Could autism just be too much consciousness?

Post Reply New Topic

The human mind consists of both conscious and subconscious processes. Some problems are best solved through conscious thought while other problems are so complex, it's bet to let the subconscious mind take over. Perhaps autistics are hyper-conscious and thus over-think and over-analyze and become fixated on specifics; meanwhile the non-conscious processes essential to social interaction, multi-tasking and physical coordination are impaired.

Being impaired in non-conscious processing is a pretty huge disability. On the other hand, consciousness emerged later in evolution so the hyper-consciousness of autistics (at the expense of the non-conscious brain) might mean autism is the next step in evolution.

This is just a speculative hypothesis so forgive me if It sounds silly.

I think that's an interesting theory. I know that scientists have done several studies where they can actually see the subconscious at work in groups of people. These tests should be formed with AS and NTs to compare the differences. I have noticed the same results from my subconscious as NTs experience - I think. Some things don't work right - especially social skills and the art of recognizing faces. Other than that, my subconscious is pretty alright.

A lot of those tricks seem to work on me. For example, smiling to cause a rise in mood. That's a subconscious trick and even knowing it - it still works. Next time you're bummed and you'd rather not be, force a fake smile for a minute or two - or until a real one happens on its own. Maybe people here could informally report if the fake-smile to real-happiness trick works on them, or not.

We are next step in human evolution, people don't understand us, because they're still one level below us.
NT's always tell "think real", which is utter bull, objective thinking is more right.

While that sounds nice, it may also just be wishful thinking to make ourselves feel better, so I try to steer away from the sentiment of superiority and self-patronization.

Well you could be right but I think we're just overpowered by majority.

Uh, except you can only be the 'next step' when you're the majority. That's kind of the point of evolution, right?

I think that "over-consciousness" is one part of the equation (for example, read up on the "intense world theory of autism"). However, it's not all of it. it doesn't describe the other, detrimental effects of autism. These are the things that make it difficult to cope in life, things like executive dysfunctions and sensory overloads.

The number of people on the spectrum not severely impacted by these things is relatively small, but yet are also the most vocal. That's because the less impaired are the most able to communicate effectively and thus become the voices that speak the loudest in the autistic community. If the neurotypical world were to suddenly become autistic with a distribution of the autistic spectrum in terms of percentages of people on different places on the spectrum as it exists today, it would suddenly grind to a halt. All of a sudden, you would get a society in which the majority of people were no longer able to work. This would not be a step forward.

I am not saying autism has no advantages. However, if you believe in evolution then you must conclude that a disorder which impairs the individual's ability to care for themselves and reproduce is not a step forward.

Last edited by outofplace on 19 Aug 2012, 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

I also see the flaw with being the next step in evolution,normally this would imply a difference that makes one better at finding mates,not worse. I do agree that we can analyze things on a deeper level than others, I often find myself taking an objective look at the human world and thinking "hold on a second this is an illusion". The only thing is it is often better to live inside the illusion than see the world for what it is,a meaningless sea of atoms in an even more meaningless sea of energy . The Terry Pratchett quote in my signature sums this up nicely.

Actually the most evolved organisms reproduce the least often. It's unevolved organisms like weeds and insects that reproduce the most frequently. And reproduction is not the only way organisms enhance their genetic success.

from the thread title i was expecting this to be something along the lines of the intense world theory (which i don't care for, what i've read of it in its presentation on this site struck me as autistic chauvinism), however i think the idea you bring up is much more interesting and intuitive. It seems obvious yet i think it is original, i dont think i have ever thought about it quite like that. While i dont think your speculation entirely sums up autism i think it is undoubtedly a useful insight, that a significant part of autism has to do with a crosswiring of what are normally unconscious processes onto a 'more conscious' stage within the brain, and also visa versa. And i would personally emphasize it as crosswiring rather than strictly increased consciousness, because i think if it were as straight forward as that, we would be able to understand precisely how our savantish skills functioned, and be able to explain them, which is often not the case.

Hey now, biology and natural selection being one of my main special interests (possibly number one) this makes me cringe. There is no such thing as an unevolved or less-evolved organism. The time is the present and we have all been evolving for exactly the same amount of time from the original replication we all descend from. To say more advanced is slightly better, but not much. We have advanced in different directions, but in any case each of our ancestors (or an insects ancestor, or a fungus's ancestor) did exactly what was needed to survive and produce offspring. An insect obviously has a simpler brain than you, but it can do many things you cant. Also not sure what you mean that reproduction is not the only way organisms 'enhance' their success. First lets forget 'enhance', you either succeed to survive and produce or you dont, there is not really any way to do it better or less better, either you do or dont. Next, reproduction is the only way to pass your traits into the future, especially genetically as you specifically said. The only thing i could guess you may have meant is that learning is a way to pass behaviors into the future, but this is really only relevant to humans, and somewhat to other primates , all other animal behaviors are practically entirely instinctual. But again you specifically said genetic success so this does not apply to learned behavior.

No.

Next question.

Allow me to respectfully disagree: Just because all life on Earth has been evolving for the same amount of time, does not mean we've all evolved an equal amount in that time. Some organisms are the same species they were tens of millions of years ago, while others have transformed not only into different species, but into wildly different taxonomical categories.

Now with respect to gene replication; reproduction is only one way people pass on their genes. If someone encourages their religion to oppose abortion for example, they are passing on their genes because the members of your religion typically share copies of your genes and by prohibiting abortion, you are helping your genes replicates. There are dozens of other examples; politicians can pass on an astronomical number of genes without ever having a child of their own.

This hyper-consciousness you are referring to is not the "next step," but rather a defect in the autistic brain. In order to function effectively, the human brain must reduce the overwhelming complexity of the world into manageable, albeit incomplete, fragments. This is a natural process that begins in the early years of life, and the end result is what we call a neurotypical person.

However, for someone with autism, this process is impaired, resulting in a brain that overanalyzes all incoming stimuli. This inability to filter incoming information causes a myriad of problems. Autism is, at its core, an information processing disorder. It is not an evolutionary step forward; it is merely a disabling flaw.

Temple Grandid said she has no unconscious in the book Thinking in Pictures, she talked about being unable to repress or block the images of things she had seen.

I puzzled about this for a long time, remember wondering how one would know if they had an unconscious

You can make all kinds of theories as you want, but one thing I know is that people hate/dislike/ignore me for who I am. I can't achieve something what I lacked since birth.