simulated Asperger's
05 Dec 2008, 4:04 pm
I think there's no such thing as "simulated Asperger's" because autism is polygenic, and you WILL have all your traits from various different sources just because of the nature of the thing. Autism isn't having or not having some single basic trait; it just becomes autism whenever you have enough traits, not just because you do or don't you have some gene or other.
This seems to be the case because whenever they discover some gene that has a relationship to autism, it is usually a tiny relationship--they've gotten extremely excited whenever anything is strong enough to explain 2% of autism. That makes it seem to me like there must be lots of places on your DNA that can influence autistic traits; that these traits are found in the population at large; and that having autism simply means having enough of them piling up on top of one another.
I think that would also explain the wild variation from person to person on the spectrum.
_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com
Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com
06 Dec 2008, 1:38 am
makuranososhi wrote:
Eggman wrote:
pandd wrote:
Eggman wrote:
all of a tomotao plant is a tomato plant, they are but organs but are still 100 percent gentically tomato plant
I'm not really sure what you mean by 100 percent genetically tomato plant. My cherry tomatoes do not have identical DNA to each other, let alone to my money maker tomatoes. They also share DNA with other non-tomato-plants evidently, and share individual constituents coded for by DNA with non-tomato-plants.
everypart of said tomato plant coantsins the genes of the tomato planttherefore any part is still tomoato plant
The tomato plant contains many genes; not all are native. There is much interaction and hybridization.
M.
And yet it cointains the genses of a tomotoplant so is one
06 Dec 2008, 1:44 am
pandd wrote:
Eggman wrote:
pandd wrote:
Eggman wrote:
all of a tomotao plant is a tomato plant, they are but organs but are still 100 percent gentically tomato plant
I'm not really sure what you mean by 100 percent genetically tomato plant. My cherry tomatoes do not have identical DNA to each other, let alone to my money maker tomatoes. They also share DNA with other non-tomato-plants evidently, and share individual constituents coded for by DNA with non-tomato-plants.
everypart of said tomato plant coantsins the genes of the tomato planttherefore any part is still tomoato plant
Every part of any person with AS contains the genes of a person with AS.....therefore....
You aparently completly missed what I am saying.
I am going to make a comparison.
For those of you who dont understand campariosons trelize a comparison does not have to align everypoint of two things together, just the relavent
lets say disease a has the symptoms of a running nose and a cough
diease b has the symptons of a running nose
diesea c has the symptons of a cough.
you could have b and c and thus from the symptons appear to have a. WHich you dont.
Aspergers may coaintain many qaulitys that individually maybe found in different typwes of brain wiring. therefore my question is, if you have enough of them, so your output is like that of someopne with Asperger's, you may appear to have it when you dont.
And for those weho still dont get that a capmaparsion doesnt have to be the same on every point let me tell you before I see some poster crying out...
I was not saying Asperger's is a disese. I just needed some things that could produce different out puts to show theat when compared could apper to be something that it is not
06 Dec 2008, 1:44 am
pandd wrote:
Eggman wrote:
pandd wrote:
Eggman wrote:
all of a tomotao plant is a tomato plant, they are but organs but are still 100 percent gentically tomato plant
I'm not really sure what you mean by 100 percent genetically tomato plant. My cherry tomatoes do not have identical DNA to each other, let alone to my money maker tomatoes. They also share DNA with other non-tomato-plants evidently, and share individual constituents coded for by DNA with non-tomato-plants.
everypart of said tomato plant coantsins the genes of the tomato planttherefore any part is still tomoato plant
Every part of any person with AS contains the genes of a person with AS.....therefore....
You aparently completly missed what I am saying.
I am going to make a comparison.
For those of you who dont understand campariosons trelize a comparison does not have to align everypoint of two things together, just the relavent
lets say disease a has the symptoms of a running nose and a cough
diease b has the symptons of a running nose
diesea c has the symptons of a cough.
you could have b and c and thus from the symptons appear to have a. WHich you dont.
Aspergers may coaintain many qaulitys that individually maybe found in different typwes of brain wiring. therefore my question is, if you have enough of them, so your output is like that of someopne with Asperger's, you may appear to have it when you dont.
And for those weho still dont get that a capmaparsion doesnt have to be the same on every point let me tell you before I see some poster crying out...
I was not saying Asperger's is a disese. I just needed some things that could produce different out puts to show theat when compared could apper to be something that it is not
06 Dec 2008, 2:29 am
Eggman wrote:
makuranososhi wrote:
Eggman wrote:
pandd wrote:
Eggman wrote:
all of a tomotao plant is a tomato plant, they are but organs but are still 100 percent gentically tomato plant
I'm not really sure what you mean by 100 percent genetically tomato plant. My cherry tomatoes do not have identical DNA to each other, let alone to my money maker tomatoes. They also share DNA with other non-tomato-plants evidently, and share individual constituents coded for by DNA with non-tomato-plants.
everypart of said tomato plant coantsins the genes of the tomato planttherefore any part is still tomoato plant
The tomato plant contains many genes; not all are native. There is much interaction and hybridization.
M.
And yet it cointains the genses of a tomotoplant so is one
Then we have a difference of definition; non-native would mean non-tomato, even if it is resident in the plant's structure.
M.
_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.
For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
06 Dec 2008, 6:58 am
The point is still that you cannot have all the traits of X and not be X, it's tautological.
That does not mean that no mistakes are made when trying to assess whether all the traits of X are present. If you are asking to what extent non-autistic persons might appear autistic for some period of time, that is an entirely different question, and an important distinction in the particular instance.
I do not know to what extent someone might appear to have an ASD when in fact they do not (ie how common, how long and under what circumstances is someone likely to appear to have the traits of an ASD). Timing is important in reviewing the accuracy of early-age diagnosis (so perhaps more studies and information will be available about this in the future) because of the longitudinal nature of ASDs, and of course the expertise of the diagnostician/s is always a factor, and no doubt other things can further complicate assessment. But it would be consistent with other conditions if it were misdiagnosed either positively or negatively at least some of the time.
The traits of AS include a sufficient level of impairment in particular core species-competencies, occurring together in a triad, that is developmental in nature (onset during early child-hood development) and life-long in duration. This is a class-wide trait of AS; the meaning of AS is such that anyone who does not have this trait, does not have AS. Anyone who does have the trait (the triad of specific impairments, development in nature and of life-long duration), is autistic and has an ASD.
06 Dec 2008, 8:06 am
pandd wrote:
The point is still that you cannot have all the traits of X and not be X, it's tautological.
That does not mean that no mistakes are made when trying to assess whether all the traits of X are present. If you are asking to what extent non-autistic persons might appear autistic for some period of time, that is an entirely different question, and an important distinction in the particular instance.
I do not know to what extent someone might appear to have an ASD when in fact they do not (ie how common, how long and under what circumstances is someone likely to appear to have the traits of an ASD). Timing is important in reviewing the accuracy of early-age diagnosis (so perhaps more studies and information will be available about this in the future) because of the longitudinal nature of ASDs, and of course the expertise of the diagnostician/s is always a factor, and no doubt other things can further complicate assessment. But it would be consistent with other conditions if it were misdiagnosed either positively or negatively at least some of the time.
The traits of AS include a sufficient level of impairment in particular core species-competencies, occurring together in a triad, that is developmental in nature (onset during early child-hood development) and life-long in duration. This is a class-wide trait of AS; the meaning of AS is such that anyone who does not have this trait, does not have AS. Anyone who does have the trait (the triad of specific impairments, development in nature and of life-long duration), is autistic and has an ASD.
That does not mean that no mistakes are made when trying to assess whether all the traits of X are present. If you are asking to what extent non-autistic persons might appear autistic for some period of time, that is an entirely different question, and an important distinction in the particular instance.
I do not know to what extent someone might appear to have an ASD when in fact they do not (ie how common, how long and under what circumstances is someone likely to appear to have the traits of an ASD). Timing is important in reviewing the accuracy of early-age diagnosis (so perhaps more studies and information will be available about this in the future) because of the longitudinal nature of ASDs, and of course the expertise of the diagnostician/s is always a factor, and no doubt other things can further complicate assessment. But it would be consistent with other conditions if it were misdiagnosed either positively or negatively at least some of the time.
