• Replies 17 replies
  • Subscribers 68 subscribers
  • Views 4337 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Recovery from Asperger's - six months along.

Mark Davis

For 55 years, I had Asperger’s though for most of my life, there was such a label. I was diagnosed as "just different" but I did not fit any label.

For six months, I have  ceased to have this condition This is not a nice, easy “happily ever after” as I have to recover from the condition. A current example is my mother is dying and I have to learn how to grieve “normally” instead of the old way which is – in many ways, much easier. I have to learn how to use sections of my mind I have never used before. You do not magically become normal.  Besides which – there are still many advantages to Asperger’s.

One person with a mere six months of a new way of thinking is not a magical success – life is a long road.  Being ABLE to think normally does not imply any experience in living normally. It does not even mean I am required to think normally.  I have no idea what the future holds.

This is not a post of “I have a magical wand to fix everything.”

I don’t have such a wand and  life goes on – but I think on the whole, I prefer normal to Asperger’s.  But then, I have the advantages of a very well developed area of mathematics and logic – which few people have. That remains.

Those with loved ones with Asperger’s ... or those with Asperger’s need to hold on to hope that a solution comes – which is good. But it is NOT a magical fix.

We begin with a NEW definition of Asperger’s. With the sure and certain knowledge that this definition is WRONG. It is one part and ONLY one part of a complex thing.  I am sure and certain that more knowledgeable experts with better resources are going to develop a better definition to what they now have.  But for all the idea that this is WROING – the idea is powerful enough to allow me to recover from the condition.

The definition?

 Asperger’s is a malfunctioning switch in the brain which switches from the mathematical/logical part of the brain to the normal part of the brain.

 

The source of this was one of those incredible “serendipity” moments in medicine and it came about with a few people with epilepsy so bad that they needed brain surgery.  They had a tiny part of the brain with malfunctioning neurons which sparks an epileptic fit and they needed to know the exact point in the brain which needed the operation. Each patient needed to be scanned and wait for a fit to identify the unique point which needed surgery.

Obviously, they had to wire up the patients and then wait for a fit. And also obviously, it is boring. So they gave the patients a variety of puzzles to do to while away the time.

And it was in this state that they found that normal puzzles like crosswords and the like – there is one pattern. However with mathematical puzzles, that part of the brain switched off and the ”mathematical”  part of the brain kicked in.

I heard about this second hand ... from a friend.  And I thought about it. I decided “That describes me – I am always in mathematical mode.” My "switch was stuck."

I spent a  few months “re-evaluating myself” using this idea.  It fitted me so perfectly that I could understand why I did what I did.  Eventually, it allowed me to find a solution. The solution was based upon “knowing why I behaved like I did.”

 ***

This part is written more for the experts.  I have come to you with a report of “this is the issue” and a self imposed experiment “I might be able to fix this” and the outcome “I have succeeded.”

This is a thesis, then a hypothesis, and finally a ‘trial.’  It means that I can encourage others to experiment and duplicate. If it can be checked, experimented, and duplicated, then you  can ... go forward.  Your part is ** also ** a journey of a thousand miles. This is the first step ...  of something profound. I cannot see what is coming but it is far wider than merely Asperger’s.

In order to encourage you to take this first step. I will give you a few things I found as  this thing about “brain switches"  ... is only partly investigated. Nobody has applied neuroplasticity methods to these switches – except me.   

The first thing is that you can create a simple survey. Give the people the idea above. Get your list of common symptoms ... and ask “how well does this fit you?” Remember that this is EXACTLY what I did – see above.  

A second thing – look at the self help techniques for depression which targets the same switch. It moves people away from depression by forcing them into the logical.  Look at the change from emotional (depression) to logical which is what they describe.  Imagine being stuck in the logical. You never go to the emotional. Doesn't this describe Asperger's? 

The third thing – they can induce Asperger’s by means of magnets. They did not realize it when they did so – they thought they were trying to develop  instantaneous calculations. They failed ... but that is not the issue. I have added in what they actually did – induce Asperger’s - they had NO IDEA that this is what they actually did.

It means that with this external magnetic switch, you can actually think like those with Asperger’s.  Before you could say “they think differently”. After you can say “They think in “this way” because you can experience it for yourself.

