"What is the “intact mind”? It’s Lutz’s term for the theory that every person with an intellectual or cognitive or developmental disability must necessarily have some other version of themselves trapped inside their heads, a “normal” version. So a nonverbal autistic person, like Lutz’s son Jonah, is presumed in the conventional narrative…
"What is the “intact mind”? It’s Lutz’s term for the theory that every person with an intellectual or cognitive or developmental disability must necessarily have some other version of themselves trapped inside their heads, a “normal” version. So a nonverbal autistic person, like Lutz’s son Jonah, is presumed in the conventional narrative to have another self that could potentially be reached with the correct intervention. In a thorough review of memoirs written by autistic parents and autistic people (the latter of which are sometimes dubious), she again and again finds the assumption that there’s a fully functional person “somewhere in there.” As she notes, with compassion that’s both obvious and very understandable, there’s simply no reason to believe that this is true..."
Belief in souls and essences pops up yet again. This is the same thinking re: "I know grandpa is still there underneath the severe Alzheimer's". But unfortunately he isn't there.
Many "disability advocates" seem to do about as much for the disabled as "homelessness advocates" do for the homeless, i.e. somewhere between nothing and being actively counterproductive.
Abortion is nuanced though. Opinion polling on abortion mirrors an issue like gun control--wide majorities think it should be legal but favor some restrictions (no machine guns or grenade launchers).
In other words a lot of people are perfectly fine with abortion at 12 week but grow increasingly uneasy as the fetus approaches the seven month mark.
I mean it’s not that they were exactly co-signing abortion before that phase, but it was considered a much lesser transgression. There were shifts back and forth in the Middle Ages depending on the pope (i.e., kind of like now).
In the case of "identity" at least its possible to replace "soul" with something more concrete like "mind" or "brain" and still make sense. My favorite example of this is an issue of "Doom Patrol" where Robotman expresses confusion about the gender of Coagula, a transgender superheroine. Coagula points out that Robotman is a human brain in a purely mechanical body, but that doesn't stop him from thinking of himself as a man.
Interesting that you mention the spiritual part of this. It’s the idea that the true nature of the world is true and just and it is only through the work of man that it is corrupted. When in reality the true nature of the world is unjust.
I think the most significant phenomenon in religious belief is the found in the reversal of where spirit emanates from (human labor and action) by projecting it outside of humanity into some abstract ethereal entity, which is then pursued in the hopes of recovering some now-lost wholeness of man who has been “corrupted”.
I could say that it's due to people incompletely leaving their religion (that they may not have understood), and consequently not realizing all the underlying assumptions. Or that religion touches (or builds itself off of) ideas common and dear to humanity.
I think there's a grain of truth to some of these ideas, in that the part of us we consider the core of our identity is information, rather than matter. For example, imagine scientists were to someday invent a machine that could transfer information between brains as easily as it is currently transferred between USB drives. If, in this world, the information in Alice's brain was transferred into Bob's brain, the resulting person would refer to herself as Alice, remember being Alice, and probably still think of herself as a woman, even though she was now in Bob's body. The error lies in taking this grain of truth and making the unjustified assumption that the information can exist completely independently of the medium that stores it. This leads to the idea that the information is somehow still there even if the storage medium has been destroyed (in the case of brain damage and Alzheimers) or never existed (in the case of severe cognitive impairment from birth).
I think everyone believes in some concept of a soul, even if it's largely metaphorical. We don't inhabit our bodies as much as we are entangled with them. As much as transcending the flesh sounds nice, it's not in the near future.
The last two years of my mother's life three quarters of who she had been was gone. The last eight months perhaps only a tenth was left and her cognition in constant retreat. I know I'm out of touch with the modern world, but I don't see why its so hard for people to see that "they" deserve the best we can give them, but accept that much is gone or was never there.
I wonder if we've gotten so accustomed to altering things through medications (thank God) or other successful interventions, that some people find it impossible to accept that some things can't be fixed yet and the least restrictive, safe, supportive environment is the best we can do.
"What is the “intact mind”? It’s Lutz’s term for the theory that every person with an intellectual or cognitive or developmental disability must necessarily have some other version of themselves trapped inside their heads, a “normal” version. So a nonverbal autistic person, like Lutz’s son Jonah, is presumed in the conventional narrative to have another self that could potentially be reached with the correct intervention. In a thorough review of memoirs written by autistic parents and autistic people (the latter of which are sometimes dubious), she again and again finds the assumption that there’s a fully functional person “somewhere in there.” As she notes, with compassion that’s both obvious and very understandable, there’s simply no reason to believe that this is true..."
