Autism Spectrum Disorders as Context Blindness

[Guest guest]

CJ

Hi: U should be able to google this and come up with all sorts of tidbits.

Amazon carries the book @

http://www.amazon.com/Autism-Context-Blindness--Vermeulen/dp/1937473007

Best.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, . The first time I searched Amazon, I got no hits in their

search engine. Probably a data entry error on my part.

Best,

~CJ

> CJ

>

> Hi: U should be able to google this and come up with all sorts of tidbits.

Amazon carries the book @

http://www.amazon.com/Autism-Context-Blindness--Vermeulen/dp/1937473007

>

> Best.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, . The first time I searched Amazon, I got no hits in their

search engine. Probably a data entry error on my part.

Best,

~CJ

> CJ

>

> Hi: U should be able to google this and come up with all sorts of tidbits.

Amazon carries the book @

http://www.amazon.com/Autism-Context-Blindness--Vermeulen/dp/1937473007

>

> Best.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Newland wrote:

> Greetings:

>

> I saw this book and concept on another list.

>

> Comments?

Vermeulen is a bright guy. *Very* bright -- and dead wrong in

this case.

Why? Because he's adding, trying to add, " attributes " and

" understandings " to current concepts of " autism " -- a human condition

for which there is *NO OBJECTIVE TEST*. In other words, there are *NO

Necessary and Sufficient criteria* for deciding that a person " has "

autism, or is autistic.

Without such criteria, *all* theories of autism are like castles of

sand: attractive structures which last only until the next big wave.

Vermeulen's ideas about context and autism have strong cognates with

years-old arguments about machine programming and " intelligence " -- a

machine condition for which there is no objective test.

These turned on *criteria* for intelligence, and came to a

philosophical boil with Searle's 1980s notion of " The Chinese Room "

- which attempted to settle the issues.

That in turn provoked hundreds? of learned papers which equally did

not settle anything. In the end they provided some enlightenment,

....but *no solution*.

In a similar way, and for similar reasons, I expect Vermeulen's " new

idea " to provoke similar commentary - and no solution. Some light,

perhaps; no fire.

- Bill, ...AS, ...opinionated

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

Newland wrote:

> Greetings:

>

> I saw this book and concept on another list.

>

> Comments?

Vermeulen is a bright guy. *Very* bright -- and dead wrong in

this case.

Why? Because he's adding, trying to add, " attributes " and

" understandings " to current concepts of " autism " -- a human condition

for which there is *NO OBJECTIVE TEST*. In other words, there are *NO

Necessary and Sufficient criteria* for deciding that a person " has "

autism, or is autistic.

Without such criteria, *all* theories of autism are like castles of

sand: attractive structures which last only until the next big wave.

Vermeulen's ideas about context and autism have strong cognates with

years-old arguments about machine programming and " intelligence " -- a

machine condition for which there is no objective test.

These turned on *criteria* for intelligence, and came to a

philosophical boil with Searle's 1980s notion of " The Chinese Room "

- which attempted to settle the issues.

That in turn provoked hundreds? of learned papers which equally did

not settle anything. In the end they provided some enlightenment,

....but *no solution*.

In a similar way, and for similar reasons, I expect Vermeulen's " new

idea " to provoke similar commentary - and no solution. Some light,

perhaps; no fire.

- Bill, ...AS, ...opinionated

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm