I predict if we're successful in creating general AI and/or artificial consciousness, we'll uncover a veritable zoo of different, altered states of consciousness much like how the standard model of particle physics revealed many more particles.

So without treading there, I am just going to say, I think this field-effect of neurons will lead to discoveries about field-effect of all cells, not just neurons; that consciousness is not exclusive to neurons; and how acupuncture (at a mechanical level) might work.

This is new though (and revolutionary): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XheAMrS8Q1c

Regarding consciousness, I don't get why people who submit to consciousness being everywhere in the universe have problem with simply calling it the universe. It seems to make discussions much more productive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmhsWAqP_0Y&t=4647s

I don't recall specific literature, but that might provide some names or searches to make.

people need a better life so they don't get depressed in the first place.

"but we can't change their lives, so it's better for them to take antidepressants".

No! Nonsense!

People are depressed, because their lives suck for whatever reasons.

When they take antidepressants their lives still suck, but - like a slave! - they just learn to accept it as it is.

When you take a painkiller against pain, the pain and its source don't magically vanish. It's all still there, you just mask it out.

Are you feeling sad? Just take SOMA!

I imagine there's a thousand reasons for a state like depression to emerge — some, but not all of them external. I think the Venn diagram of people with depression and people whose "lives suck for whatever reason" is not a single circle.

You know, I think I actually agree with you on that point, despite the rest of your post. I won't address the rest of what you said, because it'd just get nasty.

The problem, in my opinion, can be described by Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In the US (probably elsewhere too, just speaking for myself), the layer below physiological needs, like clean air, shelter, clothing, etc, is: "Get a job." Without that, you're dead.

There's a higher-level interpretation of what the term "state of consciousness" means to many people. Not a "state of the brain, like a state of a cellular automaton" but instead a section in the incredibly high-dimensional space of possible brain states that greatly facilitates going to other interesting positions, i.e. thoughts or experiences.

Well, it's not really a relic since it's actually the driving force behind our daily lives and society as a whole, sadly. They do more harm than good in a modern society with billions of individuals.

If consciousness is not exclusive to neurons, then how much affect does the consciousness have on shaping the body … and how much does the body shape the mind?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

It seems a fair number of experts have well justified doubts based on studies of already deployed lower energy radiation.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no...

> Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

> The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.

> Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

Perhaps realign your priorities to worry about something imminently catastrophic like climate change. And if it's theories you want to worry about, check this one out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

If you're still worried about Wifi, then I don't know what to tell you.

People living in cities (or anywhere really) don't complain much about the massive amount of exhaust from cars, which is definitely proven to be bad for everyone's health despite all attempts at reducing it. It's just there, we won't give up cars, so everyone just kind of ignores it.

So the car analogy seems a bad exemple to discourage progress.

Batteries are getting safer, too.

Wow, it really happened.

Wow in general.

[0]: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91mEWtZ15qL...

It wasn’t the article I read, but that should have a lot of leads.

Here's the story

This makes some assumptions about the nature of real-time cognition though...it is possible that any given individual can do this for a given scenario, but the likelihood depends on many variables, many likely unknown.

I am not sure this is the convincing argument you think it is, however.

For example, the author herself is diagnosed with high-functioning autism. Her social impact on others is miminal enough where it qualifies for “high functioning”, but having executive dysfunction means she is highly dependent on someone in her life to help her. Our medical and social system does not provide adequate services because she is “high functioning”.

She then talked about other people with a different blend of autistic traits who are considered low functioning (high impact on neurotypical social interactions), but don’t have the executive dysfunction like the author. Her example was someone who is non-verbal, yet has a well-developed intellect.

I too, thought the idea that “autistic people are disabled because neurotypical people considers autism is a disability” was not very convincing. This author’s argument reframed it in a way that makes more sense to me, and that is, us neurotypicals are only seeing autism only from the lens of how autism impacts us, and we frame the discussion, diagnoses, and public policies along those lines.

And let me tell you, it's a WHOLE lot more bleak than that. The US medical system does not provide adequate services for ANYONE other than perhaps children (in some cases).

As soon as someone with a special need becomes an adult, nearly all public provided support is torn away. If you aren't 65, then when your child hits 26, they have no guarantee of being able to stay on your insurance. You might be able to make a deal with your employer and health insurance provider but that is by no means a given.

Now think of what that means in terms of estate planning.

It's possible for your child with special needs to qualify for social security and medicaid but their household income needs to be below poverty levels (with pretty crazy strict means testing). There's a reason so many people with mental disabilities often end up homeless.

The fact is, some individuals will need 24/7 care for the rest of their lives. However, because taxes and government are bad and "they should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps" or whatever, the US and many state government are setup to instead worry about keeping them off the benches when they end up homeless.

Yes, I have a child with autism, and yes one thing that keeps me up at night is worrying what will happen to them after I'm gone.

But if everyone were autistic (as we define it today), and then someone was born that we would consider "neurotypical" (in this world, of course, they would be neurodivergent!), then that "non-autistic" person would probably be at a huge disadvantage (socially) in that society, so it'd be reasonable to call that person "disabled", even though we'd consider that person typical.

So yes, "disabled" is just a term we use to describe people in the minority, who have some sort of condition (physical or mental) that could confer a disadvantage upon them in our current society.

So to your statement:

> I too, thought the idea that “autistic people are disabled because neurotypical people considers autism is a disability” was not very convincing.

I've never really thought about it that way. My understanding would be more like "autistic people are disabled because their condition puts them at a disadvantage when interacting with the neurotypical world". And I think that jives with how we should think about disability: it's something that makes it harder for someone to interact (physically, socially, etc.) with the world as it is. We may try to make the world easier on disabled people -- ramps for those who cannot walk, audible signals for those who cannot see, attempts to change how we communicate with those who are neurodivergent -- but at the end of the day those people still have a disability, as there will always be parts of the world that they'll be unable to navigate the way a "non-disabled" person could.

Disability is a dis- (opposite of, or not) and an ability. If I cannot see, then vision is a disability. I wouldn't have it, but others would. Same if I was deaf, or had various types of mechanical physical problems.

Autism is different. Many types, depending on what's going on, isn't a dis-ability. Unlike me not having something that would allow me to perceive or do actions, this "disability" is instead of how other non-autistics treat us. I'm not lacking anything. Instead, I'm told I am defective because of the way neurotypicals treat us.

I use accurate language, and NT's assume that I'm talking in coded language... That's because NT's do just that. Or that I can hyperfocus. Most NT's cant. And worse yet, NT's make fun of us hyperfocusing. And being in IT, hyperfocusing is a powerful positive trait that puts me ahead of NTs.

Unlike other mechanical disabilities, this "disability" is primarily rooted in *others* treating us badly, over perceived badness.

As for me, I consider myself superior to that of most NT's. In fact, I feel sad for those humans who can't get the joy of deeply digging into an area of study, and then learning how other topics connect to it, and becoming an adept in a very short time. It might be an arrogant view, but I've seen NT's struggle with basic concepts time and again.