# Have there been any autistic savants of philosophy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2007, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579 "2007-02-17T01:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/101 "2011-01-03T12:56:56Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > The bit I think I quoted was: > > _a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgements made by a conscious entity or subject_ > > How is _that which cannot be tested outside of one’s own mind_ (the unfalsifiable cheese-moon for example) in agreement with the above definition of an objective proposition? Because the definition says nothing about testability. You’ve listed the condition of being unperceived by anyone, which as far as I can tell is mind-independent; it’s not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject, the whole _ **point** _ is that no conscious entity or subject is so much as experiencing it. Given what the Wiki definition goes on to say about the unknown… > [@](#): > > Second of all, “objects that are unknown” may indeed be _posited_ to objectively exist if their existence is falsifiable. …er, no; according to the Wiki entry you’re unaccountably fond of, being “falsifiable” is no more a requirement than being “testable”. It simply ain’t in there, same way it ain’t in the dictionary definitions; it’s stuff you’re insisting should be there, but, well, isn’t. > [@](#): > > But the theorem that they exist objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found. Let me repeat that because it is so important: _the theorem that they exist objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found._ So what? I’m not trying to prove it. I’ve been telling since the start that the claim you made was objective in nature, not that it was true. > [@](#): > > First of all, it is not clear that reality is mind-independent. A large portion of physicists believe that it is not. If we briefly assume that for the sake of argument – which I’m loath to do until you can find a cite – would any claim be objective, or would everything be mind-dependent? > [@](#): > > It is not mind-independent if the only possible test or proof of its existence is within the mind. I’m not looking to test or prove its existence. > [@](#): > > Just as a hallucination is not mind-independent, even though the hallucination projects the illusion of a mind-independent reality in the mind of the afflicted. It is facile to conclude that just because the proposition is in regards to mind-independent reality, that the proposition itself must be objective. Yes, but a moon that nobody happens to be perceiving isn’t the mind of anybody. It’s, like, the opposite of your example. > [@](#): > > It conveys an intelligible idea, but it is not _meaningful_. It has not function, use, or purpose. I don’t see where “meaningful” requires function/use/purpose on top of intelligibility; shall we break out the dictionaries again? > [@](#): > > A further example: _all horses are really little oranges. Except in every measurable sense they are indistinguishable from horses. But otherwise they are really little oranges._ > > Now whether or not this is _true_ has no meaning. The idea is intelligible, but irrelevant to objective reality. _There is no objective reality_ that can be assigned to that which cannot be measured, as per your definition (remember: material, etc, is a _thing_, with _properties_, and _properties_ are that which have been observed, also by definition). Sadly, that falls apart if the dictionary doesn’t define “properties” as “that which have been observed”. And since I haven’t seen observability required of “properties” any more than I’ve seen it required of “matter” or “objective” or whatever – or seen “testable” or “falsifiable” as criteria for existence – I have to wonder which word you’ll next pin your hopes to. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The problem is, it’s also possible to disprove a proposition without reference to the chain of reasoning. > > That’s called a ‘counterexample’. There are examples of ~X, and proofs of ~X. You are discussing proofs of ~X. Yes, a single counterexample can disprove a proposition without reference to the chain of reasoning. Very good. Perhaps we _ **are** _ on the same page. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/102 "2011-01-03T19:57:09Z")
Since you do not seem capable of offering more that smug distractions from my line of argument, there is no point it me pointing out that I have already addressed in detail virtually all of your points above; we are going in circles. Here is an example: > [@The Other Waldo Pepper](#): > > > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > > > But the theorem that they exist objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found. Let me repeat that because it is so important: the theorem that they exist objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found. > > So what? I’m not trying to prove it. I’ve been telling since the start that the claim you made was objective in nature, not that it was true. Looks like my strategy of explicitly repeating myself was futile. Go back and read it again, mr. comprehend-a-lot. You have been saying that _the theorem that they exist objectively_ is true. Well, for a third time:\* the theorem that they exist objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found\*. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/103 "2011-01-03T20:01:02Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Yes, a single counterexample can disprove a proposition without reference to the chain of reasoning. Very good. Perhaps we _ **are** _ on the same page. Yes, and that fact is not at all relevant to your argument that began this digression. If we are on the same page, the page is thus: whatever point you had been trying to make was vacuous and could have been restated in 5 [words](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13311219&postcount=95). ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/104 "2011-01-03T20:17:24Z")