The traits of AS include a sufficient level of impairment in particular core species-competencies, occurring together in a triad, that is developmental in nature (onset during early child-hood development) and life-long in duration. This is a class-wide trait of AS; the meaning of AS is such that anyone who does not have this trait, does not have AS. Anyone who does have the trait (the triad of specific impairments, development in nature and of life-long duration), is autistic and has an ASD.
I disagree. You can have all the traits of X and not be X if a combination of Y, V, and Z mimic X.
my husband is 6'4, physically clumsy, introverted, very smart, hates small talk, is less emotional, etc. But he is not an Aspie because he simply exhibits traits similar to an Aspie. And he has exhibited these traits for his entire life.
Which is why I offered the example of the Monarch and Viceroy butterfly. Appear very similar but have underlying differences that make then hard to tell apart at face value.
06 Dec 2008, 8:20 am
Eggman wrote:
Given that asbegers may be composed of amny parts that by themselves are not aspergers...
Is it possible to simply be born with those various triats and as a result seem to have it?
Is it possible to simply be born with those various triats and as a result seem to have it?
I think so, yes. Though I must add that I believe it also depends on how severe and strong the traits are, and if you have them very slightly, it is illogical to believe someone has AS. I sometimes think someone has it, but almost every time I come to the conclusion I was wrong.
I think the answer to your question is yes, but I also think it is easy to recognize it when someone actually isn't AS. Some things aren't easy to fake. I think you have to be an extremely good actor to make also AS people believe you.
_________________
Christians believe in The Holy Bible, Muslims believe in The Qur'aan and I believe in Mother Goose's Tale.
I GRADUATED WITH THE HIGHEST GRADES OF MY YEAR!! !! !
06 Dec 2008, 8:47 am
Shiggily wrote:
I disagree. You can have all the traits of X and not be X if a combination of Y, V, and Z mimic X.
You are welcome to disagree with the premise "X is X and not-X is not-X" and its necessary implications, although it strikes me as utterly illogical to do so.
Quote:
my husband is 6'4, physically clumsy, introverted, very smart, hates small talk, is less emotional, etc. But he is not an Aspie because he simply exhibits traits similar to an Aspie. And he has exhibited these traits for his entire life.
I have plants in my garden, they grow leaves, and get bigger and form ovaries to carry their seed. They are not tomatoes simply because they exhibit traits similar to tomatoes, we can tell this because they fail to have every trait that tomatoes have, such as failing to have the trait 'are not not a tomato' to name the most obvious.
Quote:
Which is why I offered the example of the Monarch and Viceroy butterfly. Appear very similar but have underlying differences that make then hard to tell apart at face value.
If each of these had all the traits of the others, then they would not merely appear very similar, they'd be the same species. If you are arguing that something can not have some of the traits of X while looking like it might have some, or all, then you are not arguing against anything I've said.
06 Dec 2008, 10:29 am
Like I wrote some posts ago, I think there is conceptual indefinition about what is really AS.
It is not much clear if AS is
a) a condition that induce certain symptoms;
or
b) the symptoms themselfs
[Let's take an anologie: "Down Syndrom" is a); "mental retardation" is b)]
If we consider AS as "a condition that induce certain symptoms" it is theoretically possibel that someone, by chance, have the symptoms of AS (or, at least, the 2+1 symptoms needed for a diagnosis) without having AS; and, eventually, could be also possible that some people with AS not have the "official" symptoms (remember the thread "Females and AS - a diferent presentation?").
If we consider that AS is "the symptoms themselfs", these mean that, if you have the symptoms, you have AS, point (like "if you can't see, you are blind, no matter the cause"). And, if you don't have the symptoms, you not have AS.
Last edited by TPE2 on 06 Dec 2008, 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
06 Dec 2008, 12:30 pm
pandd wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
I disagree. You can have all the traits of X and not be X if a combination of Y, V, and Z mimic X.
You are welcome to disagree with the premise "X is X and not-X is not-X" and its necessary implications, although it strikes me as utterly illogical to do so.
Quote:
my husband is 6'4, physically clumsy, introverted, very smart, hates small talk, is less emotional, etc. But he is not an Aspie because he simply exhibits traits similar to an Aspie. And he has exhibited these traits for his entire life.
