Can you explain what you perceive as naivite among autistic people who feel OK about being autistic? Is it that they tell you you can feel fine about it as well if you just change your attitude or something patronising like that? — bert1

I meant that the message is naive in that it maintains the same narrow mindedness that people trying to help do. They treat everyone's case as the same when it's not, so yes it's patronizing, insulting and invalidating. I'm sick of being told to change my attitude as if they know what I've had to deal with.

The "you would be a different person" argument isn't valid. We change over time, no one is the same person they were when they were a teen or a kid etc, so his argument in there about wishing their kid was dead by not having autism could literally apply to ANYONE who changes something about themselves in a manner that isn't recognized.

IMO it's not a positive message, it's hyperbolic in parts and extremely naive, then again it's from 1993

The origins of a more positive narrative around autism can be found in Jim Sinclair's seminal presentation to parents of autistic children called "Don't Mourn for Us". Here's the link, it has had a huge impact on many autistic people:

https://www.autreat.com/dont_mourn.html — bert1

This is the naïveté I was talking about that I don’t like from the pro side.

That’s where I foresee issues since children can’t really consent to it. I don’t have an answer for that

I did have that therapist but even then he tried to treat me like other autistic people he knew when I wasn’t. Like I said everyone is different.

The different person argument is invalid. No one is the same person throughout their life, everything changes.

Well like I said it should be optional for those who don’t want to be like that anymore. Like I said it’s different for everyone so it should be left up to the person.

The extremes aren’t an option though. Either eradicating all of them or pretending like it’s not a genuine issue for some depending on how their life is. Like the first is obvious no, autistic people aren’t something to eradicate. But the second is naive and stupid to think that just because some are good with it means those who struggle genuinely (like myself) just need to love themselves or blame the world and it’s ok.

Even if society did cater to me like that I would still change it because of other things it does.

I don't think that's accurate. Even if autistics were the majority they would still be disabled.

Also much disability isn't caused with an ill fit with the social environment. Als if you don't think they are intrinsically socially handicapped I don't think you understand it very well. The comparison with a fish isn't apt either as it's more akin to a fish in the water with one fin or something like that. You keep blaming the environment when it's clearly evident there are handicaps. That's the other thing I didn't like when I brought it up, people kept blaming the world for not bending to them when I don't blame the world. I know what it is for me and it's not society's fault.

I think you're getting off the point.

But all minorities aren't created equal. Like I have actual handicaps that limit and impact my life. For others it's just a matter of society not liking their skin color or sexuality, IMO not actual problems just hang-ups bigots need to get over. I however have to deal with social handicaps all the time, rigid thinking and behavior, among other things.

I mean black people, asian people, LGBT people, they don't have to worry about stuff like that. In fact most take it for granted.

I mean yeah there are a variety of factors that go into this as we don't understand what the actual cause of it is.

But assuming we did though is what I generally mean as we can argue about cause all day but that's not the main point here. The point is how it impacts people and whether or not those who argue it doesn't need a cure are doing it for all who deal with autism or to just tell themselves that so they can cope.

Because part of me wonders when it comes to those who argue against a cure is that they don't have my best interest at heart, or others like me for whom it's just a thorn in the side.

I can't really relate to other autistic people. I'm in some weird middle ground where it's not terrible but not good either. And I HATE people saying nothing is wrong like they have lived my life. All it's done is hold me back and I've had to work so hard just to overcome the negatives of it. Maybe most don't see it is a disease, and I can agree that maybe disease is a strong word. But they are stupid to not think that some people are better off without it (again not outright killing or exterminating them).

I draw to the X-Men, it doesn't matter how positive you think you're being for some mutants (like Rogue) who they are is a detriment to their lives and others. I think she got the cure in that movie, and I am with her. I can't imagine not being able to touch another person for fear of possibly killing them.

I also never got how people say it's the world that's fucked up and not me, I mean logically it would be the other way around because the world is just what it is. It's not like it's actively malicious or plotting your doom (no matter how we feel some days).

There is little else I want more than to not be like this but since there is no cure I have to work hard to mitigate its impact on my life.

Ok. I thought some expressions of monism (idealism) understand humans as being dissociated metacognitive alters from the one source, but still with their own experiences. No reason why we shouldn't do the right thing by ourselves? — Tom Storm

No reason to do the right thing because there is no one to help.

Well there would be no one to help or save, it would make no difference who suffers or how you treat others because there is no others.

I personally think that if all is "one" then that would pose a massive problem for ethics.

Not exactly. He's not advancing a wild argument that is indefensible but more like he grew up knowing one thing and seeing another needs to adjust. Spending 70 years of your life knowing one thing and then having to change course is hard but he's not making any wild claims.

