Is your body YOU?
— Bitter Crank

Yes.

If only all questions were that easy to answer. — Terrapin Station

But couldn't you be a different one? Why aren't you Bitter Crank?

I heartily agree with the OP. We can be social, without being obsessed with fitting in. Check out:

https://angryautie.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/the-institute-for-the-study-of-the-neurologically-typical/

What about time? — tom

I think time is more about reality-as-discontinuum. In time one thing happens after another, change and differentiation is essential for time. By contrast with space, I can't make sense of the idea of time as the experiencer.

What does "reality-as-contunuum" mean? — tom

Intuitively, space is the nearest physical concept I have. I'm not sure but perhaps quantum field or some other concept like that would do just as well or better. I'm happy to use the philosophical concept of substance as well but I know many don't like that concept. I share the OP's intuition that only something indivisible or continuous can be conscious. It seems to me to simply follow from the phenomenology. Any experience involves the unification of a number of different elements. And when I look in nature for something that can accomplish this binding of the various elements of an experience, it is immediately obvious that any appeal to a complex entity (such as a brain) begs the question because that entity itself is constituted of parts. So when I think about what relates all the parts of a brain together, again I fairly quickly see that ultimately it is the space that the brain occupies, or the field that it is a behaviour of, or the substance that it is a modification of, that unifies all its elements. And so when looking for the correct place for consciousness in nature, it must be at this very fundamental level of the unifying continuum.

Hi Weeknd

I'm a panpsychist and you raise some interesting points in your OP. However I'm not clear from your OP how exactly panpsychism seems in contradiction with the laws of physics. Please could you spell it out? I tried to put it in my own words (the bit about indivisibility of consciousness) from your OP but couldn't.

So what really is our soul, if you assume the panpsychist view? — Weeknd

From my panpsychist point of view it is reality-as-continuum (as opposed to reality as plurality of discrete bits) that is the experiencer.

Is there something it is like to have a dream? Of course. So we are conscious at least in that sense.

Loud Hands, a collection of bits and pieces by autistic self-advocates, including the famous one by Jim Sinclair Don't Mourn for Us

It's heartbreaking because the kid is cute. Forget about the kid and people you can't help. Find some obnoxious shit who needs to learn some lessons about compassion, like me for instance, who you have a real relationship with, and help him instead.

If by apt you mean the most irreparably destructive and philosophically regressive force of the last 2000 years, then sure. Hiding a noxious resentment of reality - generally coupled with a healthy hatred for the body, manual labour, temporality, and women (whatever doesn't reek with the stench of socio-economic privilege really) - behind a slogan doesn't make it any less venomous. — StreetlightX

Blimey!

I would add pornography to the list of the Internet's ills. Its effects, especially on young people, I think are being greatly understudied and underestimated. — Thorongil

I've studied pornography quite a lot. I haven't yet gathered sufficient data to form any reliable conclusions, though.

#5 in mine

Nice truck-murderer — Wayfarer

Didn't seem very nice to me.

I agree it is laboured and awkward, but it is quite evocative too. It might be that I would get used to the style and it would seem less laboured and awkward the more I read. On the other hand I might not get used to it and I would stop reading. The punctuation is a bit like the 200m hurdles, you think you've jumped them all after 110m, but find, unaccountably, that you still, have more, to go. Maybe that's deliberate to create some kind of clever effect.

As you like it. — Hanover

Thanks, but what play was it?

Regarding definitions of consciousness, looking in a dictionary and deciding which one you want to talk about might be a good way to avoid simple misunderstandings.

I really like the 7 mile bridge one. Cavacava does some really nice impressionist stuff.

...

In reply to OP:

Yeah. I got very upset at university when compatibilism came up. It was plainly just a (not very) special case of determinism and seemed like an abuse of language to me.

Anyway, one might be able to defend a notion of degrees of freedom. Total freedom is, arguably, only possible after death, as to exist is to be constrained and differentiated in some way, and perhaps non-existence is just total lack of constraint. So no existing person can be free. But one person can be more free than another. While no one is free from the need to eat, for example, some people are free from the need to eat nothing but millet every day. Consider also that relative to a particular decision, some people are free while others are not. Someone who doesn't give a shit about politics, for example, is therefore free with regard to what party to vote for, whereas the person who gives a shit is constrained to vote for the party that is conducive to his shit giving.

EDIT: I guess also that one could take the non-shit-giving to its logical conclusion. We don't give a shit about anything and act totally arbitrarily for as long as we lived, which wouldn't be that long, as it is highly unlikely that any food or drink would happen to go into our mouths by accident. I guess this is the closest approximation to free will we could have without ceasing to exist.

Perhaps Michael could embrace a kind of linguo-idealism, whereby the existence of anything is language-dependent. (At times Banno seemed to espouse such a position.) Perhaps Michael could profitably deny TGWs repeated assertions that we can't change rabbits into horses by changing the meaning of words.

He certainly was special.

A hole needs ground around it to be a hole. — Moliere

I guess a realist might argue you could have a hole in a hole. Just because we cant tell where the bigger hole stops and the smaller hole starts, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

At least the Americans' attitude to capital punishment is getting more progressive:

If Ronnie Pickering (who?) had had a gun we may not have ended up with this gem:



Actually I'm sure Ronnie would have refrained from shooting and he regrets what happened here. But I've seen more chaotic and less funny videos of confrontations.

So you expect people to be different just because the topic is philosophy? — Marchesk

I expect people to do philosophy, and be philosophical, on a philosophy forum. Whether that's the same or different from the rest of the web is of no relevance.

