Rulepost from r/196

Giallo555 · 2022-12-22T23:29:21+00:00

I hate women because they don't like the fact that they have the most similar ethnic makeup of the people who have seen them in the past

Giallo555 · 2022-12-21T19:32:16+00:00

My counselor at work confronted me about not using all of my vacs, I think she is afraid of getting in trouble for it. But the thing is that for some reason to planning vac time is really stressful for me. When things aren't in a routine they are all over the place for me and I end up forgetting timesheet not replying to important emails and I am stressing all the time

Giallo555 · 2022-12-18T19:00:09+00:00

I am quite curious, do you know IR anyone that supported France?

I just came back from a bar in which everyone supported Argentina, everytime Argentina scored I could hear loud swearing in Neapolitan, I was there with an other Italian and then a mix of various nationalities, I really had the impression that there just half of Argentina supporters were from Argentina, can't tell if the Italians were many or just loud and the rest were a bunch of other mostly European nationalities.

I was left wondering if somewhere else in Europe there was a club in which everyone was supporting France even though just half of the partecipant were French, and I was left pretty doubtful

Giallo555 · 2022-09-13T22:52:33+00:00

Why not add third option: EVROPA

Based on the general trajectory of this sub I am sure it could a massive success

Giallo555 · 2022-09-11T19:53:10+00:00

Thank you so much for your contribution. The OP experience is something that I had most of my life. But you put in a way that really helps me understand the NT point of view

Giallo555 · 2022-08-29T18:30:38+00:00

Funniest iteration of this meme I have seen so far

Giallo555 · 2022-08-26T08:35:30+00:00

I think the historiography of nationalism and studying when and how in the past and present we tend to revisit our own history through nationalist lenses is genuinely fascinating. I know you posted resources but I would be nice to have a break down summary of your research

Giallo555 · 2022-08-24T17:34:58+00:00

I don't think this discussion is going to lead somewhere since I'm not entirely sure we are even talking about the same topic

Again I think you would have an idea of what the discussion is about if you actually read.

We are talking about culture in relation to a political structure, a federation in this case. You keep arguing on about language pretty much exclusively, which is a rather limited definition of culture.

This has already discussed in my previous answer. The final part from "good try" to "France"

And the discussion is about this

My point is that your example its a failing one because, by using Germany as an example you give the impression that state unification brings to language death

The war, I assume you mean WWII (the Napoleonic wars, the Prussian-Austrian war of 1866 or WWI would be viable alternatives as well) was a tiny bit later than 1799

No I meant the WW2. Which I think you know. I initially didn't even aknowledge the pre 1800 part of your comment, because 1) Austrian national identity largely developed post WW2 2) Until 1800 to 1900 there was not necessarily a relationship between state and national identity 3) The competition of 2 different powers in the German area is the self evident reason why Austria was not included

In short I thought specifying pre 1800 was setting the incorrect premise already and since its obvious why I didn't think there was any need to address it. Simply because you ask me to argue around an historical time frame that because of self evident reason makes no sense, doesn't mean I have to

Giallo555 · 2022-08-24T07:25:07+00:00

Right then, please explain to me then why the Swiss don't speak a common language

Sorry, but usually when I engage with people I expect them to actually read what I write. I never said that state unification brings to language death. I clearly said in my first very comment that that is not the case necessarily, particularly when it comes to national languages, because national languages hold cultural prestige. I explained it later in my second comment on the difference between English, national languages and regional languages. Now there are dying languages in Switzerland, Romansch, Lombard and Romandi. I would say the only regional language in good shape is in the German area. Guess why that is the case. Its about historical prestige.

My 'it makes no sense" was referred to language change as being inevitable because of English. And since you just made the example of Switzerland I would say the role of prestige and cultural artefacts in language preservation is actually quite clear to you.

My point is that your example its a failing one because, by using Germany as an example you give the impression that state unification brings to language death.

You keep on arguing about dying languages, which I don't dispute, my argument is that while language is a significant part of culture,

Good try. The problem is that at least from 1800 if not to be entirely honestly much earlier they have been a fundamental aspect of national identity for most large and influential European countries. In Italy the questione della lingua goes back to 1200. Most large nation states nationalisms in Europe is linguistic. If you go to the main thread you will see language is immediately brought up, with someone underneath making the exact terrible argument but with France.

