I Am Told I Have "Symptoms of Asperger's" - This Is Going To Be Fun

I SUSPECT THAT IF SHE WERE AWARE OF ME  Sabine Hossenfelder might not be so happy to have me as a fan of her Youtube videos.   If that were true, too bad, you can't choose your admirers though you might exercise some control over who are your enemies.  

A while back when she did a very interesting video on a problem I've used as a refutation of atheist-materialist-fans of scientism's "brain-only" ideology in my unanswered series of questions about how the brain would know everything from that it needed to make a new structure, what kind of structure it needed to make, how to make that structure, . . . . and whether or not it had made the right structure to be the physical basis of a new idea - an essential problem for their claims that consciousness is materially founded - before the idea, itself was present in the brain to instruct it on all of those things.  The problem was the brain making the literally thousands of ideas a day it would have to make in the time it takes for us to have ideas.   

The relevant resort of the few atheist-materialist-scientistic ideologues who tried to come up with answers was that "DNA" did it.  Which is absurd because DNA would then have to be able to contain all of the information for all things that all human beings think in its "code" and, since all DNA does is make strings of amino acids, how that minutes long process could possibly work to create the proteins and, with an even longer time lag, fold them into just the right shape to then be turned into physical structures to be that idea.  And that it could possibly do so through that other unadmitted god of AMS (atheist materialist scientism) random chance and the actions of probability since there are myriads of ways in which proteins can fold.   

The answer to that was the one Sabine Hossenfelder, I suspect routinely and automatically threw out when it was simply her trying to find an explanation of how proteins folded in just the right way so often "natural selection."   I said to her assertion:

I would challenge your resort to the golden parachute used when you really don't have an explanation for something in biology "natural selection" in this video.   Every living being, those which or who leave offspring and those who don't require protein folding to succeed.  The difference in the efficacy of protein folding in those who leave more or fewer offspring is something I'd need some explanation of then some actual evidence to support it before I'd believe it.  "Natural selection" is, I think, an ideological illusion, not real.

I was a bit disappointed that she didn't take up my challenge because it would have been a lot of fun to see what she came up with, though I doubt she could have answered my point.   Those who say "natural selection" whenever they can't answer a question present it as a very real and very serious god-in-the-gaps all of the time without doing what is never done when "natural selection" is asserted, realize that it is all about differences in the rate of successful reproduction persisting in the line of life and the failure to do that which is absurd in a good percentage of the occasions in which even highly intelligent and rational scientists such as Sabine Hossenfelder say "natural selection."   In the case of attributing the success of all living organisms to produce correctly folded proteins when ALL OF THEM EXCEPT THOSE WHICH DIE AT CONCEPTION would have to have cellular mechanisms that make correctly folded proteins to even survive that long, to use "natural selection" as an explanation of that is ridiculous.   

I will point out that even if the algorithm used in the contest she based her video on were "solved" it would do nothing to get my questions about "brain-only" orthodoxy answered.  I really don't think that any computer algorithm "solving" a problem which is beyond human capacity to fully understand is really an understanding of something.  Though in Hossenfelders' case, her skepticism about the claims made that "protein folding has been solved" is miles ahead of where most people are on it. It also does nothing to explain how it happens in actual cells in actual bodies.  

-----------------

I am bringing this up for several reasons but one is someone riffing off an old post has made a novel accusation to me, that my probing into forbidden areas of thought and expression reveals "symptoms of Asperger's."   Apparently one of the "symptoms" of that alleged syndrome is that people who have it can't resist the urge to say what they're thinking.   I'd say they have the virtue of devotion to the truth but, I suppose, if you're in the business of pathologizing peoples' minds you would see that as a pathology.   When the question is honesty, that doesn't surprise me when it's people in the psych racket who come up with that. 

I've known a couple of people who were "diagnosed" with "Asperger's" and didn't see much wrong with them.  They may have been slightly eccentric - I like people who are "different" - but they never did anything to harm anyone that I saw.  While I know one of the foundations of the psych racket, since Freud discovered it, was that they are always on the look out for ways to get more people coming back for "treatment" over a long period which generally proves to be futile, paying a small fortune for it, I'd guess that most of the people so "diagnosed" are more the marks for them than patients with a real "disorder."

My repeatedly asking the questions I do, making the points I do is directly related to the problems that I address being based on ingrained habits of thought and persisting and the needed analysis that MIGHT, and that what might lead to an improvement being forbidden thought and expression requires not leaving it alone.  

My theme is the failure of the "left" in American political life and the reasons for it, much of that failure is a product of the inadequacies of the controlling ideology of the "left," as my investigation of that developed the inadequacy and at times utter stupidity of the secular, college-credentialed, atheist-materialist-scientistic "left,"  the "left" which ascribes to the controlling ideological bases that just simply don't work to produce egalitarian democracy, economic and social justice based on a sustainable environment and human community.   If that commitment is a pathology, what is the idiocy of demanding and doing the same things over and over again for more than a century and only having it fail more every time?   ALL of the progress made against the 18th century Constitution has been a product of religious commitment to justice and equality and the Christian interpretation of the Mosaic foundations of those in love.  That is what I have concluded in the two decades I have been investigating the failure of the secular "left" and the reasons for that failure. 

-------------------

The regime of Trumpian lies - the Free Speech-Press rulings that protect lies and the liars who tell them.  Ever worsening in our fools' golden age of free-speech-press absolutism.

The Senate blocking protection of elections (as they did in lynching, etc.) - the demand of the slave-power and Northern financiers among the "founders" to have an anti-democratically chosen Senate.

The Supreme Court using shifty shadow-docket tactics and 5-4 rulings to destroy individual rights and clean elections - The language of the First Amendment and other amendments that they use to do that with.  Not to mention their self-given, unConstitutional and absurdly accepted power of negating validly adopted laws on a 5-4 basis. . . .

It would be possible to make a list of terrible consequences and the real character of those secular idols which are held to be beyond questioning that are right there in plain sight and go unremarked because of the taboo on talking about them honestly.  I break that taboo because it helps evil people to do evil things, in the Senate, on the Court, in the House, in state houses across the country.  I don't see any reason not to break that taboo and be honest about that.   Give me one and see if I can knock it down.