Hi Ryu!
Welcome!
I read the English version of your theory. You are very clever. It makes a lot of sense.
It must be very frustrating to have such talent but be unable to convince others because of your educational background. My second son is dyslexic too, but is now a successful Martial Arts teacher (he is nearly 25) after years of struggling because, like you, he was unable to complete his schooling.
I do hope that someone recognises your abilities and supports you. Have you thought of writing again to Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen and explaining your situation? Even if he is unable to help directly he might know of others who are able to help.
That worked!
If you send the URL in a PM to Gareth, he can give you the avatar. I believe he restricted access after someone posted an offensive avatar.
My son teaches children and young people WingTsun in England. He was told that it was not possible to teach very young children, but he proved them wrong! Here he is with his own son:
Do not listen to people who tell you something is not possible - listen to your own feelings, and go for it! I really hope that you have great success.
What a beautiful bike! You have taken great care of it. I had a Suzuki GS400 with a sidecar when I met my husband.
Here's a picture which was taken on December 26th 1979:
And a picture from September 6th 2007; my Australian bike, a Moto Guzzi Nevada 750 Classic which is now sold:
Getting back to that theory of yours, I wonder what you mean by analog versus digital brain. In modern neuroscience, there's no idea that there are two distinct brain mechanisms, but looking at the diagrams, you treat them much like scientists treat the two brain halves. I've even heard that one brain half could survive without the other.
Second, how are you going to support this idea with evidence? It might be a neat thought experiment, but it's not proper science unless it can be tested, and I find it hard to imagine how you'd test such a thing.
That's what everything rests on: evidence. Once you bring evidence to the table, serious researchers will take you seriously, but without it, they (and I) will think it's simply ideas with no rational foundation.
Surely you must have some reasons for believing this? Even if, like most scientific theories in their infancy, you have no proof yet, if you believe your theory, it ought to be based on an educated guess, and not just some fanciful flight of ideas.
Actually it's more like you get a notion, and then you hammer the heck out of it until it works. How usually becomes well before why for these type of systems so educated guessing actually ends up being involved pretty far along in development. If you want to quible that, you're quibling against the entire history of the Engineering Profession and its success. It is true that it is of the utmost importance that a scientist maintain their professional skepticism, but from what I've seen Simen you like to suppress using the establishment. Science is not a church, if you think the establishment is what is of value you are sorely mistaken.
The establishment has the considerable advantage that its views have been justified and shown to predict correct outcomes of experiments. It's thus not a tool to suppress new science but to measure it. If your science contradicts established science, you have a strong burden of proof. Established science has no value per se, it just so happens to (most of the time) represent our best theories, the ones that have been the most thoroughly tested and shown to predict correct outcomes.
You won't get me to believe that much science has come about by simply guessing in the blind. There are always reasons why you believe something, otherwise, it's entirely unjustified and irrational; if there's no other reason you believe something than "it sounds neat", then your idea has no more to go on than every other neat idea that's got nothing more to go on.
The actual development of anything important involves significant time and effort simply hammering away at it before it actually begins to take shape. The whole short cut concept is basically just something that's played up to help explain the concept to other people and make those in science related professions look good.
Obviously there are no shortcuts. However, there's always some idea about why this might be the case, how one might test it, and so on.
[quote9
Actual Science is based on accountability, evidence isn't quite the right way to think about that although the psycologists seem to have in general greatly stunted their development with that assumption. The underlying postulate of science is that the universe inherently has some form of order, we simply have to figure out what it is. Using suppression techniques is not a professional way for a scientist to act. The standard approach for professional review is to try to find flaws and bring them up in a manner that can be hashed out. This allows the theory to be refined and tested.
[/quote]
Indeed. I consider it a significant flaw if you have no evidence and no idea how to test. And even if you have some vague notion of testability, resources are scarce and you ought to have some kind of convincing argument for why we can reasonably expect to see an interesting outcome.
And yes, evidence is absolutely the way to look at actual science. If you have no evidence, you simply haven't managed to prove your hypothesis, and it's worthless and dangerous to assume it's true.
This Makes Perfect Sense. I Repeat. Perfect Sense. Perfect Sense. It Just Blows My Mind. The F-Word Is Needed Here. This Theory Is Just Fucking Brilliant!!! !!! !
One original story pertaining to the drunkard looking for something lost is a story about Mulla Nasruddin.
It can be found in the book "The Exploits of the Incomparable Mulla Nasruddin", Octagon Press, 1966.
I read Ryu's theory and that guy must have find a way of tapping into my brain because he's got my thought patterns explained in detail. That's what blowed my mind to smithereens.
B"H
I had too much difficulty downloading the article to comment intelligently. I believe, however, that Ryu is on to something. I have a very strange conjecture about Asperger. Actually, let me be specific; I have a very strange conjecture about the talents that people have with Asperger and Autism. My notion is that these talents are an adaptation that the brain has developed when ordinary neural connections do not function.
Do you suggest this neural dysfunction is a product of brain damage? I've heard the "hard birth causes brain damage/early cord clamping damages autistics but not NTs" too many times to hear it even one more time. I hope you're not going down this road.
Oh and Ryu, at the beginning of the link you provide, you include ADD and ADHD and Dyslexia as part of "autism spectrum condition"--I don't believe actual research done so far proves that these conditions are a part of autism.
They do frequently occur with autism, as comorbids.. but i guess it is your personal belief that these conditions are on the autism spectrum?
I will say that to me, a novice student of science at best, your ideas seem very interesting and well thought-out.
Well done, and I hope you get the support you need to get occupation in autistical research.
Response to Batman55: No sir. I apologize if I misspoke. Rather, I am suggesting that Autistic folks have an adaptation that kicks in regardless of the "cause" of Autism.
It is a conjecture, but it seems as though neuro-diverse thinking is a gift, an adaptation to what might be genetic, brain damage, or what have you. I do not even know enough about the "hard birth" theory to comment beyond this.
I was sure the above was your line of thought, but I was worried you might try to take the next step--investigating the possible cause for this neural dysfunction--and stumble upon the "hard birth/brain damage theory." Suffice it to say, it is not my favorite theory.
This might be totally off topic...
I saw a documentary that dealt with "time". There was an experiment in it about the notion that time seems to slow down when you experience something traumatic. Whether there was some truth in this or not was explored in a very dramatic way that showed that it was true.
A movie consists of 24 or 25 pictures per second. If time would slow down we would be able to consciously see the movie as a series of pictures.
I don't have the language to describe this any further right now... Something just says that this is related...
Hello Ryu san! You should know that sbc only extended the theory of the difference between the way men and women think, as determined long before he added to it? It is important to note the obverse: that if there is an emb, then there can also be an extreme female brain!
I, too, have questioned sbc; and now he does nor wish to debate with me!
QUOTE����������When I built this theory, it seemed to be closely related to "The extreme-male-brain theory of autism" of Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen, the director of Autism Research Centre in Cambridge University. Therefore, I sent e-mail to him and received responses from him. He wrote in the e-mail "These ideas (my theory) correspond quite well to some of our ideas about males as systemizers."QUOTE