I have to translate all human speech into symbolic logic equations.

 

And here comes the obvious question:

 

What did you do before you learned the notation?

 

And as for the original question I don't see how that would prevent a God belief.

>=> not <=>

Bodhi, I'm starting to not be surprised when new members turn out to have asperger's.  I am curious about your particular variant, though.  There are so many human communications that don't directly reduce to symbolic logic... do you have to extrapolate or reduce until you can get to a formula?  Are there a lot of sentences that just end up as gibberish to you? 

While I'm asking, do you understand facial expressions, or have you had to learn to analyze them based on kind of a mental checklist?

 

 

 

do I extrapolate: yes, after 34 years I've gotten pretty good at it.

do lots of sentences end up as gibberish: oh yea... people use an enormous amount of assumptive logic in speech,  they assume i understand their frame of reference.

facial expressions: i analyze facial expressions like a computer, combining that with breathing rates, pupal dilation, skin flush and hand movements I'm basically a human lie detector.

sorry pineapple, i found a exception. In computer typing <=> is used as Iff

plus i was making a logic joke (less than = less than) (more than = more than).

 

I find that hard to believe along with you having aspergers - to most of us facial expressions are anywhere from difficult to understand to completely impossible to even notice. I don't pick up on facial expressions, voice tone or gestures at all - I completely depend on the person's words to decide what they are saying. That's why I do better online.

I think I found my complete opposite.

 

I suck at reading comprehension (Let alone logical notation.), I can't 'read' people, and  I can't tell if somebody's lying to save my life.

 

 

Are you a guy? Are you cute?

 

hu... I'm not sure what your asking. I am using the word ethics to describe a lack of want to see anyone hurt. From what I have observed law enforcement and law professionals are notoriously self serving. As are most corporations once they reach a particular size they become self re-enforcing for their own good.

Just like religions.

It's easy to tell if someone is lying, watch their body. People tend to touch there face if they are making something up, breathing becomes deeper, shoulders will roll inward, eye movement tends to move up and to the left, and in general they will close them-self off to you (cross their arms) as they are defending unconsciously. oh yea and pulse rate quickens.  This is not set in stone but it's a pretty good indicator that they are either lying or talking about something that is reveling.

Yes I am a guy. Am I cute: let me ask my roommate... she says "yea, too cute for your own good".

 

 

My daddy told me that also, I just looked at him like a dog trying to figure out why the sounds are coming out of a piano.

I'm wondering what cpt_Pineapple looks like since she wont post her pic - Is she totally hot or ugly?

why are you asking me? ask her.

My dad told me there was Santa and the Easter Bunny, too. 

I don't always believe my dad.

We only found out Pineapple's a chick last week and she's already trying to hook up with guys.

I still find it really hard not to write male pronouns in relation to Pineapple :/

Thanks for the love,

I do actually want someone / anyone to give me an answer to the original question.

other than my dad said so

Why do you think there is a god?

The head of the Harvard Divinity School once told me  "religion is the search for comfort". your answer fits with that sentiment.

G-o-d is a "word game", as god does play ... but of No winners, No losers, as all is ONE.

     God Is.  I AM.  God is nothing MORE / LESS. 

     There is no choice regarding GOD, as YOU are what we are.

     Atheism is anti-theism, a rejection of theistic mythical gods. God is atheist / theist / and all the shades there in,  of the "word game choices" god plays.

      God is a comedian too ....

      Playing the "word game" is the sense of choice in this place of consciousness. 

      "Word Games" we play, and damn it can even get real ugly ..... yin yang.

As cool Alan Watts wrote: "The religion of Jesus was that he knew he was a son of God, and the phrase "son of " means "of the nature of," so that a son of God is an individual who realizes that he is, and always has been, one with God. "I and the Father are one." .......... and,  "Let this mind be in you." that is to say, let the same kind of [rational] consciousness be in you that was in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ knew he was God."

