Diversification of neurodiversity

  1. Ben Chaser
    Ben Chaser
    I understand that the concept of neurodiversity comes out of folks struggling with autistic spectrum disorder, but the concept of having a brain that operates in a way that is not typical and taking pride in such a difference and forging bonds with those who share similar experiences is what I've been doing since being labeled bipolar. I haven't seen discussion of this disorder pop up on this forum, though I have seen it linked to the neurodiversity movement at large before.

    Are people here interested in expanding the focus of neurodiversity? One problem I foresee is that autistic spectrum folks and bipolar folks may have even less in common than either has with neurotypical folks. But the overriding idea holds - we're all good at something, it's no sign of health to be well adjusted to a toxic environment, and it would be in any community's best interest to make room for all the various subgenres of homo sapiens sapiens.

    One last tidbit...I notice many of those on this forum with autistic spectrum difficulties seem to be attracted to technocracy. When considering what environment I would be best suited for I went in the opposite direction - people like me are honored as shamans in tribal societies, so I'm interested in smashing civ and going feral. I'll be on one of those nature preserves Kurzweil talks about after the singularity hits...which makes me wonder how much of our personal politics are forged by the experience of being neurologically atypical.
  2. Dean
    Dean
    My brother is bipolar and we struggled with this our whole lives. His girlfriend, with whom he has a great relationship, is autistic. So, no, unless opposites attract, I don't think there is some vast disparity there.

    In regards to technocracy, I think that the ideology is clearly autistic. But I don't think it is fair to label people as autistic based on that alone. It is an autistic idea.

    I guess I can relate to the notion of rejection of society - I know my brother is that way. But I don't think there is some dichotomy there, where autistics are docile and bipolars are ferocious.
  3. ÑóẊîöʼn
    ÑóẊîöʼn
    Having known one bipolar person and one person who I suspect was a sociopath, I gotta say I would rather hang around with the bipolar chap. Trying as he could be sometimes, he was still an absolutely solid bloke who I'm grateful towards.

    The other person I simply refuse to associate with any longer. He lied to my face, stole from me, would talk bullshit about almost anything, and had disgusting personal habits. I would be happier if I discovered he had dropped dead.

    In regards to technocracy, I think that the ideology is clearly autistic. But I don't think it is fair to label people as autistic based on that alone. It is an autistic idea.
    I don't think it's accurate to label ideologies as "autistic". Autistic people might be pre-disposed towards certain ideologies, but that doesn't make the ideologies in question autistic, which is a label that can really only apply to human beings.

    As for the appeal of ideologies such as primitivism, neo-Luddism and their ilk, I can't see it myself. Given the choice between:

    1) A post-Singularitarian, extropian megacivilisation spanning entire galaxies where nobody wants for anything, death is a lifestyle choice rather than an inevitable fact of life, and where an infinite vista of consciousness and experience is available to all.

    or

    2) A short, savage life where one could die in miserable pain from predation, benighted by the obscuring clouds of ignorance and superstition, and living at the tender mercies of an indifferent Nature rather than being masters over it.

    I would choose number one every time. Contemporary civilisation is far from perfect, but it has offered us a glimpse of what is possible if we unleash the potential offered by Nature and the human species. If we are successful, then the universe might just be rendered into a place fit for the habitation of sapient life. But such a goal, if possible, is long in the offing, but even attempting to make the journey should be worth it even if we don't reach the intended destination.
  4. Ben Chaser
    Ben Chaser
    A short, savage life where one could die in miserable pain from predation, benighted by the obscuring clouds of ignorance and superstition, and living at the tender mercies of an indifferent Nature rather than being masters over it?

    That's not my vision of modern primitivism, and my main concern with the Singularity is who is going to have the power to hack into the nanobots in my brain and make me do their will.

    Interesting side note: my last manic episode was aggravated by reading The Singularity is Near and fantasizing about how great it would be to upload all the knowledge which before had been beyond my feeble grasp, how great it would be to live forever and populate the universe with consciousness. It kind of broke my heart to leave this aside when I began to think about the possibilities for state mind control that would be willingly accepted by a populace who was having to much fun to be free. I understand the attraction Kurzweil's vision holds, I just don't happen to think that we will be able to "reverse engineer" the human brain and have computers that can achieve human style consciousness. I believe that the inability to understand itself is built in to the human brain. To bring it back to my original post, I think what's awesome about the neurodiversity movement is that it recognizes the intricacies and of course the diversity of the human brain and points out how little we understand. The statement by autists and aspies that they don't want to be cured, which I echo, is a statement that science can't really say what a human brain is, other than describe what is found in nature. The problem with treating mental "disorders" the same way we treat diabetes, that is with pharmaceuticals, leads to blowback and side effects that weren't anticipated because they don't really know what they're dealing with. This also holds true for the project of building nanobots that can pass through the blood brain barrier. They have some understanding of how to manipulate serotonin and dopamine, but there are hundreds of other neurotransmitters that they don't understand. They don't even understand what the mind is made of! They know it has to be more than an accretion of dumb neurons, but they are no closer to defining and localizing the human mind than a hundred years ago!

    We all have our millenarian fantasies. Mine happens to be a revolution, xtians have their rapture and singularitarians have the singularitarity. We'll see if the asymptote is reached, we'll see if Moore's law continues unabated. I think ya'll should have a back up plan, which may include learning how to grow your own food.
  5. ÑóẊîöʼn
    ÑóẊîöʼn
    A short, savage life where one could die in miserable pain from predation, benighted by the obscuring clouds of ignorance and superstition, and living at the tender mercies of an indifferent Nature rather than being masters over it?

