Philosophy Now Forum

Children with autism have more nerve synapses in their brain. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 124730.htm]
Is it possible that we with the LESS synapses regard people with MORE synapses as "problematic" and "non healthy"? How arrogant can we be? How blind?
We seem to all "know" what "normal" and "healthy" is.
But at the end of the day, it all comes down to arbitrary definitions imposed by the majority...

What do you think?

skakos wrote:Children with autism have more nerve synapses in their brain. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 124730.htm]
Is it possible that we with the LESS synapses regard people with MORE synapses as "problematic" and "non healthy"? How arrogant can we be? How blind?
We seem to all "know" what "normal" and "healthy" is.
But at the end of the day, it all comes down to arbitrary definitions imposed by the majority...

What do you think?

Are more synapses a good thing, or is it possible that too many will overload the mind, making functioning difficult? More is not always better. Have you ever been around someone with autism?

skakos wrote:Children with autism have more nerve synapses in their brain. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 124730.htm]
Is it possible that we with the LESS synapses regard people with MORE synapses as "problematic" and "non healthy"? How arrogant can we be? How blind?
We seem to all "know" what "normal" and "healthy" is.
But at the end of the day, it all comes down to arbitrary definitions imposed by the majority...

What do you think?

I think the study has uncovered an amazing fact about autism that relates directly to our understanding of our observations and identification of the condition. The biophysical nature of autism has been a mystery until now. I hope this leads to more study.

It makes perfect sense that autistic people's cerebral neurones do not reject irrelevant unwanted or useless connections. Such an observation matches exactly the sort of behaviour that makes it hard for autistic people to live lives without help. It also helps us understand the amazing abilities of autism such as graphical mimicry and music playing.
I don't see what your problem is.

thedoc wrote:

skakos wrote:Children with autism have more nerve synapses in their brain. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 124730.htm]
Is it possible that we with the LESS synapses regard people with MORE synapses as "problematic" and "non healthy"? How arrogant can we be? How blind?
We seem to all "know" what "normal" and "healthy" is.
But at the end of the day, it all comes down to arbitrary definitions imposed by the majority...

What do you think?

Are more synapses a good thing, or is it possible that too many will overload the mind, making functioning difficult? More is not always better. Have you ever been around someone with autism?

All I say is that what is healthy and normal is something defined by the majority. We believe that a more complex brain is in general linked to a more intelligent person. And yet autistic people, who have more sensitivities than others, are considered as unhealthy. Perhaps these additional sypapses create the problems. But again, while we see the autistics' behaviour as problematic, they also see our behaviour as problematic...

skakos wrote:

thedoc wrote:

skakos wrote:Children with autism have more nerve synapses in their brain. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 124730.htm]
Is it possible that we with the LESS synapses regard people with MORE synapses as "problematic" and "non healthy"? How arrogant can we be? How blind?
We seem to all "know" what "normal" and "healthy" is.
But at the end of the day, it all comes down to arbitrary definitions imposed by the majority...

What do you think?

Are more synapses a good thing, or is it possible that too many will overload the mind, making functioning difficult? More is not always better. Have you ever been around someone with autism?

All I say is that what is healthy and normal is something defined by the majority. We believe that a more complex brain is in general linked to a more intelligent person. And yet autistic people, who have more sensitivities than others, are considered as unhealthy. Perhaps these additional sypapses create the problems. But again, while we see the autistics' behaviour as problematic, they also see our behaviour as problematic...

What a yawn. We've heard this all before. You are just displaying your wilful ignorance.
Autistic children have been integrated in the mainstream of education for decades. You are way out of date.
And YES, it is a fucking problem. The ones I taught had severe problems relating to other kids.
It stupid to use the worn out rant about normal is "only' statistical. You can use that excuse about serial killers too if you want, but it does not help society deal with the problems they cause for themselves and others.

Is it not time you looked a bit deeper into things, instead of using the old worn out knee-jerk K. D. Lang .revisionist nonsense?

Lev Muishkin wrote: Is it not time you looked a bit deeper into things, instead of using the old worn out knee-jerk Eysenck revisionist nonsense?]

I wasn't able to spend a lot of time looking into this, but it sounds a bit like a presentation I attended in the early 70's. A relatively young person was telling a group of teachers and educators of a school district that no child should experience failure, only success, so as not to damage their delicate little psyches. Looking at, and listening to him I assumed that he didn't have children and had never been in front of a classroom, yet he was telling teachers how to handle students. I very quickly realized that what he was saying was BS and didn't apply it in my classroom.

thedoc wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote: Is it not time you looked a bit deeper into things, instead of using the old worn out knee-jerk K. D. Lang revisionist nonsense?]