Doing philosophy is exactly an exchange of of information and viewpoints.
— bert1

Is it? — Marchesk

No, it's only partly that, you're right. It's also critical evaluation of those views, identifying inconsistencies, fallacies, suggesting repairs to arguments, making implicit assumptions explicit, and so on.

Is that what professional philosophers do? — Marchesk

At their best, yes, (assuming my revised statement above).

Or do they also advance their own positions? — Marchesk

They do that too. In the process of doing that they critically evaluate their own view as well as others, if only to be seen to be playing the game.

How is it possible to correct a question?

Also, I'd like to point out that your question was an attempt at defending your position by pressing mine. — Marchesk

Was it? How do you know?

I don't care what most online discussions are. This is a philosophy forum. Doing philosophy is exactly an exchange of of information and viewpoints. This being very AT is a point in favour of AT communication on a philosophy forum. Saying your (non)-communication is classically NT is on topic in a thread about autistic communication.

So, lets try again,

What constitutes winning?

What are we doing here? Feuding, arguing or sophistry?

Indeed, you did say 'try to win'. And I said:

"What constitutes winning?"

Which you ignored. This is classic NT behaviour.

What constitutes 'winning'?

The essence of arguing is listening to and responding in good faith to points people make and questions they ask. What you are describing is not arguing, but rhetoric.

I've watched the video now, thanks for linking to it. It's a great look into an autistic person's life. I did wonder if she was hamming it up slightly, but that doesn't really matter if true.

I have some sympathy with mcdoodle's take on it.

Maybe people engaged in philosophical discussion deliberately choose to not answer questions as a debate tactic. — Marchesk

In which case they are not doing philosophy and have no business on a philosophy forum.

Or they don't like your questions and would rather ask you a question back.

Well, that's just psychotic, or at least rude.

Or perhaps they see your questions as an attempt to frame the debate in a way favoring your position.

But we can address that while answering the question. Good philosophers would welcome questions that favour an opinion contrary to their own. It gives them something to argue about.

These are all common strategies in any discussion forum across the net. Often times questions are asked in an attempt to force a poster to answer a certain way. But most posters are smart enough to see through that.

Well if they are smart enough to see through that they are smart enough to answer the question and make the points they want to make. Non-engagement is anti-social, and anti-philosophical. It might be appropriate on a forum dedicated to sophistry, but not on a philosophy forum.

If we think non-answering of questions is OK, we get a situation in which people fail to philosophically interact.

For you it is.

Here's what this sounds like to me bert. Imagine a community of people called the lefters who have only one arm, the left one, and they walk around wearing capes so that nobody can see their disability. One of them says...

On so many occasions I have met a BT (brachiotypical) person, and most of the time they offer their right hand. This seems like a straightforward social disability, and it is the norm. You just can't shake hands properly like that. On the other hand, my handshakes with other lefters are always perfect. I meet one and they always offer their left hand. This is first class interpersonal etiquette.
— A. Lefter — jamalrob

Sure. This shows that there are two groups of people with different cultures, needs, abilities, etc. The narrative is that autistics are deficient on NT terms, which is true. The opposite narrative is also true, that NTs are deficient on autistic terms. Consider this:

Neurotypical syndrome is a neurobiological disorder characterized by preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity.

It is not always good communication to answer every question that is asked, and a response that ignores the questions completely may still be a good way of taking the conversation forward, allowing the questioner to see that the questions were misplaced, or trying to tackle things from a different angle.

Not with philosophy. You can do both, answer questions and change the subject if you want. Not answering questions is just rude. Also, saying "That's the wrong question" is extremely offensive. Questions can't be wrong. It's implying that the questioner doesn't know what they are themselves interested in. A question defines what someone wants to talk about, and can't be wrong.

And from the questioner's standpoint, a response that doesn't directly answer their questions but nevertheless shows a deep insight into what they have said can be more satisfying; I often find point-by-point responses pedantic and facile. Granted, this way of responding may not work for everyone, may be difficult for some people to understand, and is sometimes open to abuse, but that doesn't make it "second class".

Again, you can do both. You can respect the questioner by answering their question, and then you can go on to make whatever deep point you like. Or if there really is no mileage in answering the question, or you don't know how to answer it, you can say so. At least that isn't completely ignoring someone's interests.

I'm sorry if this would get me boo'd off the stage at Autscape.

I don't think it would as long as you acknowledged that there is an equally valid autistic culture.

Indeed, I agree with you.

I used to find the rudeness on the old PF very upsetting sometimes. I wonder if Paul had implemented a kind of laser option that shot out of users webcams and blinded them if they were rude, and members could sort of 'shoot' each other, PF would have been a more polite place.

Asking people to give up guns is asking them to give up power. This is difficult for anyone, not just Americans like Tiff, especially if no one else around them is doing the same.

By having "armed citizens" we have gun massacre after gun massacre. And to think that other armed citizens will prevent it is not absurd. — Landru Guide Us

I think the 'not' is a typo. I agree with your post by the way.

Indeed, I was wondering if Mars Man had made the long journey home to the red planet. Although I found him infuriating he did have some redeeming qualities, and sometimes made some good points among the sea of incomprehensible verbosity. He made some good one-liners. One of his funniest ones was aimed at you, accusing you of "Romping through the pastures of ignorance" or something like that.

She looks OK to me.

Are you pining for Mars Man?

that honoured spouse thinks the whole thing is a waste of time — Wayfarer

It's us or her, Wayfarer. I'm not having this half-arsed commitment to philosophy, whichever forum it's on.

The absence of eyerolling is indeed a major plus.

I think jamalrob has set a better tone than Paul did.

I love the monthly reading group, even though I haven't got time to get stuck into it.

TGW is here.

And you can do both. I still post on PF.