It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How To Create a Better World.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 04:13 PM

reply to post by soficrow

Now, the factor here - the mind - is a non-physical thing.


But, this is a non-sequitor. There's nothing logical about saying the brain creates consciousness, which in turn allows consciousness to create the brain (neuroplasticity) To me, the consciousness that thinks, reasons, feels and assesses its experience is something ontologically real. It is only logical.

I think your logic is, not so applicable to reality. Pseudo-logic.

That said, studies testing the effects of neuroplaticity aimed somatic therapy have showed some moderate success. Autistic people can to a degree enhance their social skills and learn to augument their emotional experience. However, the neurophysiological difference between autism and trauma is huge, and gets enormous with low functioning autism.

This, I can agree with. Neuroplasticity can do some amazing things, yet has it's limitations, depending on a variety of factors, like degree of deficit, age, and genetics in general.

It seems to me that people with milder autism could really improve their awareness through these types of somatic mindfulness meditations. But I think there is a deeper biological problem with their brains than the brain of people who have suffered a trauma. In trauma, the memory of past experiences provides an anchor back to the original experience. This makes the experience more intuitively available to the person. With aspergers, for example, their dissociation might be so great that they wouldn't have any cognitive concept to work with, to find a parallel to more deeply enter higher emotive states of mind.

I don't think that's how asperger's works. People with aspergers can be even more emotionally intense than a neurotypical. Their difference lies in the ability to activate the empathy circuit in real time. It usually requires in depth reflection after the fact, but the response is usually quite intense. Ask me how I know. .

I am not saying we CANT do it, but I do think our understanding of the mind is still in its infancy. If we can figure out the developmental dynamics that go into socialization and whats called "the social engagement system" , we can develop better therapies that help coax proper development.

Which is why I tend to think you talk a bit too much out your rear end. You oversimplify the complex, and overcomplicate the simple.

Since the brain IS plastic, and has an impressive prowess in reversing psychological traumas, it's plausible that in the future people with autism will have the wherewithal to attenuate the effects, and perhaps regain normal social abilities. But not everyone agrees. Some people would argue that some things are finite: the body grows to a certain age and then the bones cover over; the body stops it's physical development to a particular height. Some people could say that people with severe retardation are simply biologically incapable of reversing their condition. From a psychological perspective, they wouldn't even have the cognitive tools to work with.

Why would anyone seek to unaspergers an individual? They are perfectly fine as is. It's not nearly as one-sided as you're making it out to be. Turn down the social instinct, and hyper activate the rational mind. Remember, it's variation which strengthens our species in complex, and ever evolving terrains. Well intended, but for the best? Your intentions may not be realized as such.

So, I think so long as higher cognitive organs - in the cortex - are biologically healthy, than consciousness can assert itself on the body. Consciousness stirs, nucleic acids prepare genes that make certain proteins that become certain cells in specific brain areas. And in the end, we have the peace we couldn't find. Were happy after a decade of trauma.

You speak as if there is one well described, stable definition of consciousness.

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 07:06 PM

The fail of these Freudian types is that they focus on the brain as the
personality of character,
same as with memory and drive of a computer.
Talk of 'rewiring' a person as if humans are soul-less zombies
and commodities, is for military commanders.
Afflictions are one thing, an individual soul that one is born with . . .is another.
Although I truly believe there are those that walk among us that are soulless,
who war on those who have.


edit on 15/1/14 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 07:19 PM
reply to post by ToneDeaf

To whom are you referring to? There doesn't seem to be anyone in this thread who would fit into a "freudian type". Freud was a brilliant young man, turned crackpot, incestuous coke-head. I wonder, do you prefer the psycho-babel of Jung over Freud? Not sure how much you read of his work. He never had a stable theory of basically anything. From one year to the next, the ideas continued to jumble around. Brilliant man, as well, but a bit too all over the place for my liking as I matured.

The reason why it's logical to speak of the brain as a computer, is because it can be synthesized by one. We're already doing that with success, but the processing power required is out of our reach for real time of mammals. The decades to come will see a fully synthesized, working model of the brain in real time.

As for the "soul". it's a fun concept but quite ignorant. Once you're educated enough, the notion of the "soul" gets seen for what it is, a delusion. You don't have to be a military commander type to realize this. I still have a deep appreciation for human nature and the human condition, but realize even these are not set in stone, and not only subject to change, but inevitably will as the terrain does.

Furthermore, "rewiring" is a reality that need not leave such a sour taste in the mouth of viewing members. It's simply a natural ability that complex beings have, as an adaptive process. That it may not fit into your notion of what a "soul" may be, simply shows that the belief is not sound.
edit on 15-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 07:35 PM

Numerous sociopaths are created through extreme abuse, living in war zones, etc. ...
I DO know there is a movement to prove sociopathy and other ills are "genetic,"

Most sociopaths go hand in hand with elevated egos and narcissism.
Egos and narcissism is found more so in politicians than in abused victims.
Narcissistic behavior can be passed down by way of family culture.


posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:33 PM

As for the "soul". it's a fun concept but quite ignorant.

Ignorance is for those that lack having a soul.
Instead they live by narcissist egos, not ever understanding the meaning
of life.


posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 10:00 PM


Ignorance is for those that lack having a soul.
Instead they live by narcissist egos, not ever understanding the meaning
of life.

the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness


We all live by narcissistic egos. It's a meaningless statement. The question is if the narcissism is healthy, and ego stable.

Atheists are quite capable of having healthy levels of narcissism, and a stable ego. They are also capable of living with meaning in their lives, as they so choose. It's a false assumption to equate lack of belief in a soul with a lacking a meaningful life. There is no universal meaning in life. That would be the height of arrogance, to assume so.

There are many people who believe in a soul, who are of pathological narcissism, and unstable egos.

Deny ignorance.
edit on 15-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in