Autistic brain is more random than neurotypical brain.

Page 2 of 2 [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Maje
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,802

02 Nov 2010, 1:18 pm

I cant open the link you refer to, maybe its only available in your country..?

I would turn around the title and say "NTs think more foreseeable".



wornlight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 9 Sep 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 397

02 Nov 2010, 1:43 pm

wavefreak58 wrote:
wornlight wrote:
i do not believe in randomness.


There are some sub-atomic particle physicists that would disagree with you. But that's an entirely different thread.

yes, well, for a physicist to tell me that i do believe in randomness, when i say that i do not, would be silly and not very persuasive.



Moog
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,663
Location: Untied Kingdom

02 Nov 2010, 1:54 pm

wornlight wrote:
i do not believe in randomness.


Me neither.


_________________
Not currently a moderator


wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

02 Nov 2010, 1:59 pm

wornlight wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
wornlight wrote:
i do not believe in randomness.


There are some sub-atomic particle physicists that would disagree with you. But that's an entirely different thread.

yes, well, for a physicist to tell me that i do believe in randomness, when i say that i do not, would be silly and not very persuasive.


The physicist will not tell you what you believe, only that the data indicates true randomness at a sub-atomic level. Whether you choose to ignore the data or not is your choice.



mikey1138
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 194
Location: This Island Earth

02 Nov 2010, 1:59 pm

I like turtles! :P



wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

02 Nov 2010, 2:01 pm

mikey1138 wrote:
I like turtles! :P


Randomness exemplified :lol:



wornlight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 9 Sep 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 397

02 Nov 2010, 4:16 pm

wavefreak58 wrote:
wornlight wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
wornlight wrote:
i do not believe in randomness.


There are some sub-atomic particle physicists that would disagree with you. But that's an entirely different thread.

yes, well, for a physicist to tell me that i do believe in randomness, when i say that i do not, would be silly and not very persuasive.


The physicist will not tell you what you believe, only that the data indicates true randomness at a sub-atomic level. Whether you choose to ignore the data or not is your choice.

alright fine then. i will permit that, so long as it remains sub-atomic. my simple mind can then conceive of it as a boundary of quantification. this is my final offer.



wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

02 Nov 2010, 4:28 pm

wornlight wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
wornlight wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
wornlight wrote:
i do not believe in randomness.


There are some sub-atomic particle physicists that would disagree with you. But that's an entirely different thread.

yes, well, for a physicist to tell me that i do believe in randomness, when i say that i do not, would be silly and not very persuasive.


The physicist will not tell you what you believe, only that the data indicates true randomness at a sub-atomic level. Whether you choose to ignore the data or not is your choice.

alright fine then. i will permit that, so long as it remains sub-atomic. my simple mind can then conceive of it as a boundary of quantification. this is my final offer.


Deal. The damn physicists still can't explain how randomness at a sub-atomic level scales up to determinism on a cosmic scale.



Chama
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 165

02 Nov 2010, 5:26 pm

wavefreak58 wrote:
wornlight wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
wornlight wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
wornlight wrote:
i do not believe in randomness.


There are some sub-atomic particle physicists that would disagree with you. But that's an entirely different thread.

yes, well, for a physicist to tell me that i do believe in randomness, when i say that i do not, would be silly and not very persuasive.


The physicist will not tell you what you believe, only that the data indicates true randomness at a sub-atomic level. Whether you choose to ignore the data or not is your choice.

alright fine then. i will permit that, so long as it remains sub-atomic. my simple mind can then conceive of it as a boundary of quantification. this is my final offer.


Deal. The damn physicists still can't explain how randomness at a sub-atomic level scales up to determinism on a cosmic scale.


I think that many scientists that SAY sub-atomic particle behaviour is random would, on closer inspection, admit that it SEEMS random because they are as of yet incapable of predicting it. But, just because something appears random doesn't mean it is random -- it just means we can't understand it (yet)! Perhaps similar to the article saying that autistic minds are more random? We probably aren't more random, just different, and they can't decipher it (yet)! Our minds are like sub-atomic particles in the face of science. 8)