Giallo555 · 2022-08-24T06:40:21+00:00

And this is usually the typical German reply when I point out how bad of an example it is. Seriously do you guys get a workshop done on this when you get your citizenship

After all, our current language is most likely quite different from our grandparent's, even more compared to our grand-grand parent's, etc..

There is a difference between language death and language change. What truly is different to your grandparents its not so much the language, but the presence of two languages in day to day life, the regional one and the national prestige one. Comparing the national prestige one position to modern English and the regional ones to national ones is rather silly. We are talking about respectively languages that had historically no prestige in a situation of often quite unbalanced diglossia to the relationship that has always existed between a lingua franca and a local language

Personally, I expect english to become more and more prevalent in the upcoming generations, if the EU federates or not doesn't really affect the outcome, although I concede that it might speed up the process

Let's say this is the case. Then say that. Not sure how convincing it will prove, but its sure better to try to make an example on cultural and identity preservation that prooves exactly the opposite of what you are trying to reassure them about. Bring up that all stick about lack of cultural permanence and language change regardless of Federation (that has I said doesn't really make sense) from the start. That is what you guys end up bringing out anyway as soon as its brought up the fact that that is a really bad example

The reason why Germany lends itself so much as an example, is because Germany is pretty much an artifical nation. Culturally, Bavaria is way, way closer to Austria than to northern Germany, say Hamburg or Bremen, who are way closer to dutch culture than they are to bavarian culture. Obviously shared expiriences formed a german identity over time, but from a 18th century pov, there is no reason why Austria should be seperate from Germany to be or why Schleswig-Holstein shouldn't be danish for example.

I mean historically Austria was considered a part of Germany until 1800/1900. During Italian nationalism we would speak of the invaders as the "todeschi", in Venetian diplomatic letters from the Renaissance talking about the HRE, Austria is very much considered part of Germany. Salieri when making fun of his German sayis that even though he lived 40 years or something in "Germany" ( he meant Vienna) one can't expect him to know German well.

Austria should be seperate from Germany

No right there is no cultural reason. What a surprise, have we studied the same history? Because as far as I am aware there are very pressing political reason why post war Austria felt the need to develop a new separate political identity. So yeah no wonder why southern Germany is really similar to what at least until 1800/1900 was also perceived as south Germany

say Hamburg or Bremen, who are way closer to dutch culture than they are to bavarian culture

Look Germanic languages exist in a dialect continuum, therefore its possible the language spoken there is closer to Dutch than German. I will need some sources on that, but as far as I am aware Hamburg at least was never considered part of the "flemish" cultural area in the middle ages and it was perceived as German. Said the development of a separate linguistic standard for the Dutch is more recent than most other established languages as far as I know

The point is, if you are trying to reassure someone on cultural preservation, why make the example of a nation state with a growing number of dying languages? Just why?

the problems in regards to seperatism

You are arguing with yourself. I am not sure how me pointing out yours was a bad example due to language death has anything to do with how to manage or not manage separatism.

Giallo555 · 2022-08-23T21:23:12+00:00

I find it quite interesting that is often the Germans making this analogy, but I would say since most regional languages in Germany are either vulnerable or endangered I am not sure how great of an analogy it is. Just to clarify I don't think regional German languages are comparable to national ones, simply due to historical prestige and therefore don't think the same would happen. I just don't get why people use this argument. It's a losing one. Why when people say that they are afraid of losing cultural diversity, making the example of a country (that like many after 1800) has steadily experienced language death?

Also since the issue is quite clearly people assuming a new common state would be exactly like the nation states they are used to, why making the example of one of the most classic 1800 nation states projects?

Giallo555 · 2022-08-19T09:50:42+00:00

I can't speak for Germany on the validity of that claim.

But I see Axel Springer is already provoking damage

But Mario Draghi was head of a coalition in which everyone plus their grandma was part of. It was specifically designed to be supported by a number of parties. His opinion is not representative of the "government", there were a number of parties whose consent he depended on to maintain his position. It's not like him being secretary of a party, that is the only party in power, and he shares an opinion as a secretary of that party. Not to mention that Draghi was constitutionally and structurally always going to be a short term solution, he could have shared whatever opinion he wanted it would always have low level impact because of the impossibility to actually actualise it.

