do you feel that 'mind' is of spirit.. spirit is the home of conciousness?
I'm certainly aware that conciousness is the arena within which thought occurs..

The concept of spirit and the human condition are quite complex for me as it's my special interest, so like everyone here, I have devoted a great deal of time to it. Simply put, I believe that 'I' do not entirely exist within the physical form I control, that I am, in some sense, akin to a puppet master. It is my perception that the Mind is an interface between the biology of Form and myself. So Mind is not strictly spirit, nor is it strictly biology, it is more akin to Nadador's version of duality.

I have spent most of my journey understanding Jung and applying it to the metaphysical notions of my father and Taoism in general. In summary this has led me to investigate the spirit side of mind and its constant 'battle' with the biological side of mind (Ego). With the help of my former 'crew' we were able to show the workings of the ego through a process I called the Ego-Tier, which comprises of a myriad layers of chemical reactions that affect human functioning. The spirit side of mind uses Jung's concept of Archetypes/Anima/Animus and Hero masks as its reaction to the Ego-Tier. From this stems a majority of religious ideology and faith, which has been the most fascinating part of the work. Joseph Campbell, a man I had the priviledge of meeting, helped a great deal with his masterly understanding of how this conflict within the brain leads to our mythologies.

Consciousness, for me, is the spark arising from the interplay of spirit and humanity.

I should point out that I have, as yet, no formal viewpoint on what spirit 'is' or whether it truly exists without all the above points. Nor do I have a view on whether it requires a creator in order to exist. At the moment any concept of a creator may be, for me, a construct within the mind formulated by the reactions of the Ego-Tier. I remain neutral until I can prove otherwise.

 

[Spiller]

The concept of spirit and the human condition are quite complex for me as it's my special interest, so like everyone here, I have devoted a great deal of time to it. Simply put, I believe that 'I' do not entirely exist within the physical form I control, that I am, in some sense, akin to a puppet master. It is my perception that the Mind is an interface between the biology of Form and myself. So Mind is not strictly spirit, nor is it strictly biology, it is more akin to Nadador's version of duality.

I have spent most of my journey understanding Jung and applying it to the metaphysical notions of my father and Taoism in general. In summary this has led me to investigate the spirit side of mind and its constant 'battle' with the biological side of mind (Ego). With the help of my former 'crew' we were able to show the workings of the ego through a process I called the Ego-Tier, which comprises of a myriad layers of chemical reactions that affect human functioning. The spirit side of mind uses Jung's concept of Archetypes/Anima/Animus and Hero masks as its reaction to the Ego-Tier. From this stems a majority of religious ideology and faith, which has been the most fascinating part of the work. Joseph Campbell, a man I had the priviledge of meeting, helped a great deal with his masterly understanding of how this conflict within the brain leads to our mythologies.

Consciousness, for me, is the spark arising from the interplay of spirit and humanity.

I should point out that I have, as yet, no formal viewpoint on what spirit 'is' or whether it truly exists without all the above points. Nor do I have a view on whether it requires a creator in order to exist. At the moment any concept of a creator may be, for me, a construct within the mind formulated by the reactions of the Ego-Tier. I remain neutral until I can prove otherwise.

the pineal gland serves an even greater purpose, for bidirectional flow to the outside of the body...as the "Third Eye" described by many ancient cultures, some of which still exist and maintain this concept today.

I like the idea of Jungs shared unconscious, only extending to the whole Universe itself being conscious (you could call this God, or the Creator if you like), with us and our perceived world being the physical manifestations (puppets is a good word, with the conscious universe as puppetmaster).. too small to be aware of the whole, continously learning from this material existence and passing that experience back to the greater consciousness, the Whole always developing, always maturing in experience and awareness.
Considering the prevalent notion of the 'third eye' as spiritual centre throughout cultures worldwide, it makes an excellent location for the metaphorical puppetmasters' string (silver cord, if you're familiar with Astral travel, spirit journeys, out-of-body-experiences.. though the navel appears to be the observed actual connection point in much literature on the subject), our connection to the greater whole.
When we're born, we, as discrete conscious entities, at least as we perceive ourselves, emerge from the Whole and when we die, we return.
Just my musings on the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything..