But do remember that you have entire  areas of your  brain are already developed, and they remain .. though “muted” when the switch is switched. People with Asperger’s do not have these other brain resources. Still – you ought to be able to get an inkling of the difference in thinking if you undergo that experiment for yourself.

There is actually a surprising amount of supporting evidence when you know what to look for.  All I have really done is to say “look here.”

***

The next part of the process is the method for changing the switches - and I have used the sitch of one and only one fo my secondaty symptoms.

In this case, the symptom I am dealing with is hypersensitivity to sound. It was ... debilitating to me. So let me describe  my responses. If I was in a store and there was the background music and someone played a DVD or a song – I could not cope with the dual sounds. If I went into a restaurant,  I would often leave as though someone had beaten me up as I tried to deal with the background sound levels. If someone whistled, I had to stop what I was doing to deal with the sound.  I know  I was nowhere near as bad as others – but it did make it very hard to go into a lot of situations.

I could not learn a new language, and I avoided many social settings just because of the sound issues. 

Now ... I had tried the usual things and treatments they had devised in order to create a “filter” to the sound. The theory is that the body can hear through the ears and also through the skin .... and they wanted to filter sounds  in the brain to differentiate between background sound (skin sounds) and foreground sounds (ear sounds).  They were not successful with me.

So we go to the beginning. We learn  by two processes – the carrot and the stick. A baby has a bauble set before it. The baby desires it and reached for it. The baby does not know how to use arms and legs and the random neurons cause the arms and legs to reach for the bauble. When the baby accidently touches the bauble – it gets a reward and reinforces that neural path. If it does not – it get frustrated and tries again. Eventually, the reinforced neural paths are what we have learned.  So we get a reward when we succeed. That which is reinforced, remains.  The law “Use it or lose it” is often used in neuroplasticity.

To RELEARN the process s slightly different. We have to STOP using the reinforced path – and to try ‘something else”  and learn again. You also have to choose to remain using the new way and not the old as you might have TWO neural paths instead of one.

So I had the goal. I wanted to cease listening to the skin and only use the ears. And I needed a method ...the "something different." So  I decided to ask “why the change from skin to ears?” And the answer in evolution is twofold. One is that ear sounds is directional (ergo the reason to develop ears) and the other is that with interactions with things like dogs, we no longer needed to hear with the skin. I postulated that we had evolved to turn off the input from the skin. So the problem seemed to me that I had to “turn off” the input from the skin.

So I had to change FROM ...  what I was – hypersensitive to sound.

I had a deliberate and specific idea of what I wanted – to switch a specific area of the brain which is located as “part of the way the brain deals with sound” and I wanted to “turn off a switch.”

And I developed a visualization technique. I thought hard about the issues, pictured in my mind a switch – pictured myself turning the switch. I pictured that in turning the switch – that the I no longer responded to the “skin” ... you could also use a picture of pulling a plug from the sound system.  I then  ... contemplated these things in quiet for a few minutes.  Thinking of the random neurons ...

And I aslo pictured the test environment – namely to deal with two sounds at once. I had a particular store in mind where it was very difficult for me to go to that store for that reason.

I "succeeded" when I got the reward, when I actually achieved what I desired. Namely the ability to go into an environment with background sound without freaking out.

If you are interested – this is biofeedback – except for the brain rather than for the body.

 

It took a few tries but it worked. I had learned how to switch that particular brain switch.

A goal, a definitive methodology, a test environment and  brain switches. Add in visualization techniques ... shake and stir. That is all there is to neuroplasticity of brain switches. We can switch the various  switches in the brain – some we can turn on, some we can turn off, and some are meant to swap on and off.

Brain switches allowed me to fix Asperger’s. It allowed me to fix a couple of “hypersensitivity issues” which are not directly Asperger’s but are common.  I have only dealt with the brain switches which are of interest to me.  But there are SO MANY brain switches and I hope there is some researcher who is willing to take this new idea of “directing our own brain switches”  into  all sorts of directions.  The potential is ... as limited as the brain. Which is limited but  ... far more than anything we have previously thought.

 

That which is impossible – suddenly becomes possible. No magic wand, no “buy my machine” ... no secret knowledge where you send me a cheque.  Merely ... the pen is mightier than the sword. A little knowledge ...

 

PS = I do recommend learning biofeedback as the body is a really ... easy area to get the “test environment” needed.  If you can learn how to use the brain to control the body, it is far easier to learn how the brain to control the switches in the brain. Very similar techniques.

Just because it is impossible - let's do it anyway. You ** Know ** you cannot cure asperger's. Yeah. 

Have fun ... and change the world. Or just your world.

Parents

  • One of the problems with doing something which nobody else has done is that you "try something and it works."

    When you begin, you have a host of assumptions, ideas and concepts. You use these to find a solution - whatever it is. But when you succeed - the very assumptions and ideas are proved false. You now have more information - success gives you this "more information."

    Open ideas are not to convince others - or to limit them to what you have experienced. It allows ... data ... and opportunities. I presented DATA - not opinions or discussions.

    I think people want me to sell them snake oil - here is "THE ANSWER." This is because "normal people" have set up a system where you are expected to sell them snake oil. It is the easy way. It works within the system. Everyone knows how to deal with things. You either buy, or pass and the onus is up to me to sell. And this presupposes that one man on their own can find not only what nobody else has found - but their first guess is "THE ANSWER." And they prove it because ... the claim is that it worked with me.

    I did not come here to sell.

    But as people want sell, sell, sell, I think I will.

    A brain is not like a computer. A computer has hardware - mother boards and the like. It has programs from the operating system which is loaded in.

    But the brain is different. It is self developing in the hardware - and is self programming in the software.

    We know a little about the brain – only because there is so MUCH to learn. Part of it is neurons and paths. Part is areas which do certain processes such as "deal with the eyes" from "input from the eyes" to "interpretation of the images" until we "see."

    Part is "brain switches" and what we can do with them. Little info is available on the subject.

    All of these hardware things form in a baby in a way we do not yet understand - though better people than I are working on the problem. And I expect - they will be for the next century or two.

    The software is in the same boat - we automatically ought to learn to use these parts of the brain. They theorize that the way it occurs is the carrot and the stick and "output driven" learning.

    The example of one medical model suggested that animals are able to walk as they are born (within seconds or minutes or hours) but humans have to learn how to use their limbs.  They theorize that a baby sees a bauble and desires (the carrot) and seeks to reach for it.

    When they randomly use their arms and legs - occasionally they touch the bauble. This is a "success" signal ... failure to touch is frustration (the stick) and we try again.

    As we reinforce the "we managed to touch" we have reinforced the pathways in the brain and through such "reinforced pathways" we learn how to use our arms and our legs.

    Consider for a moment how difficult it is to scratch your ear, lift a cup or walk and there is an incredibly complicated sets of pathways which have to be formed to do such a complex action. There might be a zillion neural pathways and it takes a long time to learn.

    ***

    The concept I have presented is like all new ideas - we rethink them and throw out the first guess (I am glad I did not sell it as "the answer.")

    My first guess was enough for ME. But as I used the techniques on other things ... the theory I used showed a few problems. So I have chenged the theory.

    What I have ** actually ** done is debug the brain.

    Or more specifically - debugged the software I myself self programmed into the brain I was born with.

    And like any debug - we start with the specific area of the brain. In this case - I theorized that the specific switch ** identified by science ** as the switch between the logic and the normal was always in the logic mode.

    It means I am not debugging my sight, my hearing - just "this process" in the brain.

    The first part of the debug process is go to the process.

    The second part of the debug process is to work out where the data fails. If your system does calculations on four hundred products and only ONE product causes problems - you only work on "the one product with the problem." You look at the "fault data" rather than the correctly working data.

    In this case - we already have the answers -we do not look into the eyes of others. After all - what "logic" is in the eyes of another?

    So do the debug process.

    The debug process means that we set ourselves to learn - (decide NOT to do something) and work out what we want to achieve (success/fail) and run the "fault data" and change the program ** only on the fault data ** until we find and correct the faulty programming.

    This is what I did - and my "fault data" was "looking into the eyes of another."

    Debugging an existing program is usually fixing one or two lines of data. In this case, the data ought to be analysed and when it comes to a point - the software ought to say to the brain switch - "switch."

    In my case, the switch worked fine - but the software never activated it.

    So I added in - ONE line of data to the programming. The one line of data said "In these situations – process the data in a different part of the brain."

    One line of data is ONE or TWO neural pathways. Compared to a zillion in learning how to scratch your ears.

    ***

    How do we check if this idea works? Predictions.

    If it is correct - such debugging of the brain is almost instant and permanent. It is just another thing we have learned. Learning ONE path is easy, quick and permanent - whilst learning a  zillion takes lots of effort and time, but is also just as permanent as it also is "learned."

    ** This is what occurred. ** first tick.

    it can be applied to hardware and software problems. I presented the hardware problem of hypersensitivity to sound. The problem was rectified in software but I think the actual problem was hardware.

    I also applied it to mild hypersensitivity to movement. That is software only. it worked on that also.

    I also applied it on a thing called kinaesthetic movement - the ability to know where your left hand is (actually the left or the right hand parts of the body.) There is a distinct "therapy" I created in lacking such knowledge. Turning off such a thing can be useful - for a short time in certain situations.

    This also worked. I can turn it on and off by simple concentrating ... NOW that I have learned "the trick."

    So again - four situations of debug and all four get a tick.

    PS - my original ideas did not cover these four situations - only two.

    Next prediction - if this is "all I did" - just debug my own self programmed brain - then I have not changed who I am, or lost my ability to reason - or become normal.

    IT DOES imply I can now use other parts of the brain I have never used before - and these areas are now required to be "self programmed." Six months is hardly enough time to do the tens of zillions of the pathways it requires to learn.

    Again - that which is predicted is what occurred.

    So yes, the theory I have just presented explains all the things which occurred and I gave from pure experience.

    Now I have a theory and what occurred and the theory predicts ** everything ** that I observed in myself - and which I documented (without comment – which everyone criticized me for so doing)

    ***

    Now we have the documentation of what occurred ... a theory to explain ...

    And a correction. I presented the idea that the
    IF the people who have undergone the magnetic process of switching this switch into logic mode (as the science paper stated) and the people did think in such a mode - they did NOT think as people with Asperger's.

    You see IF ALL you have is problem solving - then in any situation - you have found a solution. It can be - using this site - a process of getting from the taxi to the door of the clinic. This is "the solution."  There is only the one solution.

    Normal people take the "solution" given in logic and use it - sometimes adapting and changing. They would not lose such an ability whilst being stuck in logic mode - even with magnetic control.

    A person who ONLY has logic is driven to solutions and this is our motivation. If our goal is shopping and the outcome is 'to get the product at the cheapest price' a failure to go to the right shop, or wait until the sale next Tuesday is a failure to succeed.

    Normal person - a desire for a bargain.

    Asperger's - self worth in succeeding in solving the equation and thus a demand for the bargain at all costs. You have correctly analysed and solved the equation.

    So no, a normal person cannot think like a person with Asperger's. Not even with the magnetic control of the brain switch.

    They can appreciate the way we think. They can explain the way we think. But that is not quite the same.

    ***

    One final point as I am "selling." NOBODY wants to be normal - including me. What we want is often "things others have" such as social interactions and friendship. Or the ability to appreciate art ... or whatever.

    We want certain things "normal people have" but we do not desire to be normal.

    Fortunately, you do NOT become normal. 

    IF you wanted to be normal - then someone would have tried this at any cost. Nobody tried it - therefore they did not desire to be normal.

    I can again put in a personal experience. When I developed the first theory - the one which gave me a possible sollution - I was scared ... because "what would happen if I succeeded? Would I lose the ability to think in models?"

    Now, with the more specific theory, the prediction is "no you do not lose your abilities." You also do not change your personality. And this prediction direct from this theory is ** again ** what occurs. You do NOT lose anything.

    In fact, you do not become normal. I like to think in logic and models. I have no intention of ever becoming normal. I will continure to CHOOSE to think using logic and problem solving abilities.

    But I ALSO do like to be able to relate to other people. That is a definite plus. I am MORE than just Asperger's.

    But this raises a very important ethical point. The technique I have developed (by pure chance) can only work fairly late in human development - teenagers and later. It seems to me that Asperger's is ** of great worth ** both on  a personal level and also to our society. Great advantages, but also at a great personal cost.

    If it works on others - when should we try to teach such methods?

    Ethics ...

Reply

  • One of the problems with doing something which nobody else has done is that you "try something and it works."

    When you begin, you have a host of assumptions, ideas and concepts. You use these to find a solution - whatever it is. But when you succeed - the very assumptions and ideas are proved false. You now have more information - success gives you this "more information."

    Open ideas are not to convince others - or to limit them to what you have experienced. It allows ... data ... and opportunities. I presented DATA - not opinions or discussions.

    I think people want me to sell them snake oil - here is "THE ANSWER." This is because "normal people" have set up a system where you are expected to sell them snake oil. It is the easy way. It works within the system. Everyone knows how to deal with things. You either buy, or pass and the onus is up to me to sell. And this presupposes that one man on their own can find not only what nobody else has found - but their first guess is "THE ANSWER." And they prove it because ... the claim is that it worked with me.

    I did not come here to sell.

    But as people want sell, sell, sell, I think I will.

    A brain is not like a computer. A computer has hardware - mother boards and the like. It has programs from the operating system which is loaded in.

    But the brain is different. It is self developing in the hardware - and is self programming in the software.

    We know a little about the brain – only because there is so MUCH to learn. Part of it is neurons and paths. Part is areas which do certain processes such as "deal with the eyes" from "input from the eyes" to "interpretation of the images" until we "see."

    Part is "brain switches" and what we can do with them. Little info is available on the subject.

    All of these hardware things form in a baby in a way we do not yet understand - though better people than I are working on the problem. And I expect - they will be for the next century or two.

    The software is in the same boat - we automatically ought to learn to use these parts of the brain. They theorize that the way it occurs is the carrot and the stick and "output driven" learning.

    The example of one medical model suggested that animals are able to walk as they are born (within seconds or minutes or hours) but humans have to learn how to use their limbs.  They theorize that a baby sees a bauble and desires (the carrot) and seeks to reach for it.

    When they randomly use their arms and legs - occasionally they touch the bauble. This is a "success" signal ... failure to touch is frustration (the stick) and we try again.

    As we reinforce the "we managed to touch" we have reinforced the pathways in the brain and through such "reinforced pathways" we learn how to use our arms and our legs.

    Consider for a moment how difficult it is to scratch your ear, lift a cup or walk and there is an incredibly complicated sets of pathways which have to be formed to do such a complex action. There might be a zillion neural pathways and it takes a long time to learn.

    ***

    The concept I have presented is like all new ideas - we rethink them and throw out the first guess (I am glad I did not sell it as "the answer.")

    My first guess was enough for ME. But as I used the techniques on other things ... the theory I used showed a few problems. So I have chenged the theory.

    What I have ** actually ** done is debug the brain.

    Or more specifically - debugged the software I myself self programmed into the brain I was born with.

    And like any debug - we start with the specific area of the brain. In this case - I theorized that the specific switch ** identified by science ** as the switch between the logic and the normal was always in the logic mode.

    It means I am not debugging my sight, my hearing - just "this process" in the brain.

    The first part of the debug process is go to the process.

    The second part of the debug process is to work out where the data fails. If your system does calculations on four hundred products and only ONE product causes problems - you only work on "the one product with the problem." You look at the "fault data" rather than the correctly working data.

    In this case - we already have the answers -we do not look into the eyes of others. After all - what "logic" is in the eyes of another?

    So do the debug process.

    The debug process means that we set ourselves to learn - (decide NOT to do something) and work out what we want to achieve (success/fail) and run the "fault data" and change the program ** only on the fault data ** until we find and correct the faulty programming.

    This is what I did - and my "fault data" was "looking into the eyes of another."

    Debugging an existing program is usually fixing one or two lines of data. In this case, the data ought to be analysed and when it comes to a point - the software ought to say to the brain switch - "switch."

    In my case, the switch worked fine - but the software never activated it.

    So I added in - ONE line of data to the programming. The one line of data said "In these situations – process the data in a different part of the brain."

