Who hates being a savant?
what? who says being a savant comes without struggle or triumph? The things that one is not good at bring constant trouble in her/his daily life. :(
it doesn't mean that you're good at everything, it just means that there is a dramatic contrast between what you are good at, and what you aren't. A gift and a curse, so to speak. That is, in my thinking, the key difference between savant and genius.
you know the answer to ANY scientific question.
I find that hard to believe, even for a Savant.
If you could answer the following question, you could be famous.
Is it possible for people to have an account of consciousness on purely physical grounds? If so, what is the argument for this?
Is it possible for a human being to completely comprehend our own physical composition? ie: is there anything in principle which forbids an object, even a conscious one, completely comprehending its own working?
by the way i am not doubting that a savant could answer the above questions, i think someone could.
einstein probably had autism and savant like ability in some areas.
the person who can answer the above conclusively, that discovery is a big as one by Godel or Einstein or Cantor or someone like that.
Psycho_jimmy
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 70
Location: Adelaide, Australia
One wonders where in this discussion potential became certianty.
I never said "I know everything". I did say, however, that when I do bend my will to a particular task, said task doesn't hold out for long. More than that; I accomplish what I can almost entirely sub-conscously.
My problem is where is the challenge for me.
Savant... Savant... No... There's no specific arena of thought I was born into... Unless we're counting patience. I remember all of my childhood years being spent in contemplation of same shape or rule such that I had been exhibiting a "reductionist" tendency to figure the large from the array of smalls.... Would that be considered mathematic? I'm great at catching onto mathematic concepts, and have taught myself entirely (and am still continuing to) everything relating to this "big from small". So as a consequence, I suppose, I am an excellent musician, a decent drawer (I don't have much physical patience with elaborate penciled details... go figure.), a logician, a "social worker" (human problems relating to others are easy given honest contexts, it's only their relation to me that I become befuddled about), writer, can justify anything, etc.. And, yes, things seem way too easy at times, which makes me believe I MUST be doing something wrong, or how could it be so simple? I'm afraid I still (at times) cling to the "complex" version of the discovered world that people have, just to give me a sense of accomplishment. I've stopped myself entirely from being intellectually able before because I thought if I felt the complexity of a subject then I would deserve to have learned it...
I never said "I know everything". I did say, however, that when I do bend my will to a particular task, said task doesn't hold out for long. More than that; I accomplish what I can almost entirely sub-conscously.
My problem is where is the challenge for me.
Jimmy, a couple of suggestions.
1. I too had/have a natural ability with the sciences. If you want to stretch yourself try taking it to the limit and consider the "Theory of Everything" - figure this out for yourself or at least play with the concepts in your mind, see where it leads, this can be both exhilarating and challenging.
2. I think you are saying you have a problem seeing the line dividing yourself/your mind from aspects of Aspergers behaviour. I suggest you have a play with this too in your mind... when you say "me" in your mind try to define this "me" and explore it, what are it's boundaries, is it something fixed or transient, how does "me" differ from consciousness itself. Is "me" thoughts in your head expressed in language or pictures or prior to both of these. Are emotions "me" or something that "me" has. Explore...
Best wishes,
TallyMan.
So Psycho_Jimmy;
You have resolved the schism between relativity and quantum mechanics? Who or what is "God"? What of metaphisics? What is the probability of an asteroid hitting the earth in my lifetime? What is the cure for all the worlds diseases? etc., etc., etc.? The list of questions is infinite.
Sadly, I am but a very slow "genius". I much envy your savantism. I share your gift of thought, but for me, it is but a learned process. I do have a near "photographic" memory, but for me, I must reason through all possabilities and this takes time. This is one reason social issues are a problem for me. There are just too many possabilities, and no correct answers, or more accurately, no way to discern exactly if your conclusions are correct. Inexactitude drives me nuts.
Serriously Jimmy, the avenues for your gifts are limmitless, your level of interest is at question.
Regards,
Increase velocity to the speed of light and you get:
- zero time (zero duration)
- zero distance (no space)
- infinite mass ("mass" concept is actually "density" concept)
.. which leads us to an Instantaneous Singularity.
Gravity is the density of light when it's not being light, but being a multiplicity (the created Universe) instead of a Singularity (the Creator). Light pops out from matter, so gravity is just - partly - static light, which is very dense.
That's why light is both a wave and a particle. A wave while in motion, a particle while standing. Yes, it's technically both at the same time, but that's the trick of the Universe. There is no real multiplicity - that's the creation; there's only a Singularity. Mass is a trick ... and so is gravity. And so is distance. And so is time. But then gravity is a density of time and space. It's all fabricated, so there has to be a trick in there somewhere. The trick comes out in the fact that all instances of light are, subjective to light, a single phenomenon, but subjective to mass (gravity), a multiplicity.
