Autism: Looking at the World Differently [Must Read]

Page 3 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

flurry
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 18

25 Apr 2010, 2:09 am

this person asked for money in the AS forum at psychforums.



tolu
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 28

25 Apr 2010, 7:53 am

I ,
have taken away the option for people to donate i find that is highly unethical and it was a spur of the moment to which i will regret now and later on in life and find that it was abusing the situation.

Please i ask of forgiveness and to continue the debate that i had held earlier


_________________
Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am")


jametto
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 127

25 Apr 2010, 9:02 am

tolu wrote:
Could you please explain to me why there is zero support.

thanks for your help


There is NO support for people who hate autism and want to recover.
There is plenty support for people who like their disorder,

It's frustrating because people who hate it need far more support than people who like it.



conan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 784

25 Apr 2010, 9:30 am

there are several assumptions you seem to be making. It is an interesting post but it has very little scientific credibility in my mind.

i dunno if your suggesting the brain is a blank slate at birth. That view is way outdated

there is a proven theory for the development of sensory problems in developing brains of fragile X individuals that seems like a good theory to understand autism as a whole. what happens is that there is an increase in glutamate receptors (glutamate is the brain's main excitatory neurotransmitter) as such the developing brain get's over excited and builds longer and more abundant dendrites in it's neurons.

this is a very molecular approach to understanding autism but it seems like a fairly valid paradigm to use when understanding the developing brain of autistic individuals. there is likely much more to it but at the moment this is a good model. (mGluR fragile X theory)

it is very nice making psudo scientific claims. i know it is fun and can feel enlightening but we have to recognise that the likelyhood of them being true (especially when you infer from inferences etc.) is quite small.



heliocopters
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 189
Location: American side of Lake Ontario

25 Apr 2010, 9:39 am

AH!! ! The awful, awful grammar!!

If you want people to take your post seriously, you need to proofread. Make your argument more of a straight line rather than going in circles. Use less capitals. There's no reason to make non-proper nouns proper. You missed a lot of commas, and you asked questions without question marks! It's hard to take your post seriously when all I can see is the sloppiness of the writing, the typos, and the complete argumentative fallacies therein. I'm not even entirely sure what your stance is, if there is one. Are you saying that autism is a manifestation of our environment, not due to a genetic difference given to us in the womb by our parents? If so, I would seriously have to disagree with you. I understand the "mind a blank slate" (although I'm not sure why you specified it to humans seeing as animals actually have more similar brains to us than we like to think) in the sense of certain other mind differences, like dissociative disorders (multiple personality disorder) or other "psychosis" are most likely caused by the individual's environment than a genetic difference (although there are typically brain abnormalities that easier allow for certain mental illnesses, such as those with autism are at greater risk of developing a mild dissociative disorder such as depersonalization disorder; see "dissociative trance"). As for blending into the NT crowd, I have done a reasonably good job at it, and don't feel like I've lost my identity. Sure, either I talk too little or too much and I don't make eye-contact, but usually whenever I tell someone I'm autistic they say "I never would have guessed" (although most people are not that educated on HFA and AS). Autism is a brain difference given to us by our parents (if you made my mom and dad one person, they would have AS, seeing as they both have traits but not enough for a diagnosis), and if we're lucky, we're smart and learn the rules to the game. Whether or not you want to follow them is your call.


_________________
I am the wise little owl in the linden trees near the water.


conan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 784

25 Apr 2010, 9:48 am

heliocopters wrote:
(if you made my mom and dad one person, they would have AS, seeing as they both have traits but not enough for a diagnosis)


This is just not true though. Genetics is very rarely that simple (Mendelian genetics) and even when it is then you can only make predictions about likelyhood of, in this case an autistic offspring.

I do prescribe to the theory that autism is for the large part genetic.

what is also interesting to note is that there is evidence to suggest that sensory experience in developing individuals can shape brain development to some degree. i think that because it is thought that autism is thought to be a condition of excess excitation that changes in sensory stimuli at a young age may well have some interesting results. i don't know whether it would differ much from non autistic individuals. this is my theory :P :wink:



flurry
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 18

25 Apr 2010, 12:04 pm

perhaps the evangelist OP should start his crusade by learning how to spell autism (see thread title).



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

25 Apr 2010, 12:13 pm

It could just be a subtle intuition some people have. They can detect when someone is a bit "off" and that can cause them a feeling of unease so they compensate somehow. This compensation can involve a variety of responses.



tolu
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 28

25 Apr 2010, 2:01 pm

Hello Folks,

Again i am truly sorry and regret terribly asking for donations in fact i felt so sorry that i donated money to both Wrong Planet forums and the psych forums.