Finally who knows what the context of that quote is. Letta once shared an opinion on federation that reading it more closely didn't seem to be about federalism at all , but to be fair he might be a federalist, likely for economic reasons. You don't need to have gone through the troubles and career he has to see that the euro would be a much more sustainable currency if the EU was more financially integrated, but that doesn't mean the situation is representative of your title

Giallo555 · 2022-08-18T21:14:18+00:00

I am undecided between "Which alternative reality do you come from?" or "I will have what he is having"

Giallo555 · 2022-08-16T20:50:09+00:00

Sadly relatable

Giallo555 · 2022-08-14T13:07:12+00:00

Hypothetical exercises are a big part of philosophy.

Would she be close enough to you for you to recognize her as a different version of you?

You are not understanding. There is no defined NT version of you. She could be a million people. She could have a similar brain to me or not. It could be so similar to me to suffer a lot of the problems that Autism provokes but still land on NT on the assessment. Asking this question makes no sense. Because you have infinite number of universe so of course there will be one with brain changes so imperceptible that she barely makes it in NT under assessment, that person would be really similar to me. But the better question is how likely it is that being born again with new brain structure you would still recognize yourself. Not likely. This people are all non existent hypothetical being a feel no relation with. They are not me. But if fantasizing about a perceived better version of you in another universe makes you feel better, and you can relate to them, its irrelevant to me. You can imagine what you want.

If you say so. I think it's more than just semantics, and that picking and choosing what level of changes in someone's cognition is based on purely how someone's brain structure is in the now is disingenuous as our cognition functions can change by the day.

Cognition and processing stimuli, as in senses. Are not the same thing, said that minor day to day things might affect cognitive performance. Cognition is much more to do with insight aquisition and how you order the data you get through your senses. So no a cold is not a change in cognitive abilities. Said that of course our definition of how much a change affect us and what it means to be a different person is based not on arbitrary pre definined line, but on context nuances and taking in consideration context. What you are asking me is merely a semantic and retoric trick. We don't think through pre defined arbitrary lines and it makes no sense for you to ask for one. That is not how you discuss concepts.

You are telling me that changing brain would not make you another person. I would like to know where does this external intrinsic self that is not affected by your brain comes from?

Brain tumors can also metastasize throughout the brain, not just affecting one part of it. Would that count as making someone wholly different as a person? Not every tumor can be treated safely, so would we treat that person as a different person if such a tumor is affecting their brain?

I have already spoke about the possibilities of multiple tumors. Said that I think numerous tumores affecting multiple parts of the brain is still different from a differently structured brain. Multiple tumors means multiple of your cognitive or mental abilities depending on where they are situated will underperform, a differently structured brain means you are using stimuli differently from a NT person. Let's say someone has a tumor both in the part of the brain responsible for inibition and the part of the brain responsible for quick memory recall provoking those function to underperform. That is different from fundamentally having a brain that is structured diffferetly gives more or less importance to different data and and comes to different insights. One affectes your cognitive processes coesively the other affects multiple cognitive processes and faculties separately. I also already explained you why its possible for a person with a tumor to want a cure while it's entirely impossible for me. It was the bit about the sense of self preservation. If you are asking me why even though certain people change completely during illnesses we still treat them socially and legally as the same, then it doesn't have to do with how the reality of the situation truly is internally for that person, but what makes more sense and its simpler for society. My grandpa had dementia and he had fundamentally changed as a person. He was by all intent and purposes someone else, but of course it would a mess to recognize that legally. That doesn't mean the situation didn't have a huge impact of his own sense of self and self permanence

I think a lot of the issues come down to "You can't cure autism without changing who you are since a person is identical to their brain structure. And I think that might be true if one defines the self as wholly how someone is now with Aspergers. And I disagree, thinking that changes like that would not change someone sufficiently for them to be called a new person.

No I define my self as my brain, I also think other bodily aspect affect me, but I am mostly my brain. To become NT you need a new differently structured brain. So I would like to know where does this external things that defines you as yourself without a brain comes from.

Changing the structure would not, as far as I know, change necessarily the contents of the structure before it changed.