    One line of data is ONE or TWO neural pathways. Compared to a zillion in learning how to scratch your ears.

    ***

    How do we check if this idea works? Predictions.

    If it is correct - such debugging of the brain is almost instant and permanent. It is just another thing we have learned. Learning ONE path is easy, quick and permanent - whilst learning a  zillion takes lots of effort and time, but is also just as permanent as it also is "learned."

    ** This is what occurred. ** first tick.

    it can be applied to hardware and software problems. I presented the hardware problem of hypersensitivity to sound. The problem was rectified in software but I think the actual problem was hardware.

    I also applied it to mild hypersensitivity to movement. That is software only. it worked on that also.

    I also applied it on a thing called kinaesthetic movement - the ability to know where your left hand is (actually the left or the right hand parts of the body.) There is a distinct "therapy" I created in lacking such knowledge. Turning off such a thing can be useful - for a short time in certain situations.

    This also worked. I can turn it on and off by simple concentrating ... NOW that I have learned "the trick."

    So again - four situations of debug and all four get a tick.

    PS - my original ideas did not cover these four situations - only two.

    Next prediction - if this is "all I did" - just debug my own self programmed brain - then I have not changed who I am, or lost my ability to reason - or become normal.

    IT DOES imply I can now use other parts of the brain I have never used before - and these areas are now required to be "self programmed." Six months is hardly enough time to do the tens of zillions of the pathways it requires to learn.

    Again - that which is predicted is what occurred.

    So yes, the theory I have just presented explains all the things which occurred and I gave from pure experience.

    Now I have a theory and what occurred and the theory predicts ** everything ** that I observed in myself - and which I documented (without comment – which everyone criticized me for so doing)

    ***

    Now we have the documentation of what occurred ... a theory to explain ...

    And a correction. I presented the idea that the
    IF the people who have undergone the magnetic process of switching this switch into logic mode (as the science paper stated) and the people did think in such a mode - they did NOT think as people with Asperger's.

    You see IF ALL you have is problem solving - then in any situation - you have found a solution. It can be - using this site - a process of getting from the taxi to the door of the clinic. This is "the solution."  There is only the one solution.

    Normal people take the "solution" given in logic and use it - sometimes adapting and changing. They would not lose such an ability whilst being stuck in logic mode - even with magnetic control.

    A person who ONLY has logic is driven to solutions and this is our motivation. If our goal is shopping and the outcome is 'to get the product at the cheapest price' a failure to go to the right shop, or wait until the sale next Tuesday is a failure to succeed.

    Normal person - a desire for a bargain.

    Asperger's - self worth in succeeding in solving the equation and thus a demand for the bargain at all costs. You have correctly analysed and solved the equation.

    So no, a normal person cannot think like a person with Asperger's. Not even with the magnetic control of the brain switch.

    They can appreciate the way we think. They can explain the way we think. But that is not quite the same.

    ***

    One final point as I am "selling." NOBODY wants to be normal - including me. What we want is often "things others have" such as social interactions and friendship. Or the ability to appreciate art ... or whatever.

    We want certain things "normal people have" but we do not desire to be normal.

    Fortunately, you do NOT become normal. 

    IF you wanted to be normal - then someone would have tried this at any cost. Nobody tried it - therefore they did not desire to be normal.

    I can again put in a personal experience. When I developed the first theory - the one which gave me a possible sollution - I was scared ... because "what would happen if I succeeded? Would I lose the ability to think in models?"

    Now, with the more specific theory, the prediction is "no you do not lose your abilities." You also do not change your personality. And this prediction direct from this theory is ** again ** what occurs. You do NOT lose anything.

    In fact, you do not become normal. I like to think in logic and models. I have no intention of ever becoming normal. I will continure to CHOOSE to think using logic and problem solving abilities.

    But I ALSO do like to be able to relate to other people. That is a definite plus. I am MORE than just Asperger's.

    But this raises a very important ethical point. The technique I have developed (by pure chance) can only work fairly late in human development - teenagers and later. It seems to me that Asperger's is ** of great worth ** both on  a personal level and also to our society. Great advantages, but also at a great personal cost.

    If it works on others - when should we try to teach such methods?

    Ethics ...

Children
No Data