Thanks for your question. Nonverbal autism is an important and complex topic, and I recognize it’s a significant part of many people’s experience with autism. In my book, Zero Person, I focus on high-functioning autism, as it's the perspective I know best. I don’t feel equipped to represent all aspects of nonverbal autism because I only experience temporary nonverbal periods, usually after a meltdown, which differs from the experiences of individuals who are nonverbal full-time. I’m aware of the diversity within the autism spectrum, and I try to approach each topic I discuss with humility and respect for those who have different experiences. For those looking for in-depth insight into nonverbal autism, I encourage seeking voices from people who live that experience daily, as they’re the most qualified to speak on it. Thanks for your understanding.

nose to the grindstone 😀

Se on hyvää harjoittelua sen heikentyville takajaloille ja terveellistä myös meille ihmisille.

That's the hairdressers we used to go to and there's always a cat sitting on the couch. He remembered that. But yes, Airedales are just nosy as hell 😁

Nyt kun hän on vanhempi, kävelylenkit ovat enemmänkin kävelymeditaatioita. Mutta hän rakastaa ”lehden lukemista”, kuten minä sitä kutsun.

I am glad you liked it. Yes sure, I can cover that at some point. At the moment I am thinking about what makes the observer an observer, or rather, what makes us cognitive agents, persons and what is it we identify with. This question will become more prevalent with the advancement of AI.

@@autisticalchemist I however do not like the multiverse interpretation as well as the QBits one. I think they are totally misleading and take humans into some sort of idealism beyond grasp which far from truth and above all reality. We need to ground all research in materialism frame

@@heliauvinen Juuri niin. Se on aina ollut mottomme.

Hän sai kongin, porkkanan ja solmitun köyden. Se on täysin häkeltynyt.

I love him so much !!!

❤❤❤❤❤

@@user-eo7bj8ew8v planning a video on Mandela Effect next. matter of fact probably going to record that today. and next a comparison of various interpretations of QM.

@@user-eo7bj8ew8v no but you should look into that. interesting question

Son los mejores.

Viime talvena se putosi veteen, ja minun piti pelastaa se. Kävelimme molemmat läpimärkinä kotiin.

He is wonderful !!!

grazie per i complimenti

hän on uteliain tuntemani henkilö 🤓

@@quangobaud good point, I haven't seen any of the movies and am not planning to.

On varmaan rankkaa menettää airedale. Perheessäni on aina ollut koiria, mutta tämä on ensimmäinen airedale. Ja se on tulossa vanhaksi. 😇

Hän opetti minulle, miten todella meditoida

Claiming that consciousness is the point of the universe implies teleology, which is at odds with the idea that consciousness evolved purely through natural selection as a means of survival (a non-teleological view rooted in materialist metaphysics). The two positions involve fundamentally different assumptions about the nature of reality and the role (if any) that purpose plays in the unfolding of the universe. Some thinkers, however, try to reconcile these views by suggesting that while evolution explains how consciousness came about, it doesn't necessarily rule out a deeper teleological structure in the universe. This is found in various interpretations of panpsychism (where consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe) or process philosophy (where the universe is seen as evolving toward greater complexity, potentially culminating in conscious awareness). The question what organisms do with their consciousness once they've attained it seems to me to be a third, separate one. Philosophically speaking, this question would probably be best dealt with in the field of moral philosophy or ethics.

⁠@@autisticalchemist Makes sense. I just think we always have to be careful about making “either/or” statements when we have no idea why the universe was created (including the possibility that there isn’t a reason). We shouldn’t say, “Oh, it was a survival adaptation, so it couldn’t also tie into this other seemingly unrelated aspect of reality.” Best to keep all options open until we have better evidence-which we might never obtain. That doesn’t stop us from exploring what we can do with our consciousness, though. As you say, the reason for its existence and the possibilities available because of it may be completely unrelated.

@@wmpx34 ja, I'm with you. I try to cover lots of different perspectives on this channel so people can make up their own minds starting from some level of information on the different theories out there.

Thank you for your comment and good to hear that you are writing about the hard problem. More people should think about such problems. I am not sure what you are referring to with regards to nuts and bolts but in these reviews I try to keep my personal views under wraps as much as I can. I am trying to lay out what the author thinks, so those are not necessarily my thoughts. To be honest, I don't know what I am at this point. I started out as an idealist; I then thought analytical idealism was quite convincing and having read Metzinger I'm not so sure anymore. After finishing Metzinger I felt compelled to write a book on Autistic cognition and how it seems to transcend the self in terms of first-person-perspective. So I just got done with that project and I guess I am experiencing a bit of post-natal depression 🙂. Anyway, if you'd like to leave some constructive criticism on how I can improve my reviews, go ahead, I am listening.

@autisticalchemist I apologise if my reply to you came across as negatively critical, and I appreciate the fact that you have explained yourself in perhaps more detail than I deserved. What I suppose I was trying to say is that I had gathered the overwhelming impression that you seemed not have given yourself any kind of definitive ONTOLOGICAL "anchorage". As said, I am a "straightforward reductive physicalist", but I am obliged of course to acknowledge the EMPIRICAL DATA of "subjectively perceived" sensory phenomenology. Many self-proclaimed physicality, absurdly, DON'T; particularly those hailing from software backgrounds, seeming instead to prefer some mysterious quasi-platonic "essence" to consciousness, and typically almost entirely without further justification. Regarding your earlier intellectual phase of idealism, I am unsure whether you intended that self-description in the Berkeleian, subjectively idealist, ontological sense. I have actually MET a few fully grown Berkeleian idealist, and so I naturally point out this position's unavoidable collapse into solipsism (which i also regard as incoherent, but I shouldn't digress). Whenever I DO point out this simple logical inevitability, they invariably CONTINUE ENTHUSIASTICALLY, as though nothing contrary has been said. :) Let me repeat my apologies for any boorish-seeming or apparently unsympathetic commentary, and I sincerely hope that you emerge from PND soon. I find your comments interesting. Personally, i'M in the throes of searching for a publisher. (BTW my physicalism is primarily motivated by biological/cybernetic considerations. Nice "talking" to you.

I should also add that I agree with your other correspondents views about religion. In a nutshell, it's simply palaeoanthropocene, so why do educated adults continue to indulge it? In a sense, I'm "asking" a rhetorical question: religions are iniquities because they are: 1) Transparently imbecilic. 2) They thoroughly permeate all non-Amazon rainforest so ieties in an almost FRACTAL sense. In addition they are invariably endorsed by society's most primitive -- and often unreflectively right-wing -- empowered groups such as police forces.

@@ianbuxton1730 ah. don't wait for a publisher. I self publish. I don't even have the means to get anyone to spellcheck my writing but what the heck. Times have changed but some ideas still need to be brought to paper I feel. It's a bitch doing it all by yourself but it's a thrill too. I use www.bod.ch/ which is a German outlet but there's tons of platforms like that out there. I say, go for it. Nice talking to you too.

@@ianbuxton1730 ja, when you look at it in an evolutionary sense, they did serve a purpose, and we probably should differentiate. If you refer to monotheistic religions, I am fully on board. I believe I was 13 when I read a first book on UFOs and it must have already occurred to me that all monotheistic religions could have simply started by someone misinterpreting visitations from more advanced civilisations. I left the church and converted to Buddhism when I was 21. But then Buddhism just always seemed more of a "neuro"science or philosophy to me than a religion.