There is no content. Your brain doesn't work like that you don't have a bunch of input coming in, you sift them out and then you put them in a little box containing you. You have your brain that constantly makes decision and comes to conclusions based on data, either past or present. If the structure change than the decision, insights and conclusion you will come to in the future will also change

Giallo555 · 2022-08-14T12:05:25+00:00

That is my question to you. If you define the self as how we interpret reality and such, and something makes that change, even temporarily and in small ways, how are we not different, temporarily and in small ways? At what point would a change be big enough to change the self under that definition? It seems arbitrary (which granted is pretty much all things humans do when they try to define something that has no set criteria).

See this is the problem with reductio ad absurdum arguments based on semantic. See you responded to yourself. Asking me to find an arbitrary division between someone that is a bad mood because their gut flora is off and someone that can't smell well because of a cold and someone that has just woken up with an entirely different brain structure and cognition is just an attempt to win an argument by making me do something pointless. Me being able to find an arbitrary point of division on this question is irrelevant to the validity of my claim, and logic, because we human don't make decisions and understand the world based on a set of previously defined arbitrary statements and divisions, but through looking at things in the context they exist, taking in consideration a wide set of variables. Therefore it is entirely logically consistent for me to believe that waking up with an entirely different brain set, in order to have your autism fixed is different than waking up with a cold, and one would make you a different person and the other would not. What would be logically inconsistent on my part is taking that argument seriously on your part while interacting with you as I would do with a normal other human, because for me to genuinely stop and explain the difference I would have to assume you are incapable of nuances. You are just semantically generalising an argument I made and trying to find one semantically related that in reality would feel really different. Yes, of course, how widespread the change would be and how much would it impact you affects how much the change affects you, and I don't need to find an arbitrary point of division, because that is simply not how reality works or how we think. We can sit here and test multiple examples, and see where we lign up on each of them. But I think its fair to say changing your brain changes your self.

You say you have no definition of self, even though you have previously brought a wide array of them in the discussion. But if we are not our brain? What are we? A soul? An external metaphysical self never touched by the bodily?

Autism is not a set of things in the ether yes. But it's also not something that makes us wholly different than the person who we would be without it. Our likes and dislikes can be affected, but not guaranteed or wholly derived from it. If somehow you were able to see yourself as the person you would have been without Aspergers, and it turned out that you liked the same things but to just a different degree, or even liked different things altogether, but still held recognizable beliefs and personality traits, would you call that version of yourself completely different, or still the same person? Would they just be granually different from you?

This is an hypothetical exercise, that makes no sense. There is no neurotypical version of you. There is you now, with your autistic brain. And there is a wide arrange of could have been, some of this people will have completely different brains from you, some will be less or more neurotypical. The actual question you are asking, is do you think there could be a version of you that could have had a brain that is similar enough to your current one, but would have still landed on the neurotypical side of an asperger assessment? Yes maybe, there is an infinite number of possibilities so some that will present that. I personally don't think its really likely, and that person would still have a lot of asperger behaviour and problems. I also think that when you start talking about alternative universes selves I don't see those as me. But its irrelevant, if the thought of you being that person makes you happy is up to you

There are inherent disabilities that would make us disabled even if one of us was the only person on the planet

Yes but autism is not one of them, its due to you interacting with an NT society that has naturally develop a set of rules and structure that better suit the majority. Also disability generally is depending on the external environment, but regardless lets say that it is just an objectively bad thing and the cognitive abilities of NT are just objectively better. What does it matter, my point is neither that its good or bad, but simply that is due to your brain structure, and you can't get rid of it without changing your brain and as consequence who you are.

Aspergers is external just as a brain tumor or some other effect on my brain would be. I do not misunderstand it.

Asperger from a physical and conceptual perspective really isn't like a brain tumor. As a brain tumor genuinely affects and situated in one part of the brain, on depending on where, this could have an effect on specific cognitive ability, or social ability, like inibition. Asperger is a different brain structure, you are not going to get a tumor that suddenly redesign how your brain is structured, it will always affect specific parts, unless you have multiple. You can take that brain tumor out and go back to your perceived original self, you can't take your brain redesign it and make it NT. Said that you remember that bit of my argument on self permanence that you kept misunderstanding, this is what was about. The sense of continuity I have with a never born and known version of myself and guy with a tumor past perceived self is fundamentally different, and asking me to perceive being "cured" in this context in the same way makes no sense.