"Wake up" [said a buddha] and find out eventually who you also really are [ god ]. In our culture of course, they'll say you're crazy or you're blasphemous, and they'll either put you in jail or in the nut house (which is the same thing). But if you wake up in India and tell your friends and relations, "My goodness, I've just discovered that I'm God," they'll laugh and say, "Oh, congratulations, at last you found out."

-   -  It's just another xlint angle at debunking the silly sad loony religious dogmatic god concepts.

 As I've said before in many varied word games, I am christ as you as all is one.

 Laughing, buddha asked, "what was that god question again?" ..... Then he continued laughing ..... Religious frantics also wished him dead , of course. Story Jesus wasn't so lucky. OUCH.

   

 

    

  

Sidestepping a moment the issue of whether I think "a search for comfort" is the only need for religion...

When presented with a choice between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, how do you choose?

Let me know if you actually do it.

Wow. What's that like? Wouldn't that make you more or less infallible? I don't want to come off as rude, that's just really interesting.

Actually, what he's describing doing is more or less exactly what professional gamblers do: teach themselves to notice the small ticks and giveaways (ie: 'tells'). 'Normal' people have a subconscious capacity to empathize based on body language. Often, much of our impression of someone else's mood isn't a result of directly picking up visual cues and understanding the mood behind them with our brains so much as actually interpreting through our bodies. Instead of our brain saying 'I know what that posture means', what happens is the brain tells the body to run through a quick check of what set of chemical triggers (ie: what mood) would result in that kind of posture, by using miniscule releases. Once it hits the ones that seem right, the brain goes 'oh! Bob's feeling X' and nudges your conscious mind with that feedback.

What gamblers do, and what Bodhi seems to be describing, is actually training the conscious brain to watch for those same cues, but instead of the imprecise method most of us use, maintaining a limited (at least in the case of professional gamblers) catalog of 'what that means' in much the same way we maintain a similar catalog for letters and numbers. It's not easy to do, and I expect it was less so for Bodhi, especially if he's trying to maintain a much larger and more comprehensive mental catalog.

Well.. if these things can be quantified to some extent.. why exactly can't "a search for comfort" as a reflection of a subjective "like" be quantified as well?


I'm fine with that too.


Kind of hard to observe.. considering such a large group of religious people were born into that religion.  How could you know whether the emotional side came before the rational/reason one?


I still don't quite understand how one can function in such a framework and still have preferences and subjective "like" and "dislikes."


Agreed.

Then what exactly distinguishes this sort of framework from the "more normal" framework?

This statements seems to imply some chasm in between the way one group of people view the world and the way another.  But, the way you're explaining it, it doesn't seem so much as a chasm but merely that you and bodhi are on one point of a continuum of ways people view the world: from those who rely entirely on emotion; to those that rely on emotion and then add reason to it later; to those that feel emotion, possibly rely on it at times, and then add reason.

Social awkwardness seems to be contrary to what I picked up from bodhi's explanation, but I could be wrong.

In anycase, I'm still having trouble contemplating this neuro-typical, non-typical, dichotomy.  "Muted ability to function socially," "make out facial expressions," muted ability to make out from body language/facial expresions/etc," do not seems like attributes that only come in on-and-off varieties.  There are many people I know who have varying levels of social aptitude, ability to make out facial expressions and make out emotional states. 

I don't mean any offense by my confusion.  To me, it just seems like saying there is a "neuro-typical" with regard to "receiving and acting upon emotions, operational frameworks based upon lines of reasoning rather than emotion/instinct," seems as ill-use of the phrase as using it to say there is a "aesthetically-typical" with regard to the color of people's skins.

I suppose it's possible.. and, admittedly, I don't know much about it.  My responses were more a reflection of my difficulty in comprehending the separation, i.e., how one distinguishes between an aspie and merely a individual who has the "muted ability," or whether, alternatively, all people with the "muted ability" are aspeis (or something to that effect).

I'll read up on it.