Belief in souls and essences pops up yet again. This is the same thinking re: "I know grandpa is still there underneath the severe Alzheimer's". But unfortunately he isn't there.
Many "disability advocates" seem to do about as much for the disabled as "homelessness advocates" do for the homeless, i.e. somewhere between nothing and being actively counterproductive.
(And yes FC is ludicrous horseshit.)
Thanks for writing.
Abortion is nuanced though. Opinion polling on abortion mirrors an issue like gun control--wide majorities think it should be legal but favor some restrictions (no machine guns or grenade launchers).
In other words a lot of people are perfectly fine with abortion at 12 week but grow increasingly uneasy as the fetus approaches the seven month mark.
WRT birth control I have to point out that the most prominent example in terms of banning its use is from the Catholic Church.
Ironically, because at least up through Aquinas and Augustine, the standard for “ensoulment” was the “quickening” around (give or take) 14 weeks.
That's interesting. The comments section here is wonderful because I commonly learn stuff that I did not know before.
Also: "There can be only one!"
Oh damn, I did not know a new Highlander was dropping
I mean it’s not that they were exactly co-signing abortion before that phase, but it was considered a much lesser transgression. There were shifts back and forth in the Middle Ages depending on the pope (i.e., kind of like now).
In the case of "identity" at least its possible to replace "soul" with something more concrete like "mind" or "brain" and still make sense. My favorite example of this is an issue of "Doom Patrol" where Robotman expresses confusion about the gender of Coagula, a transgender superheroine. Coagula points out that Robotman is a human brain in a purely mechanical body, but that doesn't stop him from thinking of himself as a man.
Interesting that you mention the spiritual part of this. It’s the idea that the true nature of the world is true and just and it is only through the work of man that it is corrupted. When in reality the true nature of the world is unjust.
I think the most significant phenomenon in religious belief is the found in the reversal of where spirit emanates from (human labor and action) by projecting it outside of humanity into some abstract ethereal entity, which is then pursued in the hopes of recovering some now-lost wholeness of man who has been “corrupted”.
Myth of the Golden Age.
FC?
Facilitated communication.
Thanks. I suppose I should Google, but what the chocolate is that?
Did you even read the article you're commenting on? Half of the article is dedicating to explaining what facilitated communication is.
I hadn't gotten that far before I wanted to comment on something before it slipped my braid.
I don't want to tell you how to live your life, but Freddie has banned people for that
Typically it's a 24 hour ban.
Also, cats are special.
The definition is in the book review.
It's interesting how religious thinking shows up over and over again in the minds of the supposedly non-religious.
I could say that it's due to people incompletely leaving their religion (that they may not have understood), and consequently not realizing all the underlying assumptions. Or that religion touches (or builds itself off of) ideas common and dear to humanity.
I think there's a grain of truth to some of these ideas, in that the part of us we consider the core of our identity is information, rather than matter. For example, imagine scientists were to someday invent a machine that could transfer information between brains as easily as it is currently transferred between USB drives. If, in this world, the information in Alice's brain was transferred into Bob's brain, the resulting person would refer to herself as Alice, remember being Alice, and probably still think of herself as a woman, even though she was now in Bob's body. The error lies in taking this grain of truth and making the unjustified assumption that the information can exist completely independently of the medium that stores it. This leads to the idea that the information is somehow still there even if the storage medium has been destroyed (in the case of brain damage and Alzheimers) or never existed (in the case of severe cognitive impairment from birth).
I think everyone believes in some concept of a soul, even if it's largely metaphorical. We don't inhabit our bodies as much as we are entangled with them. As much as transcending the flesh sounds nice, it's not in the near future.
The last two years of my mother's life three quarters of who she had been was gone. The last eight months perhaps only a tenth was left and her cognition in constant retreat. I know I'm out of touch with the modern world, but I don't see why its so hard for people to see that "they" deserve the best we can give them, but accept that much is gone or was never there.
I wonder if we've gotten so accustomed to altering things through medications (thank God) or other successful interventions, that some people find it impossible to accept that some things can't be fixed yet and the least restrictive, safe, supportive environment is the best we can do.