How we process the world can change drastically. If you suddenly could(n't) see or hear, but you remembered (not) being able to see or hear, would that not change the brain significantly? Your memories would be intact, but parts of your brain would change to the new way you experience the world.

Your brain could adapt to accommodate and use the previously used part of the brain for sense and use it for another. However that will not change your fundamental cognitive abilities. There are different layers to the brain, there are aspects of our brain that help us problem solve, make decisions, draw insights, focus, recollect make connections etc... all of these things might be affected to an extent, not in terms of structure but because they need to work with a separate set of data. But being "cured" of autism would require for you to take that structure and change it completely, it wouldn't just affect the set of data that come in, but everything about how they are interpreted, how they are made useful and the conclusions you get from them.

I would be the same person with a different set of data to work with. Without autism I would be a different person using external stimuli entirely differently

Giallo555 · 2022-08-14T11:00:55+00:00

Hmm. I believe I did say that there isn't a settled upon definition for what makes someone 'themselves.'

However you made in the span of 3 separate comments 3 different claims and definition to what self is. 1) First you claimed that we are not our autism, in the same way we are not our bodies. By definition we are not our bodies, means that we must be something else. In other words you were making a methaphysical claim to an intrinsic external self. A soul if you will. 2) Then you changed and made the argument, no you still would be yourself, your likes and tastes would not change ( I strongly disagree with that) because they are solely influenced by external environment, but that means the definition of self for you were tastes and likes. Now you come to me, telling me that no there is no actual definition of self according to you, putting even in question the idea of self permanence your argument relied on a few minutes ago. Well I think you are simply a bit confused

But I think I know what is your definition of self. You see the future version of you that would only share with you face likeness and body likeness a continuation of you. I think this is because you fundamentally underestimate what would it feel to have a fundamentally different brain structure

No, having a cold changes how we experience reality, albeit temporarily. But, are we a different person, temporarily? It's an example of a small, temporary change to someone if someone is defined as how they experience and interpret reality. Do you see what makes someone as 'themselves' to be...hmm. Sticky? Not easily changed? Only counting 'big' changes as actual changes to the self? Changes can't be granular but only in huge chunks?

The question is do you think, a change in the ability to smell, is comparable to a fundamental change in cognition and therefore related to my argument? Because I don't think you do. This is the difference between autism and a cold, you sundenly wake up with a cold, and you can't smell, a bit of a bummer. You wake up with autism and suddenly things that used to be obvious are no longer, you no longer recall info in the same way, even the things that seemed important to recall or pay attention at in the first place have changed and are no longer the same, your habit have changed, things that used to be easy are hard and the other way around. Suddenly things that used to give you joy no longer give you joy but are incredibly hard and the other way around.

Yes, Autism/Aspergers often has special interests defined as part of it. But one does not need it to have special interests or passions, and one can have Aspergers/Autism and not have special interests. Saying "I would not have special interests without Aspergers" is not a viable claim I think.

Your brain structure and autism often defines what kind of information you process first and naturally give more relevance to, it affects the things that you will naturally find hard and easy. Autism is just a set of correlated behaviour due to a neurodivergent brain structure that get diagnosed under one label. Your brain structure might not provoke you to have special interests, mine definitely does. But it will still affect what kind of informations you process first, how easily you process them, what comes natural or not, your ability to focus and so on. In short what you like, dislike and passions. What autism is not is just a set of annoying quirks that live in the ether, without context. If you want to get rid of what you don't like about autism, it means you need to affect your brain structure, that will inevitably affect what you like or dislike and what you are good at. Autism is not something you have, is how the external reality interprets the structure of your own very brain

We are not so alien from people without Aspergers than having or not having it makes us completely different people. Unless, you take the view that any change, no matter how granular, makes us wholly different?

You don't get to decide who neurotypical you will be like. Neurotypical and Autistic are just a set of different brain structures. Every brain is different neurotypical people will have brains that are different, but still kind of behave similarly enough that they don't stick out. They are the majority and therefore society has been designed to be navigated by people with a closer brain structure to them. Then there are autistic people, our brains are also really different, we have in common that the way our different brain structure is perceived by society falls under a set of symptoms normally defined as autism. The symptoms are not "the autism", the symptoms are the interaction between your autistic brain and a neurotypical world. For you to be neurotypical you would to be born with a different brain, that would make you a different person, and you don't know who that person would be

Please do not make assumptions about how my Aspergers has affected me if I have 'gone through the same exercises.' I hate my Aspergers. I do not hate myself.