You see i like educational arguments and different views on a subjects, i like for you point out my mistakes what i did wrong and then give me an explanation as too how i could be of more service to you is there a way i can break down my theory so it would be easier for people to understand.

PS, As to my

Quote:
AH!! ! The awful, awful grammar!!
i am extremely sorry and will work harder on it in order to appease your senses

The Refrigerator Mom theory is a theory that i don't support at all not even one bit some of the most nastiest neglectful moms in the world have normal kids although what is interesting to note is that some of these kids grow up having a different attitude towards life

Now i didn't say that Tabula Rasa was correct or the All of Sigmund Freud's work and Theories are right what i am doing is taking different points of views on different and same subjects and trying to boil it down to general understanding

Tell me what you think about my theory and let me know whats wrong Please understand i do not hate autistic Individuals if you notice my post it's quite the opposite.

When i was young i was diagnosed with so many disorders i find it hard to beleive i am a functioning human today.

Something to think about: Can a thought affect the brain so much that it shapes how the brains does everything ?



pumibel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,477

25 Apr 2010, 2:43 pm

Tolu- I would suggest you really revamp your theory- fix grammar and spelling, make it in a more conversational tone if you can. The problem I see is that it is just so difficult to read and digest, and it contains a lot of fallacies. The first is Tabula Rosa. It is impossible to build a credible theory on ideas that have been proven false or have no basis in fact.

Also, why not just post shorter subjects for a while and have people get to know you first? Coming in and expounding on a very long, drawn-out theory right away is off-putting. You could always post bits of your theory in response to posts that are related to it. Then you will be supportive of other members while sharing your views. In short, i think your post is just too much, too soon for many of us. It is like you sat down to dinner on a first date and let all this rip before even the drinks have arrived.

I am sorry I was a bit of an ass in my first response here.



conan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 784

25 Apr 2010, 4:51 pm

tolu wrote:
Something to think about: Can a thought affect the brain so much that it shapes how the brains does everything ?


hmm. interesting. i really know very little about neuroscience. obviously phobias etc. are seen as inappropriate fear responses. this is centered around the amygdala.

obviously experiences can shape a personality, what this means for brain development i do not know.
one example would be what little is understood about schizophrenia.Although it is triggered by a genetic predisposition it seems likely that the environment can play a part. people who are schizophrenic as far as i know tend to have an over dopamised brain. To me this suggests somewhat different development or even just balances of specific neurotransmitters. i know you can study schizophrenia with MRI but i think this may be just about response to a stimuli.

to me it seems unlikely that a thought or even obsession (whether it be conscious or subconscious) can shape a person to such a degree as to bring about the kind of neurological differences you get with autistics.

it would be interesting if someone who actually has this sort of background could weigh in.

i think you should check out the mGluR theory as this is solid evidence for the cause of fragile X syndrome. (roughly 3% of autistics have fragile X and at the moment it is the most common known cause)



tolu
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 28

25 Apr 2010, 6:45 pm

How Thinking Can Change the Brain

January 29th 2007
20 Jan 2007 (Sharon Begley, Wall Street Journal) Dalai Lama helps scientists show the power of the mind to sculpt our gray matter.

Although science and religion are often in conflict, the Dalai Lama takes a different approach. Every year or so the head of Tibetan Buddhism invites a group of scientists to his home in Dharamsala, in Northern India, to discuss their work and how Buddhism might contribute to it.

In 2004 the subject was neuroplasticity, the ability of the brain to change its structure and function in response to experience. The following are vignettes adapted from 'Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain,' which describes this emerging area of science:

The Dalai Lama, who had watched a brain operation during a visit to an American medical school over a decade earlier, asked the surgeons a startling question: Can the mind shape brain matter?

Over the years, he said, neuroscientists had explained to him that mental experiences reflect chemical and electrical changes in the brain. When electrical impulses zip through our visual cortex, for instance, we see; when neurochemicals course through the limbic system we feel.

But something had always bothered him about this explanation, the Dalai Lama said. Could it work the other way around? That is, in addition to the brain giving rise to thoughts and hopes and beliefs and emotions that add up to this thing we call the mind, maybe the mind also acts back on the brain to cause physical changes in the very matter that created it. If so, then pure thought would change the brain's activity, its circuits or even its structure.

One brain surgeon hardly paused. Physical states give rise to mental states, he asserted; 'downward' causation from the mental to the physical is not possible. The Dalai Lama let the matter drop. This wasn't the first time a man of science had dismissed the possibility that the mind can change the brain. But 'I thought then and still think that there is yet no scientific basis for such a categorical claim,' he later explained. 'I am interested in the extent to which the mind itself, and specific subtle thoughts, may have an influence upon the brain.'