 

[AsheSkyler]

I am adding a trigger warning because what i am about to post has actually caused some people i have told it to outside of this site to get upset and freak out, i dont want to freak anyone out but i also like to be able to express my belief

i believe that it is genetic although i do have odd perceptions,
i believe very much in fate, but maybe not the way normal people do. lots of people apply it to a grand meaning or something of the like, me i just believe everything happens for a reason, in a almost more of a mathematical sense. i have been told my view is depressing or odd but i find it comforting.

in science we know that to be true something must be repeatable, extending that though we get a very interesting thought, the same situation under the same conditions will always happen the same way. gravity affects things in the same way every time. and i believe the small variables which affect something are not so much things that are not there but are more so things that we just do not have enough tech to detect. our lack of knowledge doesnt mean it doesnt happen

i extend this thought process to fate, action/reaction. the concept that all of our reactions are just chemical reactions happening in our brain. to me the idea of free will doesnt actually exist, that since we are all just action and reaction, responding to one another doesnt take away from my belief of choice. we could not begin to identify and make predict how we will react therefore the concept of choice still exists.

i know this is just my theory and i do not hold it against anyone else who doesnt believe. for me i find my belief to be comforting, belief of an order to the universe, even if it is a bit chaotic in nature. i do believe in good and bad to a point and i would never be one to say something terrible was just fate to happen. more because i do not believe the universe works off a set morality, good and bad things just happen. the idea that it was predestined does not take away from how good or bad something is.

No arguments here. I'm half and half on the free will thing. How I explain it that life is like a book that you can't skip ahead and read the ending of. What's gonna happen is gonna happen, but what makes it free will is that you don't know what's gonna happen.

But I'm careful saying it half the time too. Most people get pretty caught up in the "how dare you call me a puppet" and ignore the rest of it.

 

[Harrison]

I like the idea of Jungs shared unconscious, only extending to the whole Universe itself being conscious (you could call this God, or the Creator if you like), with us and our perceived world being the physical manifestations (puppets is a good word, with the conscious universe as puppetmaster).. too small to be aware of the whole, continously learning from this material existence and passing that experience back to the greater consciousness, the Whole always developing, always maturing in experience and awareness.
Considering the prevalent notion of the 'third eye' as spiritual centre throughout cultures worldwide, it makes an excellent location for the metaphorical puppetmasters' string (silver cord, if you're familiar with Astral travel, spirit journeys, out-of-body-experiences.. though the navel appears to be the observed actual connection point in much literature on the subject), our connection to the greater whole.
When we're born, we, as discrete conscious entities, at least as we perceive ourselves, emerge from the Whole and when we die, we return.
Just my musings on the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything..

Differentials in the chemical and biological makeup of the pineal gland and that relationship to psychological disorders was one of the last things we were working on before my apocalypse. From a Taoist point of view I understand the latent spiritually that has been assigned to the gland throughout the ages, having a Tibetan father ensured I heard about some of the barbaric practises used to open the 'third eye', however, I am not entirely convinced that it is the major link between consciousness and the brain. It is intruiging that it is so photoreceptive, and controls melatonin production, as this has made me wonder whether ASD's all have an abnormal pineal makeup in common.

I trialled taking Melatonin for a year many years back, it certainly had an effect on my moods and my negative triggers.

Spirit, for me, is still the Greater Tao, the unknowable, in that whatever I hypothesise can only be conjecture as I am doing it from a human perspective. It is a mystery I shall leave until I am free of this body, if I continue to exist then it will be worth studying

 

[Harrison]

A look at the poll results so far show genetics leading the field as the prime suspect. Obviously, from the associated posts, people feel that the case for that is based upon their family histories. I am amongst them.

Here though is an interesting expansion on what is known so far on the genetic transmission of autism.

95% of your chromosomes can generate autistic traits, this is light years above the necessary percentage for any other genetically transmitted disease.
Of the 100 or so genes that have become suspect in recent trials, everyone of them, that's 100%, act spontaneously and do not follow the same sequence as the parents. One can argue that any autistic spectrum child does not carry the same autistic genes as its parents or siblings as they are manufactured 'on site'.

The initial autism gene can appear out of nowhere, that is, it has no prehistory in the family.