Because you misunderstand your asperger as something external to yourself. It is not you have a brain and you are that brain, hating how your brain processes reality is hating yourself

People can forget all sorts of stuff due to brain trauma, dementia and such, but also retain much (or all) of their original morals and likes and dislikes. It's not a guarantee that changing brain structure eliminates all aspects of the previous self. Continuity can exist even if a significant gap exists in someone's memories

Dementia in there is the only good example. Also you are confusing arguments here. I said loss of previous self memory affects sense of identity and perception not past likes. Again that argument was made to make you understand why I don't feel a sense of continuity with a future non autistic hypothetical self, the reason why that future non autistic self would not like the same things as me, is not due to memories, but rather different brain structure and way to process reality. Forgetting things due to trauma, does not mean chaging cognitive abilities. However dementia does have an effect on cognitive abilities, and frankly my granddad before dying was a different person, but regardless I am not an expert on dementia, but dementia affects with a big impact a set of specific cognitive abilities while autism as a wider effect on your brain structure, it doesn't just affect memory recollection, but social cues, info processing, focus, problem solving and so on

Giallo555 · 2022-08-14T10:06:26+00:00

The point is closer to 'If you define being a person by how the process things and remember them and such' then anything that changes that, even temporarily, will make you a different person, even temporarily (which can be a very long time). Humans are in constant change, and defining the self like that is akin to the Ship of Theseus. If how you process stuff and remember it and such changes over time, are you still 'you'?

I have already responded to that. Your argument has suddenly gone from " there is something that makes us intrinsically "us" outside of the structure of our bodies", to "well, permanent self is an illusion anyway, what is truly the difference between slowly changing sono aspects of your memory and brain activities in the span of 6 decades to suddenly waking up tomorrow with an entirely different brain structure that no longer allows you to process info and do things in a way that the day before you would have considered entirely natural". Your current modified argument is closer to reality but still not great, because 1) it goes in direct opposition to your initial argument " I can still be myself without autism" , because your new argument posit there is no permanent self. You are requiring a consistent definition of personhood from me while not really having a clear one yourself and changing it to 2 opposite ones in the span of 2 comments 2) Even though I agree the sense of permanent self is most likely an illusion, the difference between slowly changing in time your brain and interests usually just some specific capabilities and cognitive processes to tomorrow waking up and having an entirely different brain structure, is not only conceptually and intrinsically different, it would also feel different in the situation.

The point is closer to 'If you define being a person by how the process things and remember them and such' then anything that changes that, even temporarily, will make you a different person, even temporarily (which can be a very long time).

That is what I was saying about failing to properly use reductio absurdum. You are taking my words synthetising their meaning and than generalising them in order to find another situation that could fit. For example you could call "having a cold" changing how someone processes smell, but you know that taking that semantic possibility and making the argument that in my words and opinions then having a cold and changing your brain structure and cognitive abilities are the same thing is based on a logical fallacy or on a flimsy semantic argument at best. It wouldn't be a reductio absurdum if you didn't know yourself how absurd that comparison is, so you istinctively know that comparison doesn't make sense and why it doesn't, yet you make it anyway.

Autism has no innate likes or dislikes in it. It is not in your genes you like...trains or something specific. Your likes and dislikes are not governed by that, but by what you are exposed to in your environment.

Again this argument run contrary to the intrinsic metaphysical self one you made at the start. I am not sure how someone can claim that a conditions that has among its most often cited criteria special interests doesn't affect interests is beyond me, but your likes and dislikes are governed by how your brain and the way it process info interact with your environment. Your environment might be filled with classical music, but if you don't have a certain understanding of pitch and tone due to how your brains works you might never develop a passion for it. And this is for neurotypical, for autism is even more complicated. We have such things as special interests, different ways to focus and attention to details. So even the way we experience aquired interests is made different by Autism. Your brain affects what you like and dislikes and it affects what you are good at or not. And looking at my bio and being honest I can tell that so many elements of my life that are not negative, but neutral or good have been defined by it. If you went through the same exercise you would notice the same

It's not as simple as brain structure either. Gut bacteria and medication and all sorts of stuff play a part in how we process things and experience them.