The woman just sounds narrow minded.

I think it's an accurate fallacy and reflects a lot of the arguments you hear in the modern world today.

A lot of the time some blatantly wrong and monstrous arguments are couched in "concern for the children" (famous motte line but it's an obvious mask) when really it's more just using that as a siege engine for the real hate and bigotry they're trying to push.

It's the same line trotted out when blacks fought for civil rights, or gay men, and now trans people. The motte is always the concern for children, because who would really argue against the safety of minors. But the real point is the bailey, the wild position. But they can't do that so they always retreat to the motte.

"free speech" is the famous motte when it came to misgendering trans people or using pronouns, or making violent threats to others.

In modern discourse you will rarely see bigots sincerely peddle their true argument (the bailey) because it's not only wrong and clearly fallacious, but often times monstrous. The problem however is trying to expose the bailey instead of fighting on the motte, because the motte is the shadow, it's never really about that.

I want to ask how is solipsism unprovable, people say that but I want to know how. Why can’t science or logic prove it true?

There was a post that I read that allegedly proved it true, but I don’t know since I can’t remember and all I have is a powerful emotion about it. I’ve tried finding it but it can’t since I remember nothing about it.

My guess is that we can only know what something IS by what it is not. Like I can only know what is real but what is not real. But according to solipsism if everything is “not real” then you could never know because you’d have nothing you could compare it to. Even if you said you proved it there is no way to verify your claims. In order for solipsism to be proven true there would have to be “not solipsism” to compare it with, otherwise it would just be belief. But the very existence of “not solipsism” would prove it wrong.

So in order words solipsism would have to be wrong in order to be proven true or false. How’s that?

No I mean the question of who created it literally has nothing to do with solipsism. It doesn't ask about the origin of the world or anything like that so that's not really a counterpoint to their argument.

Nothing you have put forward has been an argument that isn't a strawman. The point of solipsism is what you know, and in this case all you know is you exist for sure. Different ones draw different conclusions. But NONE of them say you made all this.

Also "real issues"? As if the fundamental nature of what we take to be real isn't an issue. Nothing else matter but that question as it informs the rest.

That's irrelevant to the question.

If you're not creator of all things and have the power to destroy all that exists (if you are destroyed) then, no, logic 101 dictates everything "the entire universe" does in fact not exist solely in your head. — Outlander

Logic would not in fact dictate that. Just because something exists in your head doesn't mean you have control over it.

Like I said, strawman.

Well I’m just saying that your point wouldn’t be an argument against them. I mean…they can just say it’s a figment of their mind. Asking them to accept the existence of everything else which is secondhand knowledge is a huge ask.

It’s like last Thursdayism, you can’t prove it wrong or true.

Your point about being a god also isn’t what solipsism says, that’s a strawman.

Look at it this way. You weren't born being a solipsist. Someone had to introduce you to the idea and notion so, you can be rest assured if the rest of us don't exist at least that one other person who first introduced the idea to you must be real. Otherwise, you couldn't have been real in the first place. Therefore, we all must be real and solipsism a lie. Damn. Sometimes I impress myself. I should be getting paid for this. — Outlander

Solipsist could just argue it was their mind making them aware of it. Whether you're born with it or not is irrelevant.

How? What you are arguing doesn't at all go against what I'm saying. You say that because these views are metaphysical (which isn't clear that they are, some are epistemic, as solipsism is about our knowledge of the world, not the world itself -as would be claim made by materialists or idealists) hence science cannot test them. — Manuel

They are metaphysical though, that much is clear. Solipsism isn't about our knowledge of the world. Science cannot test it because it's a metaphysical claim. Also because solipsism at best doubts everything but the existence of yourself so of course you can't use science to prove it.

I agree science cannot not test them. If we knew more, if we had a more sophisticated and elaborate understanding, I don't see why we couldn't know enough to say for certain "solipsism or skepticism is false." We can't say they are a-priori necessarily metaphysical views.

For an advanced civilization, they may be trivial questions. — Manuel

Yes we can because that is what they are. No amount of knowledge will change that it is unprovable. In short the only way to prove solipsism true or false is pure omniscience.

Nevertheless for us, the issues will remain problematical, so it's not as if I'm trying to refute these ideas, we can only go by probability and likelihood here, in my opinion — Manuel

Judging from what others have told me it's not problematic or an issue. Solipsism, even if somehow it were true would change nothing about reality.

.

