Ash thanks for sharing the Kim video. There are a few very wonderful gems in there - from Kim You don't have a handicap to be different. Everybody's different.
In hearing or reading that I know ... not just assume, know ... it will get twisted from its purity, it might be that some will hear you don't have to have...
not the purity of you don't have
I just know you know I"m gonna say, but let's back up a bit.
The things that make me wonder are ... who says
As in who says whether a thing is an impairment or an improvement?
By whose judging and for whose purpose?
Why isn't it 'just is' by individual perspective?
Why isn't 'just is' in many varied and different forms enough?
The supposition... and yes there is some evidence ... but the supposition that the messages between hemispheres in the brain are the conditioners and boundary makers of what can be interpreted, remembered, stored and retrieved and translated is being taken as the basis for the perspectives on savant abilities.
The notions in there contain many falsehoods - '"This character would be something that no one has ever seen before.'
Kim is the most amazing savant that has ever lived.
Those things are not true.
What is true is that in thinking that autism or savant abilities (and add other abilities/experiences that some in science has issue with, or that society fears in some way) has been hidden away from the general population, either to protect them from society or to protect society from them.
Or when studied, these differences have been studied as a means to an end - the end being to support whatever premise the scientist is trying to prove. If the examiners already have a bias of course the findings will support the bias.
Think of the preposterous notions that have prevailed as truths in our societies when trying to accommodate or extinguish differences.
Kim is right. Everybody is different. Everybody has always been different.
How difference has been treated in the past, and still is to a great extent, is what is changing.
Another gem in there is the acknowledgement of him utilising 'preconscious or unconscious circuitry.'
Well my goodness... 'there are ways to measure these now'
There are? Then, my goodness they must be real!!
Shit, that means that those who were put to death for using them must have been innocent of crimes against natural man!!
So, let's go beyond the suppositions of how a thing might be happening, now that we've accepted that they do happen, and into the realities that they are happening and how humankind can best learn from them and apply them.
Apologies if this is too big a leap too soon, my passion is kind of boundaryless
It's not only things like the immense ability to store and recollect data that are experientially real that science cannot explain, but things like precognition, telepathy, energy healing, remote viewing, clair abilities, near death experience knowledges... all of these thngs also fall into the pan of preconscious or unconscious circuitry usage, as far as my understanding can make the links.
Do you think we will accept these differences? Or will we keep dissecting brains and labelling or denying the differences are not a handicap or mutation of humanity?
This is an excerpt from an interview with Chris Carter that speaks to some of these notions. I'd really like this to be a part of your consideration.
Question 6) In your excellent article "Does Consciousness depend on the Brain?" you argue that the transmission theory of consciousness is a better explanation than the productive theory. But some people say that, from a scientific point of view (even from a Popperian stance) the productive theory is better because it is in principle falsifiable.. But the transmission theory doesn't seem easy to refute since that it is consistent with all the facts and with any imaginable fact, making it untestable. What do you think of this objection?
Chris Carter: In the first place, the production theory – the idea that the brain produces the mind – has been convincingly falsified by the evidence. And holding on to a falsified belief is the antithesis of scientific thinking – it is ideological thinking.
But we need to be more clear here on what we mean by “theory,” and what we mean by “fact.” For instance, gravity is a fact of nature, yet we have theories of how gravity works. Similarly, evolution appears to be a historical fact – after all, there is the fossil record. Yet we also have theories of how evolution works.
Scientific theories are not speculation about isolated facts; they are tentative explanations about how certain facts fit together. When Isaac Newton proposed that a planet and the sun are attracted by a gravitational force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, he proposed a relation between masses and distances—a relation that of course became celebrated as the Newtonian theory of gravity.
So, the question is: do the facts seem to indicate that the brain produces the mind? Or on the contrary, do they seem to indicate that the brain works as a receiver-transmitter for the mind? I argue in my new book that an examination of all of the evidence indicates the latter. The evidence is not consistent with production, but is consistent with transmission. In other words, it seems to be a fact that the brain works as a receiver-transmitter. A scientific transmission theory would propose to explain how the brain works this way. There have been several such theories, most due to brain scientists such as John Eccles, or to physicists such as Henry Stapp and Evan Harris Walker. To the extent that these transmission theories are testable, they are scientific theories. And Walker’s theory makes several testable predictions – it is not, as you put it, “consistent with any conceivable fact.”
So, in a nutshell, that objection is based upon a common misunderstanding of what a scientific theory really is, and so confuses fact with theory.
from http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com. ... riter.html