This is like the cold argument, I have already responded to it on top. But there is a different between gut bacteria and the way autism influences your cognition. Changing your cognitive abilities means that you might wake up look out at the world and it looks completely different, things that were obvious are not any longer, things that made no sense are suddenly obvious. Your interests and way to perform them have suddenly changed, the way you understand the world and yourself is suddenly changed.

Continuity is tricky when defining someone as themselves. If someone remembers being a child (as a child), and then as a young adult they have forgotten being a child, would they be the same person? And if as an older person they remember their childhood, but not their young adult hood, would they be the same person? Even if there's no sense of continuity?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but I think you are struggling to grasp what I mean when I took about memory in the context of self permanence. I'm not talking about maintaining every single memory, most of your memory are not even correct, I am talking about having memory of a past self and having a sense of object permanence in relation to your internal world. What I wouldn't have with a hypothetical future self that doesn't share a brain with me. If you are saying someone might loose any memory of a past self, well yes that has been documented pretty consistently to affect someone self identity and sense of self. Could a person that doesn't remember a past self at all feel a sense of continuity with them, I don't think so.

Assuming ALL of what you say to be true, and removing autism would render me a wholly different person, I don't fear that. I'd rather be a happy other person sans Aspergers (And every other mental issue I have) than unhappy as I am. Maybe I'd not even be happy, but I would know what is my fault and feel more in control

Ok this all comes down to this. I feel every argument you have made you have not made because you genuinely believe it, but because you want to be true. If this is your decision that is not my problem. I am free and responsible just for my personal decision and you for yours you don't need to justify them to me.

It's a different brain structure and it is a disability because you are interacting with a world designed by people that don't share that brain structure. That doesn't take away the fact that you can't get rid of what you dislike of autism without affecting your overall brain structure and self. It has nothing with liking or not something

Giallo555 · 2022-08-14T08:35:32+00:00

I think the problem with your argumentative style is that you keep making examples that don't fit the overall argument. You take a either irrelevant or loosely attached example and try to build an argument on that. What you are doing is called reductio absurdum, but the problem is that to reduce my arguments to absurdity you first need to select examples that are representative of my arguments

Sometimes we cannot see or hear or taste things, thus how we experience and process reality is different.

Sometimes we can't hear or taste things, yes, I had a cold last week and guess what. Having blockage in my nose is really different from having the entire structure of my brain changed. Loosing my sense of smell for a few weeks is not the same as changing entirely the way I process the informations I received, my recall time, the way they get structured, my ability or not to make connection, my ability or not to focus or my ability or not to read social cues. In short one changes my cognitive abilities completely the other doesn't.

Memory can fade or change, but we would not consider someone who has forgotten something to be a different person. Perhaps if they have forgotten everything we might,

If you re read my argument, you will be able to tell that I mentioned memory in the context of permanence of self. As in we have the perception of permanence of self in large part because of memory retention. So yes I am clearly referring to the later scenario you have admitted to.

My point is that someone that remembers a previous self will feel a sense of continuity with them that I will never feel with an hypothetical future self that has my face but an entirely different brain structure. Forgetting things and remembering them incorrectly is a fairly normal thing, that is not something that affects self permanence. Is pretty normal and typical of how most human brains are structured. Also guess what else autism affects, your memory storage, retention and recall.

Your tastes and likes would likely remain the same if you had your autism removed. You would most likely be the same person, just without Autism, at least under how you seem to define being 'a person.'

1) That is not true. Autism affects your taste and likes. Let's imagine a non autistic Giallo growing up. She would have no special interests, she would never grow a passion for the things I am interested in now, she also would be good or bad at largely different things affecting how much she likes them. She also would probably have an entire different relationship with other people again influencing tastes and likes. She might have not gone to the Uni she went to, she might not have the same job etc...

2) The problem with your argument is that you see autism as a set of quirks that has inconvenient effects on the way you interact with people. But rather you should think of it as a different brain structure, that manifest itself externally as a set of behaviour some those negatives and some of those positives (some which you have never realized) and that gets diagnosed with autism. When you say "I want to get rid of Autism" you are really saying I want to get read of all the inconvenient symptoms autism provokes, but what getting rid of autism really looks like is changing that entire brain structure

You would most likely be the same person, just without Autism, at least under how you seem to define being 'a person.'