The Dalai Lama had put his finger on an emerging revolution in brain research. In the last decade of the 20th century, neuroscientists overthrew the dogma that the adult brain can't change. To the contrary, its structure and activity can morph in response to experience, an ability called neuroplasticity. The discovery has led to promising new treatments for children with dyslexia and for stroke patients, among others.

But the brain changes that were discovered in the first rounds of the neuroplasticity revolution reflected input from the outside world. For instance, certain synthesized speech can alter the auditory cortex of dyslexic kids in a way that lets their brains hear previously garbled syllables; intensely practiced movements can alter the motor cortex of stroke patients and allow them to move once paralyzed arms or legs.

The kind of change the Dalai Lama asked about was different. It would come from inside. Something as intangible and insubstantial as a thought would rewire the brain. To the mandarins of neuroscience, the very idea seemed as likely as the wings of a butterfly leaving a dent on an armored tank.

Neuroscientist Helen Mayberg had not endeared herself to the pharmaceutical industry by discovering, in 2002, that inert pills -- placebos -- work the same way on the brains of depressed people as antidepressants do. Activity in the frontal cortex, the seat of higher thought, increased; activity in limbic regions, which specialize in emotions, fell. She figured that cognitive-behavioral therapy, in which patients learn to think about their thoughts differently, would act by the same mechanism.

At the University of Toronto, Dr. Mayberg, Zindel Segal and their colleagues first used brain imaging to measure activity in the brains of depressed adults. Some of these volunteers then received paroxetine (the generic name of the antidepressant Paxil), while others underwent 15 to 20 sessions of cognitive-behavior therapy, learning not to catastrophize. That is, they were taught to break their habit of interpreting every little setback as a calamity, as when they conclude from a lousy date that no one will ever love them.

All the patients' depression lifted, regardless of whether their brains were infused with a powerful drug or with a different way of thinking. Yet the only 'drugs' that the cognitive-therapy group received were their own thoughts.

The scientists scanned their patients' brains again, expecting that the changes would be the same no matter which treatment they received, as Dr. Mayberg had found in her placebo study. But no. 'We were totally dead wrong,' she says. Cognitive-behavior therapy muted overactivity in the frontal cortex, the seat of reasoning, logic, analysis and higher thought. The antidepressant raised activity there. Cognitive-behavior therapy raised activity in the limbic system, the brain's emotion center. The drug lowered activity there.

With cognitive therapy, says Dr. Mayberg, the brain is rewired 'to adopt different thinking circuits.'

Such discoveries of how the mind can change the brain have a spooky quality that makes you want to cue the 'Twilight Zone' theme, but they rest on a solid foundation of animal studies. Attention, for instance, seems like one of those ephemeral things that comes and goes in the mind but has no real physical presence. Yet attention can alter the layout of the brain as powerfully as a sculptor's knife can alter a slab of stone.

That was shown dramatically in an experiment with monkeys in 1993. Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, rigged up a device that tapped monkeys' fingers 100 minutes a day every day. As this bizarre dance was playing on their fingers, the monkeys heard sounds through headphones. Some of the monkeys were taught: Ignore the sounds and pay attention to what you feel on your fingers, because when you tell us it changes we'll reward you with a sip of juice. Other monkeys were taught: Pay attention to the sound, and if you indicate when it changes you'll get juice.

After six weeks, the scientists compared the monkeys' brains. Usually, when a spot on the skin receives unusual amounts of stimulation, the amount of cortex that processes touch expands. That was what the scientists found in the monkeys that paid attention to the taps: The somatosensory region that processes information from the fingers doubled or tripled. But when the monkeys paid attention to the sounds, there was no such expansion. Instead, the region of their auditory cortex that processes the frequency they heard increased.

Through attention, UCSF's Michael Merzenich and a colleague wrote, 'We choose and sculpt how our ever-changing minds will work, we choose who we will be the next moment in a very real sense, and these choices are left embossed in physical form on our material selves.'

The discovery that neuroplasticity cannot occur without attention has important implications. If a skill becomes so routine you can do it on autopilot, practicing it will no longer change the brain. And if you take up mental exercises to keep your brain young, they will not be as effective if you become able to do them without paying much attention.

Since the 1990s, the Dalai Lama had been lending monks and lamas to neuroscientists for studies of how meditation alters activity in the brain. The idea was not to document brain changes during meditation but to see whether such mental training produces enduring changes in the brain.

All the Buddhist 'adepts' -- experienced meditators -- who lent their brains to science had practiced meditation for at least 10,000 hours. One by one, they made their way to the basement lab of Richard Davidson at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He and his colleagues wired them up like latter-day Medusas, a tangle of wires snaking from their scalps to the lectroencephalograph that would record their brain waves.

Eight Buddhist adepts and 10 volunteers who had had a crash course in meditation engaged in the form of meditation called nonreferential compassion. In this state, the meditator focuses on unlimited compassion and loving kindness toward all living beings.

