Context Blindness or Something Else?

Post Reply New Topic

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

This verse especially:



And the implicated idea of all joining hands and the world living together 'as one' too.
If it's only a dream, it's a very nice one.

The only possible downside I could see is that if everyone fully accepted everyone else's beliefs there would be no debating and no politics. Some people might find the idea of not having any discussion at all, boring. If there are no countries, what about currency and governments? Somebody has to make the rules or maybe I've got that wrong. If no one told anyone to do anything all of the international transport systems would grind to a halt. How would organise all of the community services and utilities if there were no countries or systems of government?

I wonder what there would be left to believe in or argue about. If there are no religions or no philosophies or scientific hypotheses, how would anyone organise their lives? Christmas, Hannuka and other festivals and age old local customs would all go 'up the shoot'. I don't think that too many people would be very happy if all religion was abolished. Will there be just one universal 'I like you and you like me' holiday instead? What about rites of passage? Lots of those are religious and custom based.

It's a lovely idea in theory, but I do see some practical and logistical issues.
Humans would get in the way.

Hey, wildgrape - Glad you found the link useful and enjoyed Grifin's talk. Let me confess, that I haven't listened to his talk, only read most of the paper on context blindness. I would like to listen to the talk though and probably will.

I would really like to know about Markram's Intense World approach and appreciate the link. Thank you. I will definitely check it out.

cosmiccat-

Griffen's paper is apparently a write-up of the talk, published subsequent to the talk. At the time, I just felt like listening rather than reading.

The link re the Default Network that I provided forms the basis for much of Griffen's talk/paper. It might be a bit boring if you are not into neurology, even if the discovery is truly remarkable. (I still haven't read that paper)

It is clear to me that neither Baron-Cohen's male brain theory or Griffen's theory provide an adequate explanation of autism. (For starters, neither begins to explain the extraordinary differences in autistic brains/talents). With further refinement, Markram's approach might have the possibility of providing a coherent neurological explanation. The paper is quite well-known and has, I believe, already had considerable influence. Below is a link to the paper. You can read it either in pdf or html by clicking the appropriate link on the upper right.

http://frontiersin.org/neuroscience/pap ... .006.2007/

I wish most of you guys would have read the entire article before disagreeing or discrediting the theory. They go on to explain how they believe this "context blindness" or inability to "parallel process" is a phenomenon that is occurring throughout the entire autism spectrum and while this major deficit may be just one aspect of what is missing in those with autism, it is uniquely what is missing at the higher performing end of the asperger's spectrum.

The article goes on to explain how Left and Right brained Caetextia presents itself differently.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the sole example that the first poster presented did not do the theory or article justice.

And I cannot help but wonder what you guys would have thought having read deeper into the article....


I found it utterly fascinating...

This is interesting.

I am reminded of how if someone asks me to do a thing, I do that thing but I do not think to do anything else outside of that thing. One example was someone asking me to look at an article and read the bit about a specific topic, so I did. I am then asked, "What about the rest of the article?" and I say, "Wait, what rest of the article? I just read the part you mentioned."

I also have issues with learning to do similar things in different contexts. Like learning how to drive one kind of motor vehicle, but being in a different vehicle with a virtually identical control scheme, I couldn't make it so much as move. When I have driven a car, I found it very hard to track both the road and everything in the road. Like I could only process one thing at a time (where I am going, dealing with obstacles right in front of me). If I focus on the road, I will probably kill someone, if not myself. If I focus on the cars, I may not get into an accident, but I will never find my way to my destination.

I think there is something to this, at least for me.