    That's not my vision of modern primitivism, and my main concern with the Singularity is who is going to have the power to hack into the nanobots in my brain and make me do their will.
    That's what the primitive lifestyle entails. Also, LOL at "modern primitivism".

    And the "rogue nanobots" scenario is only possible if the Singularity is "hard take-off" (I forget the exact terminology, but hopefully you understand), which I consider unlikely for various reasons.


    Interesting side note: my last manic episode was aggravated by reading The Singularity is Near and fantasizing about how great it would be to upload all the knowledge which before had been beyond my feeble grasp, how great it would be to live forever and populate the universe with consciousness.
    Well, that sounds unfortunate. The "worst" thing that happens to me when I read such subjects is daydreaming.

    It kind of broke my heart to leave this aside when I began to think about the possibilities for state mind control that would be willingly accepted by a populace who was having to much fun to be free.
    That's why I stress the importance of achieving an egalitarian society before the Singularity hits. I do not think this is an unreasonable goal, considering the technological advances needed for a hard takeoff. As for soft takeoff, I reckon we should be able to "ride the wave" and become the Singularity, transitioning smoothly to a post-human condition.

    I understand the attraction Kurzweil's vision holds, I just don't happen to think that we will be able to "reverse engineer" the human brain and have computers that can achieve human style consciousness. I believe that the inability to understand itself is built in to the human brain.
    Why should we not be able to understand the human brain? It is a material, observable object just like any other, albeit very complex. But complexity alone simply means it will take us time to understand it better. Science marches on.

    To bring it back to my original post, I think what's awesome about the neurodiversity movement is that it recognizes the intricacies and of course the diversity of the human brain and points out how little we understand. The statement by autists and aspies that they don't want to be cured, which I echo, is a statement that science can't really say what a human brain is, other than describe what is found in nature.
    Er, what? Just because the human brain comes in different varieties doesn't mean science can't eventually understand it. That's like saying science can't understand cells because tissues come in different types and are not apt to change.

    The problem with treating mental "disorders" the same way we treat diabetes, that is with pharmaceuticals, leads to blowback and side effects that weren't anticipated because they don't really know what they're dealing with.
    So? The great thing about science is that it learns from it's mistakes. Individual scientists may be in error and may even steadfastly hold to their errors in the face of new evidence, but the nature of science means that such individuals are passed by, and the scientist who proved them wrong gains significant kudos.

    This also holds true for the project of building nanobots that can pass through the blood brain barrier. They have some understanding of how to manipulate serotonin and dopamine, but there are hundreds of other neurotransmitters that they don't understand. They don't even understand what the mind is made of!
    If they can understand one neurotransmitter, they can understand them all.

    Also, the "mind" is not a thing in itself, but an emergent property of a properly-functioning human brain.

    They know it has to be more than an accretion of dumb neurons, but they are no closer to defining and localizing the human mind than a hundred years ago!
    Actually, we know a hell of a lot more about the human brain than we did 100 years ago.

    We all have our millenarian fantasies. Mine happens to be a revolution, xtians have their rapture and singularitarians have the singularitarity. We'll see if the asymptote is reached, we'll see if Moore's law continues unabated. I think ya'll should have a back up plan, which may include learning how to grow your own food.
    I do not consider the Singularity a "fantasy", but an actual possibility that may or may not come to pass. If it happens, it will be an entirely natural, non-mystical, technologically-triggered event that will be brought about by human science and engineering, without recourse to supernatural methods or magical thinking.

    If the Singularity is impossible for whatever reason, then the universe is a duller place than I thought it was, but it hardly spells doom for our species. The Singularity is something which I think should happen, but it is merely one cell in the network of my ideology. There lots of other things we can and should do, including but not limited to attempting to establish a truly egalitarian society (Anarchist Communism) with rational planning and resource management (Technocracy), and of course Transhumanism is still possible (and in my opinion desireable) without a Singularity.

    Of course, if the primitivists are right in that technological civilisation is unsustainable, we are ALL fucked and it was all in vain.
  6. Rascolnikova
    Rascolnikova
    To respond to the original question...

    Why shouldn't we include bipolar in neurodiversity? Isn't inclusiveness sort of the point of, well. . . neurodiversity? I don't see what having things in common really has to do with it. The principle is that we ought to try to provide human beings optimal adaptations for the way they function neurologically, rather than attempting to force a cookie cutter approach to the world via intolerance or forced "cures". Unless bipolar disorder includes some factor I'm unaware of that runs fundamentally against this (and maybe even then), of course they should be included.

    The only caveat I would add to this is that, just like in the case of autism, I would hope that individuals who are lower functioning even in an optimal environment would seriously consider treatment/cure.


    As for the idea that technocracy/primitivism is, even in part, a neurological split, I find it pretty unconvincing. I recognize that primitivism is largely a terrible idea, but--as an aspie--it appeals to me intensely. There are plenty of days when I wonder if I would prefer a short and ignorant life if it meant I didn't have to deal as much with other (particularly new) people.
  7. Dyslexia! Well I Never!
    Dyslexia! Well I Never!
    I hate to hop in and steal the thread but having a discussion about the potential influences of neurological state on the political leanings of autistics has had me pondering something I would like some feedback on.

    I'm being horrifically simplistic here, but if the often quite pronounced pattern-craving mindset of many autistics (the tendency to be highly disturbed or even totally unable to adjust to sudden or dramatic changes,) is taken to be common to many if not most autistics I will call it part of the "average" autistic mind for the sake of this question.

    It's an interesting point I've considered.

    When an autistic person advocates something that is an break with that which has existed before (a revolutionary change to society.) How would the defined "average" autistic mind cope with the change when/if it came to pass?

    I raise this point only because it bothers the hell out of me.