Genetic disorders require duplication, more than one copy of the gene is required to create a dysfunction. Autism doesn't need duplication.

It is as if there is a command to engender autism but no commands to say how, it becomes an individual process at the point of conception.

If this is found to be true across a larger sample then one could ask 'How much does the individual budding psychology of the infant play in determining the level and degree of autism within the biology of the being?'

I'm still convinced there is a secondary factor that is not genetic at play in the intial creation of autistic traits.

 

[royinpink]

A look at the poll results so far show genetics leading the field as the prime suspect. Obviously, from the associated posts, people feel that the case for that is based upon their family histories. I am amongst them.

Here though is an interesting expansion on what is known so far on the genetic transmission of autism.

95% of your chromosomes can generate autistic traits, this is light years above the necessary percentage for any other genetically transmitted disease.
Of the 100 or so genes that have become suspect in recent trials, everyone of them, that's 100%, act spontaneously and do not follow the same sequence as the parents. One can argue that any autistic spectrum child does not carry the same autistic genes as its parents or siblings as they are manufactured 'on site'.

The initial autism gene can appear out of nowhere, that is, it has no prehistory in the family.

Genetic disorders require duplication, more than one copy of the gene is required to create a dysfunction. Autism doesn't need duplication.

It is as if there is a command to engender autism but no commands to say how, it becomes an individual process at from the point of conception.

If this is found to be true across a larger sample then one could ask 'How much does the individual budding psychology of the infant play in determining the level and degree of autism within the biology of the being?'

I'm still convinced there is a secondary factor that is not genetic at play in the intial creation of autistic traits.

Has anyone heard of the study out last fall (2014) that looked at the lack of synaptic pruning in autistic brains? As I understand it, normal brains get rid of excess synapses as the brain develops in childhood and regularly perform autophagy to get rid of old parts, whereas autistic brains don't do as much of either of those things.

Some choice quotes:

"Using mouse models of autism, the researchers traced the pruning defect to a protein called mTOR. When mTOR is overactive, they found, brain cells lose much of their 'self-eating' ability. And without this ability, the brains of the mice were pruned poorly and contained excess synapses. 'While people usually think of learning as requiring formation of new synapses,' Dr. Sulzer says, 'the removal of inappropriate synapses may be just as important.'"

"'What’s remarkable about the findings,' said Dr. Sulzer, 'is that hundreds of genes have been linked to autism, but almost all of our human subjects had overactive mTOR and decreased autophagy, and all appear to have a lack of normal synaptic pruning. This says that many, perhaps the majority, of genes may converge onto this mTOR/autophagy pathway, the same way that many tributaries all lead into the Mississippi River. Overactive mTOR and reduced autophagy, by blocking normal synaptic pruning that may underlie learning appropriate behavior, may be a unifying feature of autism.'"

 

[Kaylee]

No arguments here. I'm half and half on the free will thing. How I explain it that life is like a book that you can't skip ahead and read the ending of. What's gonna happen is gonna happen, but what makes it free will is that you don't know what's gonna happen.

But I'm careful saying it half the time too. Most people get pretty caught up in the "how dare you call me a puppet" and ignore the rest of it.

this is what i mean actually. i am glad some people actually understand what i mean, if we cannot perdict it, then while it may not be "free will" it still is for all purposes free will

i also think that this theory opens up to a truely paradox free style of time travel. but that is a whole nother can of worms

 

[Spiller]

"'What’s remarkable about the findings,' said Dr. Sulzer, 'is that hundreds of genes have been linked to autism, but almost all of our human subjects had overactive mTOR and decreased autophagy, and all appear to have a lack of normal synaptic pruning. This says that many, perhaps the majority, of genes may converge onto this mTOR/autophagy pathway, the same way that many tributaries all lead into the Mississippi River. Overactive mTOR and reduced autophagy, by blocking normal synaptic pruning that may underlie learning appropriate behavior, may be a unifying feature of autism.'"

Could this explain why many of us still seem to retain child-like emotions and thought processes? We still mature and learn, but those original synapses are still there from initial formation of the brain, so we still like to play with toys, our emotions are very 'simple'/childlike compared to the more complex and reserved emotions NT's exhibit..
Basically we're piling new stuff in on top of the original and because we initially learned to function as children, that childlike behavior remains our default programming; we obtain the new replacement parts but they get stored, still in their boxes, in the garage because the old original parts are still in use.

The initial autism gene can appear out of nowhere, that is, it has no prehistory in the family.

Is it known whether simplex ASD is a given, or just that a parent had ASD traits that went unnoticed, making it multiplex?

If this is found to be true across a larger sample then one could ask 'How much does the individual budding psychology of the infant play in determining the level and degree of autism within the biology of the being?'

You're saying that what is known is that psychological development has an effect on biological development, it 'switches on' suspect genes and/or determines the appearance of ASD in the individual..
What might cause 1 in 80 infants (or whatever the figure is) to experience similar psychological development worldwide? Similar parenting styles? Environmental factors? The finite number of ways the human brain/mind can develop?
I wonder if a certain NT:ND ratio isn't actually essential to a healthy population.. rather like the species of frog that spontaneously changes sex if the Male:Female ratio gets too far out of balance; over the history of the Human Race both have their strengths, aiding the survival of the group - it's only in this modern era of ours, with its various unusual social and media pressures that didn't exist less than a hundred years ago, that we find we don't fit in..
Travel backward or forward (hopefully) in time a century and we'd be fine.
Just musing, this is a fascinating thread..

 

[Harrison]

Currently, that is what appears to happen and that could be construed as active foresight. It would be interesting to pursue that rabbit hole.

If it is a choice and given the frequency of it occurring then there must be natural reason for it. Perhaps there is some truth in the idea of the introduction of the Neanderthal genetic line in the Homo Sapien line? That might explain two states of being perhaps?

 

[apsie]

Brilliant posts.

 

[Nadador]

If it is a choice and given the frequency of it occurring then there must be natural reason for it. Perhaps there is some truth in the idea of the introduction of the Neanderthal genetic line in the Homo Sapien line? That might explain two states of being perhaps?

Well, I thought I was coming back into this with lots of interesting things to say to expand on my initial post, but you bloody said all of them. And now you even brought in my current intrigue with a possible Neanderthalian connection.

There's naught for me to do now but sit back and let you do my talking for me.

Never mind me, I'm just here for the atmosphere.

 

[Maelstrom]

[QUOTE="Harrison54, I'm still convinced there is a secondary factor that is not genetic at play in the intial creation of autistic traits.[/QUOTE]

How do you do you feel on the possibility of a 2 stage event. First genetic vulnerability to cell damage and or mutation or replication disruption during early brain development. Second a chemical that delivers the disruption and or damage causing distortions of the cell division trees in early brain development? Does this sound plausible?

On the soul thing a computer file on harddrive at the cloning factory in heaven. Sorry for the lack of romace.

 

[Harrison]

Well, I thought I was coming back into this with lots of interesting things to say to expand on my initial post, but you bloody said all of them. And now you even brought in my current intrigue with a possible Neanderthalian connection.

There's naught for me to do now but sit back and let you do my talking for me.

Never mind me, I'm just here for the atmosphere.

I thought you'd gone off on your journey, so I thought I try to fill the gap you left behind, albeit inadequately

If you have time I would like your thoughts on it old friend.

 

[Harrison]

[QUOTE="Harrison54, I'm still convinced there is a secondary factor that is not genetic at play in the intial creation of autistic traits.

How do you do you feel on the possibility of a 2 stage event. First genetic vulnerability to cell damage and or mutation or replication disruption during early brain development. Second a chemical that delivers the disruption and or damage causing distortions of the cell division trees in early brain development? Does this sound plausible?

On the soul thing a computer file on harddrive at the cloning factory in heaven. Sorry for the lack of romace.[/QUOTE]

Oh Mael, you tease

Yes, I believe in a two stage event, I call the first the Prime Modifier (PM) which allows the biological changes to take place that 'fix' the autistic sequence for that individual. From there we have the Ego-Tier complex.

 

[Maelstrom]

Has anyone heard of the study out last fall (2014) that looked at the lack of synaptic pruning in autistic brains? "

I have heard of the pruning period thing in relation to increased suicide risk. However the long term factor here could be a substantial increase in brain power as the brain adjusts its learning pathways.