So I stick my hand out the window while shining a flashlight on the wall. A quantum of light strikes my hand from a source of gravity 100 million light-years away. According to light, it is at both its source and its destination at the same time. There IS NO 100 million light-years ... no duration and no distance. Light connected two points though 100 million light-years together instantly.
No duration, no time, no distance, no space ... a single phenomenon.
So the light which left its source is, according to light, the same thing which is shining out my flashlight 100 million years later, somewhere very 'far' away.
Gravity doesn't fit into particle physics because gravity is just the concept of density. There is no actual "gravity". There's just the illusion of gravity - which is as necessary as the illusion of space and the illusion of time, neither of which are knowable by particle physics. Gravity is density: of light (energy), time, and space.
The problem is the concept of "mass". There is no such thing as mass. If you substitute the concept of "density" you'll see things better.
Density is not a phenomenon unto itself ... but an attribute.
So, instead of using the term "gravity", use the concept of the attribute of density of phenomenon. Use the tem "density of..."
Why does gravity attract? No, Einstein; density of space, time, and energy. Attribute of.
I did that without thinking, which is why it reads like a mess. I never knew what 'gravity' was before. I just realized that it didn't really exist and was simply an attribute of things that are known to exist. I just knew *poof*. Pretty cool, eh?
Dilemma solved. thank-you, thank-you.
Nobel prize, please???
Autistics have problems and require fixing, obviously.
I'm going to need some time to chew on that. I'll get back to you, um..., someday.
Regards,
Psycho_jimmy
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 70
Location: Adelaide, Australia
NOBS, that's what I said. It is my interest in question.
Because these things are of little challenge; they don't interest me.
Would you rather climb everest or the little hill outside your house?
I'm not saying - I never did say - I'm doing nothing, I am in fact researching and developing, using my talents to my advantage, but I'm still looking for the real challenge.
As for quantam physics, the god problem?
Well, what do you think I'm spending my time on?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that you must be at that level to be savant because that's putting too strict a guideline or something which is far more diverse, some people have more gift in art and music than in mathematics for instance. According to wiki there's three types of savant:
Splinter skills savant: This is the most common category of savant syndrome. People in this category of have talents that usually include things like memorizing license plate numbers or sports trivia.
Talented savant: This category of savant is much more rare than splinter skills. People in this category usually have talents and facets of knowledge that are much more honed and extensive than the splinter skills savant.
Prodigious savant: This is by far the rarest category of savants. There are only around 100 people estimated to be in this category worldwide. Some famous prodigious savants include Kim Peek, Daniel Tammet, and Leslie Lemke.
I think saying that only prodigious savants are savant and the rest arent is like saying that only people with severe AS or autism have the condition, like all there are varying degrees.
So.... people with AS that have obsessions on a certain subject (or subjects) can technically become savant in that area? I guess you could say no, because it kind of involves work, but "most people", however you feel like defining that, can't obsess over something like people with AS do...

I find that hard to believe, even for a Savant.
If you could answer the following question, you could be famous.
Is it possible for people to have an account of consciousness on purely physical grounds? If so, what is the argument for this?
Is it possible for a human being to completely comprehend our own physical composition? ie: is there anything in principle which forbids an object, even a conscious one, completely comprehending its own working?
That would be the I AM theory wouldnt it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_that_I_am
Edit: maybe it was the I AM concept, and would relate more closely to jewish lit from what I'm thinking... I'll have to look it up later....
Last edited by nomnom_hamster on 02 May 2008, 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Increase velocity to the speed of light and you get:
- zero time (zero duration)
- zero distance (no space)
- infinite mass ("mass" concept is actually "density" concept)
.. which leads us to an Instantaneous Singularity.
Gravity is the density of light when it's not being light, but being a multiplicity (the created Universe) instead of a Singularity (the Creator). Light pops out from matter, so gravity is just - partly - static light, which is very dense.
That's why light is both a wave and a particle. A wave while in motion, a particle while standing. Yes, it's technically both at the same time, but that's the trick of the Universe. There is no real multiplicity - that's the creation; there's only a Singularity. Mass is a trick ... and so is gravity. And so is distance. And so is time. But then gravity is a density of time and space. It's all fabricated, so there has to be a trick in there somewhere. The trick comes out in the fact that all instances of light are, subjective to light, a single phenomenon, but subjective to mass (gravity), a multiplicity.
So I stick my hand out the window while shining a flashlight on the wall. A quantum of light strikes my hand from a source of gravity 100 million light-years away. According to light, it is at both its source and its destination at the same time. There IS NO 100 million light-years ... no duration and no distance. Light connected two points though 100 million light-years together instantly.
