Weary Wulf[P] I posit then that perhaps certain kinds of minds—such as autism—are more resilient to uncertainty, more able to accept concepts such as the greater unknowns of the Universe. In my case, I find unknowns comforting, I accept that uncertainty is a facet of life in a Universe chock-full of quantum absurdity. So I'm not drawn to social identity as I have no need of protection from uncertainty—so my identity is founded on values, not social groups.
Michele Sabatier@wearywulf Fascinating idea. I especially like the last sentence about social identity and not needing “protection from uncertainty.” Perhaps this explains religion, and why I was so comfortable with the idea of atheism from childhood
[P] @msabatier — The truth is is that I can't honestly speak to that as I don't know, there are a lot of things I do not know that I can only surmise. I find that my journey of being autistic has been having to accept that I simply don't know many things, and to accept that uncertainty is an aspect of life. For example, I'm fascinated by the belief that one might have a mind like a steel trap and that all memories are accurate. Objectively, I know mine are not.
-1
[P] I have run experiments measuring my memory and I've become aware that the mind likes to fill in gaps where it isn't sure and might even fabricate, so I've learned to see memories as subjective things. I think that the reason gaslighting works is because there's this absolute belief in the correctness of one's own memories, and questioning that absoluteness introduces uncertainty. Whereas I'd just shrug and look for the evidence.
-2
[P] With what I've come to understand of memory I can't relate to those who have absolute belief in the certainty of their memory, as even that is subjective and uncertain. We experience reality in a very subjective way, so only the objective evidence matters if we're trying to figure something out that involves two or more entities with subjective perceptions. When you add in the capacity for entirely false memories...
-3
[P] And that's just one example. I think that this is why difference is vilified, too, because if one is dealing with actual evil it might come from anywhere and cause chaos. Anyone has the capacity for evil, be it in-group or out-group. This means that every person has an uncertainty factor where any number of interactions could occur—positive, negative, and everything in-between. That's unacceptable for those who need certainty.
-4
[P] I've come to see this need for certainty as an undesirable trait as it's contrary to what is kind, decent, just, rational, and logical. It's instead the desire to fashion illusory social constructs that may be entirely contrary to the evidence, where the evidence is entirely dismissed if it comes from an out-group source. In other words, I've come to accept uncertainty into my mind as it's the only way to be truly ethical.
-5
[P] The way I see it is as thus: If one cannot be certain of events, as one is not omniscient and does not have all of the evidence, how can one make any declarations of what's transpired in any instance? In other words, one has to accept uncertainty in order to be ethical, as one must seek out evidence in a situation where one simply does not have access to all that information. Information is important.
-6
[P] I could segue and talk about what our partner taught us of the Monty Hall problem, how having access to more information changes perspective. I'm prone to that, but I'm trying to be better about not going off on rambling tangents. The notion is though that if having more information can alter perception then how can one achieve true certainty in the absence of information? It can only be illusory, and that illusion is what's desired.
-7
[P] Social identity as a construct exists to preserve, protect, and amplify the illusion as it's shared back and forth. They cannot be truly certain, as certainty comes with absolute access to all information, and I feel that no one can ever have absolute access to all information. So there is the illusion of certainty that's focused more upon instinct and fairytale, instead of admitting simply that they don't know.
-8
[P] I'm so bad at numbering these. Anyway, I'm going to finish up by saying that while I am Plural? I do understand that these are fictive constructs of my own psyche, much as any character of self that we might interact with is. While I am Otherkin, I see that as not identifying with the human commonality of social identity but instead those traits I find admirable on a value basis, because it brings me comfort and helps with my sanity. It isn't a matter of faith.
-9
[P] I like the idea of atheism much as I do agnosticism in a way because it's a bunch of fancy words for saying that I don't know, that there is much uncertainty, and that I'm unable to put absolute belief and faith in what I don't know. I'm open to it, I'm reasonable, and I fully understand that belief brings comfort but I cannot know what exists, or what does not. I don't have that information.
-10
[P] The Monty Hall problem really helps me articulate this because how the mind functions even is based upon what information we have available to us, which can be weighted in probability one way or another. We cannot say I know this, or I know that. One can only say this has a weight of probability or improbability according to the available evidence. We exist in a quantum foam of probability and uncertainty.
-11
[P] And to wrap this rambly rumination up untidily as I worry it'll end up looking too egocentric otherwise? I have to exist in uncertainty because I cannot be arrogant enough to have absolute belief. I exist in an uncertain Universe loaded with "spooky action at a distance." I cannot say that I know anything for certain, and that's okay. No one can. There is no omniscience. That's just life.
-12