The PZ experiment does not claim that a ‘feeling’ equates to ‘qualia’. Now, I will grant (as I already have many times) that many basic arguments for the PZ experiment are predicated on that assumption: but that is what I am questioning and arguing against. Telling me that the PZ thought experiment is not based on ‘feelings’ being disynonmous with ‘qualia’ just tells me that you are subscribing to that kind of argument: now tell me why feelings cannot be disynonymous with qualia (in the manner I already outlined it). — Bob Ross

Because they are just not. The whole issue with your argument is a based on a misunderstanding of the PZ thought experiment. So either deal with the experiment as it is or don't comment on it.

The point of the thought experiment is to elicit what could be the difference between such a being and a normal feeling human. It literally went right over your head.

In either case your point does nothing against solipsism.

But we don't understand the external world enough to refute solipsism or skepticism, or idealism and many other ideas. If we did have a better understanding of it, these problems need not arise. — Manuel

We actually do though, but that is not why you can't refute those ideas. Rather those are ideas science cannot test, as metaphysical claims we just cannot. Solipsism cannot be tested or proven because it says only your existence is certain and everything else is either doubtful or non existent. So it can't use any metric to support it's argument.

I suspect that by ‘really feel pain’ you mean ‘has qualia’, which, in that case, I agree and simply ask: what is the contention? — Bob Ross

It's pretty obvious what it is.

Again, by “never truly was”, I am presuming you are still operating under the assumption that in order for one to ‘feel’ they must have qualia: I am denying this. A ‘feeling’ can occur without being consciously aware of it. For example, imagine that you were stabbed right now: you would ‘feel’ it in the sense that your body would react to it and you would be conscious of that pain (assuming, from introspection, you know you are conscious). Now, imagine the same scenario except your conscious experience of that pain is not present (i.e., you are conscious of everything except the pain—so you can see them stab you, etc.): your body is still screaming out in agony (you just aren’t aware of it). Now, to clarify, this is a different scenario than one in which you are numb to the pain (where the pain isn’t occurring because, for example, you get morphine). The PZ thought experiment is predicated on the idea that your nerve endings are not malfunctioning, numbed by a drug, etc.: you are still screaming, still in agony, but you aren’t consciously aware of the pain. — Bob Ross

Again, no that is not what the PZ thought experiment is based on. A feeling cannot occur without being consciously aware of it. Your second example would simply not take place. The point is that a P-Zombie acts in all the ways a human would but it doesn't really feel anything. You have woefully misunderstood the thought experiment not to mention your example is just wrong.

I can tell if a person is genuinely concerned with my well-being based off of their behavior, which expounds their intentions. Yes, I cannot tell that they have qualia, but I can tell, for the most part, if they are narcassistic or not—nothing about this, by my lights (but correct me where I am wrong), requires qualia.

My spouse does nice things for me, sticks by my side through any times (good or bad), and constantly expresses behaviorally a love for me: that is all I require to define a person as ‘loving me’. Now, clearly you do not agree: for you, there must be qualia, a conscious experience which is aware of that expressed love, for the person to ‘truly’ love you. My question is: why? — Bob Ross

No you don't, you assume that. All that you said requires qualia. People can act a certain way but not really feel that way about you. They can perform the action but without the emotion it's not really care and concern. People lie all the time, lead people on, so you're just wrong here. It's not just the action they have to actually feel and have love for you, which a P-Zombie cannot, ever.

I am not entirely following: are you claiming that you can’t tell if someone is genuinely concerned about your well being because they don’t have qualia? Again, to me, if they are constantly demonstrating acts of love, then they love you: there’s no need for them to be conscious, to have corresponding conscious experiences of the events they actualize, to love me.

Yes, I do think that most people think that ‘qualia’ is ‘feelings’, but I disagree. What do you disagree with in terms of that assessment? — Bob Ross

Acts of love aren't proof of love, they have to have the feeling for it to be so. Again the fact you can't understand why the emotion behind it makes all the difference is telling. They have to be conscious otherwise it doesn't matter. Pretty much everyone knows this.

I think you are getting stuck on the ‘basic’ expositions of the PZ thought experiment: yes, it can be presented, in its most basic form, as essentially ‘qualia’ is ‘feelings’. I am making the argument that kind of basic form of the argument is wrong, but that isn’t the only argument (even in terms of basics) and certainly is not entailed by the basic definition I gave you. — Bob Ross

It is entailed in the basic definition you gave me. You can make the argument that the form of the argument is wrong but that doesn't matter, you're simply wrong in your assessment.

Your whole chain shows you don't get it.

I already know you have no arguments against it.

I don’t know where you got 5% of the universe from but I think we had data that showed the edge of the universe so we understand more of it than you think we do.

Also we can make a ton of sense of the external world, that’s how we have modern society.

Again not a real counterpoint.