I wasn't able to spend a lot of time looking into this, but it sounds a bit like a presentation I attended in the early 70's. A relatively young person was telling a group of teachers and educators of a school district that no child should experience failure, only success, so as not to damage their delicate little psyches. Looking at, and listening to him I assumed that he didn't have children and had never been in front of a classroom, yet he was telling teachers how to handle students. I very quickly realized that what he was saying was BS and didn't apply it in my classroom.

Yes, it seems you were sleeping in the lecture then too.
Maybe you should have 'spent a bit more time."
What the fuck did you think I meant when I said "And YES, it is a fucking problem. The ones I taught had severe problems relating to other kids. "???
Hardly comparable with "delicate little psyches"

Lev Muishkin wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote: Is it not time you looked a bit deeper into things, instead of using the old worn out knee-jerk K. D. Lang revisionist nonsense?]

I wasn't able to spend a lot of time looking into this, but it sounds a bit like a presentation I attended in the early 70's. A relatively young person was telling a group of teachers and educators of a school district that no child should experience failure, only success, so as not to damage their delicate little psyches. Looking at, and listening to him I assumed that he didn't have children and had never been in front of a classroom, yet he was telling teachers how to handle students. I very quickly realized that what he was saying was BS and didn't apply it in my classroom.

Yes, it seems you were sleeping in the lecture then too.
Maybe you should have 'spent a bit more time."
What the fuck did you think I meant when I said "And YES, it is a fucking problem. The ones I taught had severe problems relating to other kids. "???
Hardly comparable with "delicate little psyches"

Oh well, it seems you have a problem with reading comprehension along with your excessively thin skin.

Now I just need to remember to log on every time I brows this site.

thedoc wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:

thedoc wrote:


I wasn't able to spend a lot of time looking into this, but it sounds a bit like a presentation I attended in the early 70's. A relatively young person was telling a group of teachers and educators of a school district that no child should experience failure, only success, so as not to damage their delicate little psyches. Looking at, and listening to him I assumed that he didn't have children and had never been in front of a classroom, yet he was telling teachers how to handle students. I very quickly realized that what he was saying was BS and didn't apply it in my classroom.

Yes, it seems you were sleeping in the lecture then too.
Maybe you should have 'spent a bit more time."
What the fuck did you think I meant when I said "And YES, it is a fucking problem. The ones I taught had severe problems relating to other kids. "???
Hardly comparable with "delicate little psyches"

Oh well, it seems you have a problem with reading comprehension along with your excessively thin skin.

Now I just need to remember to log on every time I brows this site.

I think you are living in a world of your own. Maybe you should leave me out of it: you are utterly confused.
I also think this seems to say it all:

thedoc wrote: I wasn't able to spend a lot of time looking into this, .

Maybe that seminar you attended in the 70 found you under the influence of various narcotics?

Lev Muishkin wrote: What a yawn. We've heard this all before. You are just displaying your wilful ignorance.
Autistic children have been integrated in the mainstream of education for decades. You are way out of date.
And YES, it is a fucking problem. The ones I taught had severe problems relating to other kids.
It stupid to use the worn out rant about normal is "only' statistical. You can use that excuse about serial killers too if you want, but it does not help society deal with the problems they cause for themselves and others.

Is it not time you looked a bit deeper into things, instead of using the old worn out knee-jerk K. D. Lang .revisionist nonsense?

I am sorry but between the "yawns", the "rants", the "nonsenses" and the "fucking problems" I lost sight of your actual argument.
Do you claim that 'normal' exists just because you are in that category?

skakos wrote:What do you think?

I don't think the world is as simple as that you can measure anything by the number of synapses they have unless it's ridiculously high or extremely small. Anything in-between is likely to not mean a lot of and by itself.

Lev Muishkin wrote: Maybe that seminar you attended in the 70 found you under the influence of various narcotics?

The seminar/lecture I attended was a load of crap, as are most of your posts. The presenter didn't know anything about the real world or how to deal with children of that age. I don't know of any of the other teachers that gave his ideas much credit.

thedoc wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote: Maybe that seminar you attended in the 70 found you under the influence of various narcotics?

The seminar/lecture I attended was a load of crap, as are most of your posts. The presenter didn't know anything about the real world or how to deal with children of that age. I don't know of any of the other teachers that gave his ideas much credit.

Yeah, like I'm going to accept the word of a boy like yourself.
Fucking moron.

Lev Muishkin wrote: Yeah, like I'm going to accept the word of a boy like yourself.
Fucking moron.

I really feel sorry for any of the less fortunate that you allegedly council, they don't deserve your abuse, but you deserve whatever misfortune you get.

Lev Muishkin wrote:.

BTW, using the image of a philosopher as an avatar does not make you a philosopher, or a human being.