I have plants in my garden, they grow leaves, and get bigger and form ovaries to carry their seed. They are not tomatoes simply because they exhibit traits similar to tomatoes, we can tell this because they fail to have every trait that tomatoes have, such as failing to have the trait 'are not not a tomato' to name the most obvious.
Quote:
Which is why I offered the example of the Monarch and Viceroy butterfly. Appear very similar but have underlying differences that make then hard to tell apart at face value.
If each of these had all the traits of the others, then they would not merely appear very similar, they'd be the same species. If you are arguing that something can not have some of the traits of X while looking like it might have some, or all, then you are not arguing against anything I've said.
I was not arguing against the tautological argument X is X and not X is not X. I am arguing against your definition of what constitutes X.
What do you consider traits and symptoms. My literal interpretation of the original posters remarks was simulated Asperger's means
"to assume or have the appearance or characteristics of"
in which someone could appear to have the basic characteristics of Asperger's but those characteristics could be attributed to a combination of other issues.
The telling clue would be in the fundamental way the person thinks and reasons which is internal and unless expressed outwardly would not indicate to a person that they are different from an AS person.
The reason I say yes is because I correlate the question as being similar to the question are we living in a simulated reality. Or could you simulate a reality convincingly enough that a person such as yourself, would look at it and say... since it has all the characteristics of reality... it must be reality"
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
unless I misunderstood the original poster's remark. Which is definitely possible.
So unless we define AS as a condition with symptoms or the existence of symptoms, then the argument goes nowhere.
So is X just X or can X be approximated by some combination of V, Y, and Z close enough to fool the vast majority of people and not actually be X?
06 Dec 2008, 5:47 pm
Thinking better, I imagine a situation where a person can have the symptoms of AS without having AS - if he has other condition: in some cases, a "classic autistic" or a schiziphrenic can have the symptoms of AS without having AS.
However, if the question is "it is possible to have the symptoms of AS and only these symptoms without having AS?", probably the answer is "No".
06 Dec 2008, 7:55 pm
TPE2 wrote:
Thinking better, I imagine a situation where a person can have the symptoms of AS without having AS - if he has other condition: in some cases, a "classic autistic" or a schiziphrenic can have the symptoms of AS without having AS.
However, if the question is "it is possible to have the symptoms of AS and only these symptoms without having AS?", probably the answer is "No".
However, if the question is "it is possible to have the symptoms of AS and only these symptoms without having AS?", probably the answer is "No".
a diagnosis of AS needs the person to not have criteria of a schizophrenic.
06 Dec 2008, 9:15 pm
Shiggily wrote:
I was not arguing against the tautological argument X is X and not X is not X. I am arguing against your definition of what constitutes X.
It's not my definition. If the definition is your concern, this might be something more profitably argued about with the medical establishment, because I have no influence whatsoever on what the definition is.
Quote:
What do you consider traits and symptoms. My literal interpretation of the original posters remarks was simulated Asperger's means
I consider 'traits' to be those things which by definition of 'Asperger's Syndrome' distinguish the referent of 'Asperger's Syndrome' from all things 'not-Asperger's Syndrome'.
My definition of 'all the traits' is all traits that distinguish something from the things it is not. It is not 'appears to some observer at some point to have some of those traits or the potential to have all of those traits'. My definition of 'all the traits' is 'all the traits'.
Quote:
"to assume or have the appearance or characteristics of"
Would probably entail having some of (or appearing to) have some of the traits, which is distinct from all the traits.
Quote:
in which someone could appear to have the basic characteristics of Asperger's but those characteristics could be attributed to a combination of other issues.
Which possibility I distinctly described as plausible in my earlier posts.
Quote:
The telling clue would be in the fundamental way the person thinks and reasons which is internal and unless expressed outwardly would not indicate to a person that they are different from an AS person.
The reason I say yes is because I correlate the question as being similar to the question are we living in a simulated reality. Or could you simulate a reality convincingly enough that a person such as yourself, would look at it and say... since it has all the characteristics of reality... it must be reality"
The reason I say yes is because I correlate the question as being similar to the question are we living in a simulated reality. Or could you simulate a reality convincingly enough that a person such as yourself, would look at it and say... since it has all the characteristics of reality... it must be reality"
None of which requires everyone else interpret the question to ask something it does not explicitly say. I cannot see the point in arguing your 'yes' to someone who is saying 'no' to an entirely different question. Entirely different questions often have different answers.
Quote:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
unless I misunderstood the original poster's remark. Which is definitely possible.
So unless we define AS as a condition with symptoms or the existence of symptoms, then the argument goes nowhere.
So is X just X or can X be approximated by some combination of V, Y, and Z close enough to fool the vast majority of people and not actually be X?
unless I misunderstood the original poster's remark. Which is definitely possible.
So unless we define AS as a condition with symptoms or the existence of symptoms, then the argument goes nowhere.
So is X just X or can X be approximated by some combination of V, Y, and Z close enough to fool the vast majority of people and not actually be X?
X is just X. V, Y Z might be mistaken for X by some observer at some point. For instance a monarch-butterfly might be mistaken for some other thing, but the reason it is a mistake is because the monarch, even it if appears to some observer at some point to be some other thing, actually does have all the traits of monarchs, and it is the only kind of thing that does have all the traits of a monarch.
06 Dec 2008, 9:55 pm
pandd wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
I was not arguing against the tautological argument X is X and not X is not X. I am arguing against your definition of what constitutes X.
It's not my definition. If the definition is your concern, this might be something more profitably argued about with the medical establishment, because I have no influence whatsoever on what the definition is.
Quote:
What do you consider traits and symptoms. My literal interpretation of the original posters remarks was simulated Asperger's means
I consider 'traits' to be those things which by definition of 'Asperger's Syndrome' distinguish the referent of 'Asperger's Syndrome' from all things 'not-Asperger's Syndrome'.
My definition of 'all the traits' is all traits that distinguish something from the things it is not. It is not 'appears to some observer at some point to have some of those traits or the potential to have all of those traits'. My definition of 'all the traits' is 'all the traits'.
Quote:
"to assume or have the appearance or characteristics of"
Would probably entail having some of (or appearing to) have some of the traits, which is distinct from all the traits.
Quote:
in which someone could appear to have the basic characteristics of Asperger's but those characteristics could be attributed to a combination of other issues.
Which possibility I distinctly described as plausible in my earlier posts.
Quote:
The telling clue would be in the fundamental way the person thinks and reasons which is internal and unless expressed outwardly would not indicate to a person that they are different from an AS person.
The reason I say yes is because I correlate the question as being similar to the question are we living in a simulated reality. Or could you simulate a reality convincingly enough that a person such as yourself, would look at it and say... since it has all the characteristics of reality... it must be reality"
The reason I say yes is because I correlate the question as being similar to the question are we living in a simulated reality. Or could you simulate a reality convincingly enough that a person such as yourself, would look at it and say... since it has all the characteristics of reality... it must be reality"
None of which requires everyone else interpret the question to ask something it does not explicitly say. I cannot see the point in arguing your 'yes' to someone who is saying 'no' to an entirely different question. Entirely different questions often have different answers.
Quote:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
unless I misunderstood the original poster's remark. Which is definitely possible.
So unless we define AS as a condition with symptoms or the existence of symptoms, then the argument goes nowhere.
So is X just X or can X be approximated by some combination of V, Y, and Z close enough to fool the vast majority of people and not actually be X?
unless I misunderstood the original poster's remark. Which is definitely possible.
So unless we define AS as a condition with symptoms or the existence of symptoms, then the argument goes nowhere.
So is X just X or can X be approximated by some combination of V, Y, and Z close enough to fool the vast majority of people and not actually be X?
X is just X. V, Y Z might be mistaken for X by some observer at some point. For instance a monarch-butterfly might be mistaken for some other thing, but the reason it is a mistake is because the monarch, even it if appears to some observer at some point to be some other thing, actually does have all the traits of monarchs, and it is the only kind of thing that does have all the traits of a monarch.
I see what you are saying.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Question about Asperger Syndrome and tem "Severe Asperger" |
29 Jan 2024, 11:37 pm |
| Many Asperger's cases unrelated to Kanner's autism IMO |
10 Feb 2024, 10:56 am |