The whole purpose of the PZ though experiment is to say that a person who is demonstrating signs of depression, suicidality, is crying, is screaming in pain, etc. may not be feeling it in the sense that they are not consciously aware of it happening. The PZ still cries: “those things” do not “stop” because they are a PZ. — Bob Ross

That’s not what it means. It’s to argue against an alleged inner life that might be occurring in the person. They don’t have qualia, hence the wording of “considered” as having it but not really.

This is what I meant by ‘ultra-feelings’: it isn’t enough that a person is going through pain in the sense that it demonstrable—they must also have ‘qualia’, a “conscious sensation”, along-with the pain. To clarify, it is not that pain is eliminated if one is a PZ but, rather, the conscious sensation allegedly corresponding with it. This is very important. — Bob Ross

Again you misunderstand the PZ. It acts and has all the normal actions of pain but doesn’t really feel pain. Pain is eliminated as a PZ or rather it never truly was. You’re butchering the thought experiment to fit your narrative.

Regardless of whether they are a PZ, my spouse still demonstrates every possible indicator of loving me fervently—there is no need to add in an extra property required to meet the definition of ‘feeling’ to me. Yes, I am saying that one doesn’t need ‘qualia’ to feel: maybe that is what you fundamentally disagree with? — Bob Ross

There actually is a need to add that extra property. It’s what makes the difference. The fact you can’t see that is..telling.

When you determine a person is genuinely upset vs. they are not, you do so by indicators which will never provide information about if they have ‘qualia’. They are either demonstrating genuine concern or they aren’t regardless of whether they are a PZ or not. Again, I am claiming one can be concerned without having qualia. — Bob Ross

And again you’d still be wrong. One needs qualia to be concerned. I can ACT like it but it matters whether I feel it or not. Again people can tell.

Think of it this way: imagine a chronically depressed person. They are crying, in visible torment, lethargic, etc.: the solipsist can still rightly point out that they could not have qualia. But this is independent of whether they are sincerely crying, sincerely in torment, etc.: whether there is a corresponding, special, and ‘along-with’ sensation to the crying and torment is irrelevant. — Bob Ross

Again no. If they don’t have qualia or feelings then they aren’t sincerely anything. You keep making up stuff like “ultra feelings” when the feeling behind an action makes all the difference. It’s just basic.

Again you’re not getting it. Did you even finish the math link?

What I meant is that the processing argument doesn’t hold, rather it only needs to “render” what is around you not the globe.

My point was that the missing feelings in a philosophical zombie has, in actuality, no bearing on the ‘feelings’ which the average person, being a genuine person or a philosophical zombie, has: they still cry, they can hug you, they can demonstrate concern for you, etc. even in the case that they are a philosophical zombie. — Bob Ross

This point is still not true as when you realize they are a P Zombie then those things stop. It would have a bearing, especially since people can tell whether you mean something or not.

This is my point: this ‘ultra-feelings’ is just another part of humanity’s mythology. There’s no need for anything extra nor is there any evidence of it, and a being doesn’t have to go metaphysically beyond a complex bit of machinery to ‘have feelings’ (in a non-ultra sense). — Bob Ross

But there is a need for that “extra” because again people can tell. There is usually evidence for it but it’s not something you can test in a lab. It has to go beyond machinery to have feelings. What you’re saying is simply false.

I think you may have misunderstood me: I am arguing exactly that this is false. The reason historically people and animals were abused is based off of this false assumption: no, if a being is demonstrating obvious signs of being able to feel, being concerned, desiring, etc., then no matter if it is a lower life form or a robot, it thereby has feelings because that is the true standard of what it means to feel. — Bob Ross

And you’d be wrong. The reason people mistreated those before is they took their actions to be that of a machine, in other words they didn’t really feel anything or mean it.

I am just trying to convey to you that (I think) it is a false dilemma--as regardless of whether a person is a PZ, where they cannot ‘feel’ in this ultra sense, they are still demonstrating the capacity to love, feel, and desire just the same as yourself (in a non-ultra sense): — Bob Ross

Except no they are not because they are a P Zombie. Again your entire argument is nullified by the definition of a p zombie.

Again not an actual criticism. They would argue that they don’t have to be maintaining everything going on in their world just what they are aware of in that moment.

Ah so you’ve got nothing then.

Again, bring an actual criticism of it.

You can ID it all you want that doesn't make it arrogant. Like I said, come up with actual criticisms like others have.

It's not, regardless of what you may think arrogance is not an implication. That's the ignorant response.

Absurdism isn’t even close to solipsism.

I mean that’s part of why solipsism is absurd. The concept of communication loses all meaning and purpose, everything really.

No one because there is no one else.

But they don’t talk to themselves.