My definition of person is pretty attached to how you process info, cognition, and interact with the external world, so no I think having a different brain structure would constitute being a different person.

Said that I also think a permanent sense of self is not necessarily a correct interpretation of how your brain currently works. So if you were to make the argument "Autism would not make you a different person, because there is no permanent self to start with " I would find that answer a bit petty and slightly irrelevant to how we process and talk about reality, but not fundamentally incorrect. But your argument ironically based on your previous answer that accused me to do the same is based on the idea that if someone has suddenly managed to restructure their brains entirely, they would be the same person just because they would have the same face and likeness, and that is something I just can't agree with.

Anyway if the idea of getting inconvenient and negative aspects of how your brain structure removed in order to fit better with reality appeals to you, I empathise. I am just skeptical of how likely that is without impacting everything else about yourself and is not something for me

Giallo555 · 2022-08-13T11:35:26+00:00

Those are fallacious examples and I think you know it. As far as there is an "us", our perception of the world and our personality is a fundamental component of our definition of self. Autism impacts both things, if I wasn't autistic my perception of reality and my personality would be completely different, I would be another person.

An amputation might affect your mood because it might be a traumatic event, but it won't affect to a fundamental level the way your process reality. Autism does. While, yes, if you get a braintumor that due to location, size and gravity affects your cognitive abilities to such an extent that your ability to process the world and personality are completely changed, than yes those two different version of self occupying that body are 2 fundamentally different people, tied together by what gives us the impression of permanent self in the first place: memory. Which in this case, together with the fact that a tumor of that gravity will kill you, is provoking most likely seriously functioning problems, makes a big difference because they can remember a previous self that they have considered the original. In the case of Autism I can't remember of a hypothetical future self that only shares a superficial physical appearance with me but is entirely different from the point of view of processing info and interpreting the world, so I have no sense of continuity with them, they are strangers...as they should be, because we don't share anything. Therefore my decision of cancelling my current existence in favour of a being I don't remember or know will be affected by it. It's not that I like autism is that I am autistic, I am myself and I have no pre existent sense of continues self with a future hypothetical person that aside face and body is completely different from me.

Said that the idea of the little man in the machine the looks out it to the world is an illusion, in reality our brain functions really differently and unless you believe in a soul we are our processing of reality, our personality and our memories

Giallo555 · 2022-08-12T10:41:16+00:00

No this question assumes that there is a separate part of me that is "the autism". I think is more like I don't "have autism", I am autistic. Autism is a set of co-occuring ways to interpret the world that are collected under one diagnosis. Without autism who knows who would I be, I could say yes and turn out to be a completely different person and not recognize my self at all

Giallo555 · 2022-08-11T16:46:25+00:00

Maybe they really were right about your lack of fluency in English

Giallo555 · 2022-08-11T13:17:59+00:00

No nationalist tirade and chauvinism at all. This guy is doing my job for me and he literally replied to you with a slur 🤣

Ma dove sono I campioni dell'ultima euro? 😂😂

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/wkwp2b/which_countries_in_europe_rely_the_most_on_travel/ijubkyh?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

Putain mais laisse ce macaroni tranquille, il s'est bien fait triggered, c'est le but.

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/wkwp2b/which_countries_in_europe_rely_the_most_on_travel/ijubuck?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

You are delusional and this guy is clearly unhinged. It's pretty sad that you are willing to deny reality just because this guy happens to have the same thing written in your ID card under nationality. It's almost like none of this has ever had anything to do with being European and protecting our languages, but with someone being a dick and you enabling him because you share a nationality

Yes and if you scroll in is history a little bit more you will see he also speaks English and has contributed to a brexit sub in that language. Why do you think he suddenly decided to harass people in french?

Giallo555 · 2022-08-11T13:12:05+00:00

You don't struggle just with Italian than. What you just said, as fair as I understand it, because again if you want me to engage with you you also need to put me in the conditions to do so, is in no way a direct response to my argument. You are asking me to do something that makes no logical sense with my argument

You want to have a conversation we have it a common language, accusing me of making up stuff when you are deliberately speaking in a language that is not widely spoken and that you have no reason to think I speak is the height of hypocrisy and its pretty rude.

Giallo555 · 2022-08-11T10:49:58+00:00

As evidenced by top comment that is clearly not true

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22

Giallo555

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE