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

[The Pandector]

I was sorta saying it felt like we were nearing the end, not that I was making a final post and would not say another word.


This example misses the mark because you're talking about our ability to see something changing after it's already been verified.

Before it's been verified, I could say "visible light is made up of all these different wavelengths". But until we find out whether that statement is true or not, we can't go around saying that it is true.

It is a flawed example. Still, this is an example of nitpicking that seems to me to have little forward motion involved. Maybe now I should suggest changes to the example to make it valid, but what is the point in that since you already understand the larger point?

You didn't beef the God example, so I'll assume you understood the point. That same point is reiterated in the second example, and I suspect you know without any effort how it was used to buttress the first example. What saddens me is that the point itself was lost when you turned to critiquing my example. So, you succeeded in tearing me down a bit, but failed to move closer to truth.

In similar fashion, you provide proper terminology for my account of the healed baby, but fail to address science's failure to account for such things, other than to say they can't account for it 'yet' (an obvious example of faith). So I see your treatment of those accounts as dismissive and science's failure as the more apparent.

Dismissive? At one point, you defined one episode as hearsay. Scientifically, I'm fine with that definition; no argument there. Practically, that points very directly at how insufficient science is to the supernatural event. (Again I'll say that I know I hold myself out to ridicule to speak of the occurrence. It is the clearest example I've ever been involved with, but am fully aware that I can claim no credit in what happened; I was used.) Knowledge I could not have had was related at a premium moment to a child of God who was in great need. You say those aren't data points because you're looking in the wrong place for the wrong kind of data points; you know what I mean and I don't care if I'm using the words correctly. That all of that was prefaced in time by a prayer I was surprised at praying is another such point. The wonder and worship in the hearts of the women standing by is a data point the strict scientist can't fathom, because it didn't occur during an fMRI routine. But those things are just as real as the crushing and crumbling of my soul at having had this thing happen to me. I'll sit all week for your fMRI's but you will never fathom what, in truth, happened that night. But, I agree; in the world of science, it's all hearsay, just third-rate noise not to be factored into future experimental design. I'm not offended by that, but I do find it sad that some think this is the pinnacle of human intellectual endeavor. It isn't, and I state that as a fact.

All the science in the world never improved a single person's life, except maybe the scientist's. That's the job of technology. Until the technologist puts it to use, the raw science has only potential value. Whether any particular piece of technology is good or evil isn't the issue, but whether it objectively improves the lives of real humans, which science without technology never could do. And, technology is an artform; borrowing from the treasures of science, crafting and offering alleged improvement to the hungry/lonely/bored masses. IOW, science is sterile but a useful tool, critical to the art of technology. So you see, science is limited not only at the input end, but also at the output end; it simply cannot stand alone as a paradigm for determining the nature of our existence. Thankfully, we have it for the physical part. Hopefully, we don't get fooled into thinking that the world of science equates to the whole world of man.


As a test statement, I might say that I have tried to elevate the search for truth above the mundane, but you are determined not to accept anything outside the realm of science.

Again I will say, for me this is a calm, even enjoyable conversation, and I hope it is the same for you.

 

[tazz]

this is an example of nitpicking

No it isn't. It undermines your entire point.

I'll sit all week for your fMRI's but you will never fathom what, in truth, happened that night

Now you can predict the future.

All the events you're describing could have any number of causes or explanations, but you choose to accept only one particular explanation because it fits with your world view. Any open-minded person reading your accounts would understand that.

Enjoyable conversation, perhaps. But we're done.

 

[The Pandector]

Crucially, for this discussion, I think it's worth noting that if I'm the first one to see light split into all the different colors, I can go around saying that is true. But until it is verified, that claim is still hearsay.

Some people might decide I'm trustworthy and take me at my word. They still only have hearsay to go on. I think it would be a bit premature for someone to take me at my word and then start teaching students that light is made up of lots of different colors. What they could teach, is "some bloke says it's true, but it hasn't yet been verified." It would be important to point out that the rigorous scrutiny required to verify something has not yet taken place, otherwise the students might get the wrong impression.

If someone was going to build an expensive machine that uses the different color wavelengths to analyse the chemical composition of stars (which is a real thing called spectroscopy), then they would need something more than hearsay. Firstly, because they don't want to waste a lot of time and money designing the machine if it's not going to work. And secondly, because all of their results will be doubted too unless the premise upon which the machine depends has been verified. They won't be able to state that "it is true that this star is made up of hydrogen and helium" until we've verified that light is indeed made up of different colored wavelengths. This is how the scientific method proceeds to build up a body of knowledge that can be relied upon.

I appreciate your comments about your difficulties with terminology, but it doesn't seem relevant in this case. You didn't write "truth" but mean "hearsay". You wrote "truth" meaning "something that is so". I'm trying to stay away from discussing religion to avoid problems with posting guidelines. So let's avoid that and just talk about the general idea of spiritual truth. As we've hopefully just established, we can't call it a spiritual truth unless it's been verified. It might be true, but we don't know that unless there's some sort of verification. If that verification process (e.g. some form of scrutiny) relies on information that itself hasn't been verified, then we cannot confidently say that the spiritual truth in question is true either.

In the same way: all the results from the spectroscopy machine would be doubted if we don't first establish (i.e. verify) that light is indeed made up of different colored wavelengths.

All very well stated. Thank you. Having spent a good part of my electronics career in missile test, I not only worked downstream of some of the world's finest scientists, I used the scientific method on a constant basis. Believe me, at several million dollars for a single test (extremely low end) these people know about the scientific approach and about the development of technology. I could not have survived my position for a week if I were unable to negotiate that paradigm.

I don't expect my word retrieval problems to affect the conversation. But I'm pretty sure I'm being suspected of sneaky dealings, so I explained my word choices. When I said truth, I meant truth.

You keep making my point, insisting that something can't be referred to as true until it has been verified. But your version of verification only works in the scientific realm, so the test is stacked against any non-scientific assertions. I know it's weak to say this since they're not here to speak for themselves, but that's my tough luck. But there were many witnesses and beneficiaries of, for instance, the pregnant lady episode. I could have taken down all the names, collected written accounts, submitted them for review. But you see, that's what you'd do in the scientific world, not what you'd do to real people who were witnessing the unfolding of a miraculous event. (Oops. Now will we hear about the Catholic Church's authoritative bull on what constitutes and may be referred to as a miracle? Be glad to discuss that with the Pope, as well as his antiscriptural definition of the word 'saint'.) Though I have no proof, I'm certain that all of the people involved in that episode considered it to be verified. OTOH, not one of them came to me later and asked about my experience of being used in that way, which I think is pretty important stuff. It didn't matter to them; what happened, happened, and they were direct witnesses. Mother and child were made whole, just as the Lord revealed through the wallflower.

When those people told this story to others, as I imagine they did, the others could see their sincerity, but how many believed? That's not my job. Still, part of my job is to understand what's happening in the spiritual realm (well, I'm retired now). So I continue to collect information, compare, collate, hold it up to Scripture, digest. The result has been a clear example of what my psych prof called the Shotgun Theory of learning. (a large mural - the truth - is positioned behind a great sheet, and you're given a shotgun. After blowing enough holes in the sheet, you begin to see the big picture. At some point, you could begin to accurately predict those things that are still hidden; that's the point at which I feel my paradigm is starting to prove itself.) I don't consider that to be an optimal way to learn, but I am confident that it is an effective way to get the big picture, and is the approach appropriate to the view I'm given of the arena.

I'm not trying to find some advantage is some pointless debate; I'm trying to explain to the preacher about rock and roll, and maybe fill in a few blank spots of my own in the process. Peace.

 

[The Pandector]

No it isn't. It undermines your entire point.


Now you can predict the future.

But you don't explain how it undermines my point, only how it's not acceptable to you.

Now you can predict the future... says the guy who famously predicts that someday science will unravel the human soul. Science is a religion for many.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Neri

I spent some time with that video. It was interesting to "catch up". I haven't had an active interest in this kind of content for decades (pre-Internet times).
It got me thinking of the 1980's TV version of "Bridehead's Revisited", which was interesting (Jeremy Irons as the relatively unsympathetic protagonist, but "everyone" liked the character Sebastian Flyte)

I don't think either of us would gain anything by discussing the content of the video.

 

[Neri]

Needing external validation kind of defeats the purpose of "spirituality".

I, myself, am referring to the "Gnosis" type, not religious dogma of any kind.

Ontological debates, in the vein of this one, are nothing, remotely, new, as @Hypnalis relays.

I do see that the way it's panned out here further evidence that "science" is just as much a religion to some as "Christianity" is to other's, and NOT so much "methodology of inquiry" nor true "logic" but more and more evidence of the human propensity for "confirmation bias".

Negation, in itself, is not an argument. It is simply the denial of realities that one refuses to witness and, therefore, share in.

 

[Neri]

Agreed. I've studied it, for many years. I just wanted to know your take on it.

I think we're reaching the end of this line of discussion and thank you for being so thorough and sharing some personal stories.

I don't think we're breaking the forum's posting guidelines because, and I want to make this very clear, to point out the inaccuracies in your comments so far, I don't have to debate whether god is real or the bible is accurate. I could concede all of that and still the way you describe the world is inaccurate.

You are using incorrect definitions of words. In everyday language, we already have definitions for data and scrutiny and rigour, for example.

When someone hears a voice in the way you describe it, that's not a data point, it's hearsay. We already have those words in our language. You're simply using them incorrectly. I'm not even doubting whether god actually spoke to you, but it's simply incorrect to call it a data point when it's hearsay.

We also have a definition for scrutiny. And comparing that hearsay to a text that doesn't have clear origins and editing history, and by your own description cannot be verified as accurate, is not scrutiny. Again, you're just using the wrong words to describe things and your actions.

Overall, you say that your process is as rigorous as any scientific experiment - but just based on what you've written, it isn't. Rigorous would be an inaccurate way to describe it. That's not my interpretation or opinion. I'm just comparing what you've written to the usual definitions of the words. I could concede that everything you've said did indeed happen, but just focusing on the way you describe it - it would be incorrect to use words like data, scrutiny and rigour.

Does this relate to the original purpose of the thread, I'm not sure. But there was mention of a rational, logos-spirited discussion. That surely must rely on everyone using at least roughly the same definitions for words. And even perhaps being a little more careful than they might usually be to ensure that the words they're using describe things accurately. Unfortunately we're no-where close to a rational, logos-spirited discussion here.

No, we are not. In order for it to be a "Logos-Spirited" discussion, we need to know what words, actually, mean; and more specifically, what "Logic" means, what the root word of "ology" derives from (I'll do the job for you, it's "logia") and where the origin of that word derives from (it's a Greek word, I'll leave that google search up to you) and what "Logos-Spirited" actually means.

The study of, or the "ology" of, EtymOLOGY is a good place to start.

Logos - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Neri]

I thought this appropriate to put here, seeing as I started this thread on Christmas day.

 

[Hypnalis]

I do see that the way it's panned out here further evidence that "science" is just as much a religion to some as "Christianity" is to other's, and NOT so much "methodology of inquiry" nor true "logic" but more and more evidence of the human propensity for "confirmation bias".

This is a "conversational nuke" for this kind of discussion. I'll respect your choice, because of where we are.

But I'll point out, once, something about it. I am on the "other side" in this discussion, but have been careful to display respect for views based on spirituality. And politely point out that there is a dividing line that cannot be crossed.

The "science side" doesn't require, and could not, within its own "rules", accept confirmation from the "spiritual side".

The spiritual side, OTOH, routinely demands "our side" validate "theirs". This is literally impossible. Of necessity, because science is based on things that can be objectively verified.

In christian terms, the day "we" can verify the existence of "capital g god", we'll happily announce it.

I've seen the "science requires faith" claim many many times. It can only sound as though it might be true via the fallacy of equivocation. Of course I know what to do next in terms if the discussion.
But you've polarized it - now it's been transformed so that repeating the same basic facts as before becomes a personal attack on you (it doesn't actually have to, but it usually does - I've never understood why).

Hence "conversational nuke".

 

[Neri]

This is a "conversational nuke" for this kind of discussion. I'll respect your choice, because of where we are.

But I'll point out, once, something about it. I am on the "other side" in this discussion, but have been careful to display respect for views based on spirituality. And politely point out that there is a dividing line that cannot be crossed.

The "science side" doesn't require, and could not, within its own "rules", accept confirmation from the "spiritual side".

The spiritual side, OTOH, routinely demands "our side" validate "theirs". This is literally impossible. Of necessity, because science is based on things that can be objectively verified.

In christian terms, the day "we" can verify the existence of "capital g god", we'll happily announce it.

I've seen the "science requires faith" claim many many times. It can only sound as though it might be true via the fallacy of equivocation. Of course I know what to do next in terms if the discussion.
But you've polarized it - now it's been transformed so that repeating the same basic facts as before becomes a personal attack on you (it doesn't actually have to, but it usually does - I've never understood why).

Hence "conversational nuke".

I'm not a "Christian" as such, I'm in the Gnostic camp, which, I already made the claim, by it's very nature DOESN'T require external validation, so, I'm sorry, but your argument really makes a moot point, and is really looking like a genuine "Strawman" argument. You are arguing with an imaginary person in your own head.
What I'm sorry about is the contradiction to your response, because I don't think you'll like it, but logic doesn't care about your feelings any more than it does mine.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Neri

You can keep going if you like, but this isn't interesting to me.

FYI: I've had exactly this discussion many times in forums that run at a much higher temperature than this one.
It's impossible to "lose" it, but unfortunately it's difficult for the "other side" not to to lose.

In the end they see that I never asked them to change anything about their beliefs, nor the rationale they use to support them. The worst accusation that can be levelled at me is that I refused to subvert the scientific method to support their position.

So at best nobody's pleased with the result.

BTW - the story I was going to tell Pandector is about my taking part of "your" side against annoying atheists.
I'm on their side in principle, but the annoying ones tend to "over-extend", which can easily be turned against them. Not that I'd actually changed sides of course, but I'll side with a polite person from the spiritual side over an AH of any stripe, including an impolite atheist /lol.

 

[Neri]

@Neri

You can keep going if you like, but this isn't interesting to me.

FYI: I've had exactly this discussion many times in forums that run at a much higher temperature than this one.
It's impossible to "lose" it, but unfortunately it's difficult for the "other side" not to to lose.

In the end they see that I never asked them to change anything about their beliefs, nor the rationale they use to support them. The worst accusation that can be levelled at me is that I refused to subvert the scientific method to support their position.

So at best nobody's pleased with the result.

BTW - the story I was going to tell Pandector is about my taking part of "your" side against annoying atheists.
I'm on their side in principle, but the annoying ones tend to "over-extend", which can easily be turned against them. Not that I'd actually changed sides of course, but I'll side with a polite person from the spiritual side over an AH of any stripe, including an impolite atheist /lol.

Keep going with what? There isn't anything to keep going on ABOUT.
This was a thread about LOGIC.
Which was all I was interested in.

I didn't start a thread about ontology, although ontology IS a branch of logic and is an OLOGY, which is why I've entertained and engaged in the direction the thread took.

So, I have nothing to go on about, unless people are wanting to engage in a conversation about Logic from Autistic perspectives, which was the the sole purpose of the thread.

Any reference to Logic is permissable.

But what it wasn't intended to be, was a battle of the worldviews, which in itself isn't logic. I've already expressed that I have the view that the "christian" or "spiritual" or philosophical" versus "science" so-called, argument is a logical fallacy. No body has logically proven otherwise.

One simply has to take a trip through historical documentation to see that there have been ample "Christian" men and women of faith, who are considered the forefather's and foremothers of what is referred to as foundational "Science", and as for "philosophy", it is essential to any and every scientific discipline. Logic is the thread which moves through all Ologies.

There have also been Islamic and Vedic "scientists" and mathematicians throughout antiquity onwards. The paradigms of "faith" and "science" are not mutually exclusive, they are, and have always been, intertwined.

Again, the point is, LOGIC is not limited to any such "camps"

It's not interesting to me at all, this non argument, because it's not about the topic that I started and intended this thread to be about, which is why I took so long to respond.

So we are in complete alignment and agreement on that particular point.

I appreciate your considerations of feelings, though, despite the fact that logic, in itself, isn't about feelings, it can and needs to take them into consideration, because they are part and parcel of what we are, and without us, LOGIC wouldn't exist. We are, every one of, emotionally-invested, meaning-making creatures, and thus, cultivating care to be considerate of emotions and human psyche fragilities is the other side of the human equation. It's the "yin" to logic/mind's "yang".

Not your average Autist's strong point, and yet, even we are capable of cultivating emotional intelligence. Many forum users are ample proof of that, IMO.

 

[The Pandector]

Apologies, @Neri (mortified, actually) for blowing up your well-defined thread. I was careless, thinking I had stumbled upon an entirely different type of discussion. Once I realized I was in a ditch, I should have let the thread return to its purpose.

Interestingly, I found myself chided for non-scientific use of words, which were then claimed for the sole use of the loyal opposition; all appropriate in the forum you initiated, but strange from my point of view. This, because it purported to be a logos-led discussion. Odd phrase, that. I took it to be borrowed from the spiritual side of the discussion. (I tried the term on a Christian English teacher friend, who took it as I did.)

When you speak of being led by the Logos in my world, you’re saying that you are led by the Creator of the universe about which we spoke. So then, let’s have a public discussion of the nature of the universe, under the auspices of the Creator of that universe. (Recognizing that Jesus is the ‘Word of God’, in our parlance, as well as the ‘Truth’.) Of course, we would say ‘Spirit-led’, but ‘logos-led’ wasn’t surprising in our international forum.

One single-minded participant postured that there was nothing to the universe beyond the scientifically observable. At least, I took it to be posturing; it would be, strictly speaking, preposterous to enter into such a discussion as I thought had been posed… with the position that only the scientifically-quantifiable was admissible as evidence. I could see that it could be constructive to set down what could be considered credible evidence, so I entertained his obstinance, to the destruction of your thread. So, apologies to @tazz , who had a valid complaint that he had been invited to a ‘logos-led’ discussion and found anything but. Amen, brother @tazz.

One pleasant upshot is that now I can understand that critical phrase both from the spiritual and from the scientific viewpoints. I hope that phenomenon was experienced by others, as well.

 

[Neri]

Apologies, @Neri (mortified, actually) for blowing up your well-defined thread. I was careless, thinking I had stumbled upon an entirely different type of discussion. Once I realized I was in a ditch, I should have let the thread return to its purpose.

Interestingly, I found myself chided for non-scientific use of words, which were then claimed for the sole use of the loyal opposition; all appropriate in the forum you initiated, but strange from my point of view. This, because it purported to be a logos-led discussion. Odd phrase, that. I took it to be borrowed from the spiritual side of the discussion. (I tried the term on a Christian English teacher friend, who took it as I did.)

When you speak of being led by the Logos in my world, you’re saying that you are led by the Creator of the universe about which we spoke. So then, let’s have a public discussion of the nature of the universe, under the auspices of the Creator of that universe. (Recognizing that Jesus is the ‘Word of God’, in our parlance, as well as the ‘Truth’.) Of course, we would say ‘Spirit-led’, but ‘logos-led’ wasn’t surprising in our international forum.

One single-minded participant postured that there was nothing to the universe beyond the scientifically observable. At least, I took it to be posturing; it would be, strictly speaking, preposterous to enter into such a discussion as I thought had been posed… with the position that only the scientifically-quantifiable was admissible as evidence. I could see that it could be constructive to set down what could be considered credible evidence, so I entertained his obstinance, to the destruction of your thread. So, apologies to @tazz , who had a valid complaint that he had been invited to a ‘logos-led’ discussion and found anything but. Amen, brother @tazz.

One pleasant upshot is that now I can understand that critical phrase both from the spiritual and from the scientific viewpoints. I hope that phenomenon was experienced by others, as well.

My frustration came about (I'm laughing about myself now) in a typically autistic way. I am a word nerd. I feel secure by adhering to the beautiful logic inherent in abiding, faithfully , to the etymology of our language.

Etymology is the logical clue-giver, I believe, to stay on track and remain consistent to consensual, agreed, shared meaning, although, having said that, us humans are so subject to our own cultural lenses, through which we view reality, that things still get lost in translation.

As arrogant as it might seem, to stubbornly remind people that following the logic, back, through history, through how we came to have the words we use, I do see it as a necessary adherence, if there is to be a solid basis for our arguments.

In my family home, when it was the three of us, all Autistic/Asperger people (myself, partner and youngest teenage son) it was most frequent type of arguments that had me googling the etymological definition of a word to prove a point.

My partner equally appreciates this approach, having developed a passion for botany and horticulture from a young age, he had a impressively huge data base of botanical names in his mind-library, and would refer to the etymology of each plant name for a deeper understanding of the nature of the plant and its relationship with other's in the plant world.

I could happily study the english language in this way for years on end, if presented with a formal, structured opportunity to do so, but instead I get sucked into my ADHD, crazy, erratic, distracted and disregulated habits and remain less than scholarly most of the time.
(
My very Asperger's- y dad is a linguist, I guess, my autism is shining through, in how I approach a heated ontological discussion, in that way.

 

[The Pandector]

I think that’s an important part of why I enjoyed studying the New Testament in the Greek. Historically speaking, it freezes the language in time. Heck, reading Dickens is a challenge these days. It’s comfortable working with the ideas when you can confidently define the vocabulary.

Even within the time slice of the NT period, you see various usages which have blended and blurred, but where the writer’s intention must be discerned. It is easy to get totally engrossed.

 

[Au Naturel]

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?

 

[Au Naturel]

Truth exists. Or at least I am pretty certain it does. If nothing else, I know that I exist. Decart got that much right.

Beyond that, you have to take it on faith that anything else you perceive is independently real from your perception of it. I'm willing to take that leap of faith, but that's as far as I go. If I bang my head on a wall, I'm willing to say the wall exists - and so does my head.

 

[Neri]

 

[Joshua the Writer]

I think my rationality and spirituality go hand in hand in an odd way. I am partially self worshipping to an extent as well, namely in my creative abilities.

 

[Neri]