As the volunteers began meditating, one kind of brain wave grew exceptionally strong: gamma waves. These, scientists believe, are a signature of neuronal activity that knits together far-flung circuits -- consciousness, in a sense. Gamma waves appear when the brain brings together different features of an object, such as look, feel, sound and other attributes that lead the brain to its aha moment of, yup, that's an armadillo.

Some of the novices 'showed a slight but significant increase in the gamma signal,' Prof. Davidson explained to the Dalai Lama. But at the moment the monks switched on compassion meditation, the gamma signal began rising and kept rising. On its own, that is hardly astounding: Everything the mind does has a physical correlate, so the gamma waves (much more intense than in the novice meditators) might just have been the mark of compassion meditation.

Except for one thing. In between meditations, the gamma signal in the monks never died down. Even when they were not meditating, their brains were different from the novices' brains, marked by waves associated with perception, problem solving and consciousness. Moreover, the more hours of meditation training a monk had had, the stronger and more enduring the gamma signal.

It was something Prof. Davidson had been seeking since he trekked into the hills above Dharamsala to study lamas and monks: evidence that mental training can create an enduring brain trait.

Prof. Davidson then used fMRI imaging to detect which regions of the monks' and novices' brains became active during compassion meditation. The brains of all the subjects showed activity in regions that monitor one's emotions, plan movements, and generate positive feelings such as happiness. Regions that keep track of what is self and what is other became quieter, as if during compassion meditation the subjects opened their minds and hearts to others.

More interesting were the differences between the monks and the novices. The monks had much greater activation in brain regions called the right insula and caudate, a network that underlies empathy and maternal love. They also had stronger connections from the frontal regions to the emotion regions, which is the pathway by which higher thought can control emotions.

In each case, monks with the most hours of meditation showed the most dramatic brain changes. That was a strong hint that mental training makes it easier for the brain to turn on circuits that underlie compassion and empathy.

'This positive state is a skill that can be trained,' Prof. Davidson says. 'Our findings clearly indicate that meditation can change the function of the brain in an enduring way.

Interesting isn't it.



Worldtraveler
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 49
Location: Seattle

25 Apr 2010, 7:54 pm

Interesting how tolu did not counter the Scientology accusation.
I would say it is true then. So the answer is -STAY FAR AWAY from this person.
Scientology attacks all those that think for themselves and criticize Scientology

The over the top words also ring a bell as "social manipulation" I have seen before.
Various religions/cults looking for suckers use lots of scientific
language and twisted science principles to try and impress or make the rube feel small and that joining would "help them understand".

I also think tolu is a cheap paid foreigner trolling for new cult members as he/she never capitalizes their "I's".
i this and i that does not go with the ability required for all the other words in the posts.

Smells very fishy....... :wink:



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

25 Apr 2010, 8:00 pm

I like thinking about Chaos Brain Theory. One thought can make a dent in the grey matter of the brain much like time dents the fabric of space. Your brain thought could influence the shape of your brain which, in turn, could influence how people collect honey from beehives in New York.



Callista
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

25 Apr 2010, 9:16 pm

Connect that to the way ideas spread through groups of people like a cold spreads through an elementary school (seriously, you can use the same math to describe the same things), a mental butterfly in China really can cause hurricanes.


_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com


pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

26 Apr 2010, 2:06 am

At the core of this "theory" is the notion that Autism is a response to sensory experiences of particular kinds. However, I doubt any developing person makes it out of toddlerhood without experiencing sensory experiences of the kind you describe. You claim that what makes someone Autistic is how they respond to these kinds of sensory experiences. That's no explanation at all and simply presents a chicken next to an egg and begs us to inquire which came first. If two people experience the exact same sensory experience but one reacts by becomming Autistic and the other reacts in some way that does not entail becoming Autistic, then clearly there was a significant point of difference to begin with and that point of difference rather than the triggering sensory experience would be the cause of Autism. So your theory actually explains nothing whatsoever in respect of the cause of Autism. I think most of us could figure out that our experience of sensory information is atypical based on our own insight into our own lived experiences and there are much more robust, complete and better explained hypotheses about this issue (and its likely effects on development of the individual) already extant.

Quote:
Nature versus nurture read that and Sigmund Freud Id, ego, and super-ego theory's, Also just because Tabula Rasa was said to be inept now that doesn't mean he didn't have a unique insight we can learn from vice versa>

Well obviously latin is not your strong point. You might be more credible when telling us what we should research if you did not demonstrate that you yourself are not well-researched in the area's you point towards.

I thought everyone knew that Rasa was a woman as Tabula is clearly a girl's name....... :lol:

(of course I am joking about Ms Rasa).