No duration, no time, no distance, no space ... a single phenomenon.
So the light which left its source is, according to light, the same thing which is shining out my flashlight 100 million years later, somewhere very 'far' away.
Gravity doesn't fit into particle physics because gravity is just the concept of density. There is no actual "gravity". There's just the illusion of gravity - which is as necessary as the illusion of space and the illusion of time, neither of which are knowable by particle physics. Gravity is density: of light (energy), time, and space.
The problem is the concept of "mass". There is no such thing as mass. If you substitute the concept of "density" you'll see things better.
Density is not a phenomenon unto itself ... but an attribute.
So, instead of using the term "gravity", use the concept of the attribute of density of phenomenon. Use the tem "density of..."
Why does gravity attract? No, Einstein; density of space, time, and energy. Attribute of.
I did that without thinking, which is why it reads like a mess. I never knew what 'gravity' was before. I just realized that it didn't really exist and was simply an attribute of things that are known to exist. I just knew *poof*. Pretty cool, eh?
Dilemma solved. thank-you, thank-you.
Nobel prize, please???
Autistics have problems and require fixing, obviously.
I'm going to need some time to chew on that. I'll get back to you, um..., someday.
Regards,
yes. .. .
it does seem a little less than useful if you lack the skills to communicate it.
_________________
And if I die before I learn to speak
will money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep
Increase velocity to the speed of light and you get:
- zero time (zero duration)
- zero distance (no space)
- infinite mass ("mass" concept is actually "density" concept)
.. which leads us to an Instantaneous Singularity.
Gravity is the density of light when it's not being light, but being a multiplicity (the created Universe) instead of a Singularity (the Creator). Light pops out from matter, so gravity is just - partly - static light, which is very dense.
That's why light is both a wave and a particle. A wave while in motion, a particle while standing. Yes, it's technically both at the same time, but that's the trick of the Universe. There is no real multiplicity - that's the creation; there's only a Singularity. Mass is a trick ... and so is gravity. And so is distance. And so is time. But then gravity is a density of time and space. It's all fabricated, so there has to be a trick in there somewhere. The trick comes out in the fact that all instances of light are, subjective to light, a single phenomenon, but subjective to mass (gravity), a multiplicity.
So I stick my hand out the window while shining a flashlight on the wall. A quantum of light strikes my hand from a source of gravity 100 million light-years away. According to light, it is at both its source and its destination at the same time. There IS NO 100 million light-years ... no duration and no distance. Light connected two points though 100 million light-years together instantly.
No duration, no time, no distance, no space ... a single phenomenon.
So the light which left its source is, according to light, the same thing which is shining out my flashlight 100 million years later, somewhere very 'far' away.
Gravity doesn't fit into particle physics because gravity is just the concept of density. There is no actual "gravity". There's just the illusion of gravity - which is as necessary as the illusion of space and the illusion of time, neither of which are knowable by particle physics. Gravity is density: of light (energy), time, and space.
The problem is the concept of "mass". There is no such thing as mass. If you substitute the concept of "density" you'll see things better.
Density is not a phenomenon unto itself ... but an attribute.
So, instead of using the term "gravity", use the concept of the attribute of density of phenomenon. Use the tem "density of..."
Why does gravity attract? No, Einstein; density of space, time, and energy. Attribute of.
I did that without thinking, which is why it reads like a mess. I never knew what 'gravity' was before. I just realized that it didn't really exist and was simply an attribute of things that are known to exist. I just knew *poof*. Pretty cool, eh?
Dilemma solved. thank-you, thank-you.
Nobel prize, please???
Autistics have problems and require fixing, obviously.
Wrong!! ! But nice try.


The photon goes at the speed of light because it is a massless particle, massless particles MUST move at the speed of light.
Mass and inertia is the result of particles interacting with Higgs particles and their associated Higgs field.
Physicists currently explain wave-particle duality using Quantum Field Theory, an elaboration of basic quantum mechanics. According to QFT each kind of elementary particle is associated with a quantum field that exists in every point in space. Particles are "merely" quantinized excitations in a quantum field.
mmmm, I hate it sometimes, because people keep trying to do things to make me seem dumber than I am. :S It's annoying. Like I care if they don't think I'm a savant or not? I think that's my major life problem: I'm completely indifferent to what people think of me.
_________________
"there is no spoon"
Ditto. Remember the "Back to the future" movies? My college friends always said I was exactly like the mad prof in those films. I wonder if his character was based on Aspergers behaviourism principles? Absent minded, technically clever, intense, mind everywhere, socially clumsy, strange mannerisms, no dress-sense? I even had hair in those days - that was also a bit like his