Regarding the definitions issue, you are being sophistically pedantic or faux-obtuse. I said: > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > > [@Wiki](#): > > > > a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgements made by a conscious entity or subject > > How is that which cannot be tested outside of one’s own mind (the unfalsifiable cheese-moon for example) in agreement with the above definition of an objective proposition? to which you replied: > [@The Other Waldo Pepper](#): > > Because the definition says nothing about testability. Evading the basic chain of logic: If the _condition of truth_ is explicitly not _judgements made by a conscious entity or subject_, then those conditions are implicitly an observation or test (whatever word you care to dumbly object to) upon the natural world that exists outside of a conscious entity of subject. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/105 "2011-01-03T20:36:48Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Yes, but a moon that nobody happens to be perceiving isn’t the mind of anybody. It’s, like, the opposite of your example. Nope. The moon _is being perceived_ – _in my imagination_. But it by definition cannot be objectively perceived. Hence, it is subjective. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I don’t see where “meaningful” requires function/use/purpose on top of intelligibility; shall we break out the dictionaries again? I extracted those words directly from my dictionary’s primary definition. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Sadly, that falls apart if the dictionary doesn’t define “properties” as “that which have been observed” Do you understand that, in the natural world (the relevant context), properties are _by definition_ those things that are measured about matter? Suppose you have a particle. What are its properties? Well, we have no idea until we measure them. \ Oh, now we know its _properties_. Its mass and charge seem to indicate it is an electron… > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > If we briefly assume that for the sake of argument – which I’m loath to do until you can find a cite – would any claim be objective, or would everything be mind-dependent? Here is a [cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann.2FWigner_interpretation:_consciousness_causes_the_collapse) (don’t trust me?). There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics that are or have been prominently held which posit that objectively reality does not exist until measured. In fact, the measurement [problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem) of quantum mechanics implies that this question is at the very heart of quantum mechanics. To answer your question: everything would neither be objective nor mind-dependent. But one coherent reality would not exist until _observed_. In a sense this is true of all interpretations of quantum mechanics. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/106 "2011-01-04T03:24:47Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Looks like my strategy of explicitly repeating myself was futile. Go back and read it again, mr. comprehend-a-lot. You have been saying that _the theorem that they exist objectively_ is true. I think I’ve spotted your mistake. What kicked off all of this was the following: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Do you or do you not agree that the example I gave was: > > > > 1. philosophy (if not, please tell me what it is) > > and > > 2. subjective in nature > > The moon-is-cheese proposition? As far as I can tell, it was neither philosophy nor subjective; it strikes me as an objective claim about a purely physical phenomenon. At the time, you seemed to understand what I’d written; you disagreed with it, and I disagreed with _ **that,** _ but what’s key is that you got my position right: “You think that the following: _Proposition: The moon is made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties_ Is an objective claim? Then you don’t understand what “objective” means. Any claim that is undecidable is by definition not objective.” You have, at some point, incorrectly moved on to figuring I’ve said it was true; don’t do that. As per your initial question and response, I’ve been focusing on whether it’s an objective or subjective statement, not whether it’s a true or false one. (And when you then asked about a weather-controlling elephant, I replied that _“it either objectively exists or objectively doesn’t, that’s for sure – and anyone who claims that such an elephant exists would be talking about objective facts rather than merely relaying a matter of subjective taste.”_ I then mentioned that the cheese-moon “either exists, or doesn’t, out there in a mind-independent reality”.) All of that happened before the post you’re replying to, when I _ **again** _ reiterated that I’ve been saying"the claim you made was objective in nature, not that it was true." You’re demonstrably failing to comprehend what was repeatedly spelled out for you – first as a direct answer to your chosen question, and on and on throughout thereafter. Anyhow, to bring on the nested quotes: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > [QUOTE=wiki] > > a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgements made by a conscious entity or subject > > How is that which cannot be tested outside of one’s own mind (the unfalsifiable cheese-moon for example) in agreement with the above definition of an objective proposition? to which you replied: [QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper] Because the definition says nothing about testability. [/QUOTE] Evading the basic chain of logic: If the condition of truth is explicitly not judgements made by a conscious entity or subject, then those conditions are implicitly an observation or test (whatever word you care to dumbly object to) upon the natural world that exists outside of a conscious entity of subject. [/QUOTE] But the conditions are _ **not** _ implicitly an observation or test; there’s nothing at all implicit about the specified conditions; they’re _ **explicitly** _ defined in terms of being mind-independent, which rules out any mind-dependent word you care to insert. That’s precisely why the Wiki definition _ **doesn’t** _ include any mind-dependent test or observation; it’s out to do the exact _ **opposite,** _ by requiring the truth conditions to be mind-independent. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I don’t see where “meaningful” requires function/use/purpose on top of intelligibility; shall we break out the dictionaries again? > > I extracted those words directly from my dictionary’s primary definition. …which you don’t provide. Convenient, that. I’ll respond in kind: the primary definition given for “meaningful” is, unsurprisingly, “intended to show meaning” – where “meaning” is primarily defined in terms of “what it expresses or represents”, with no requirement of more. What dictionary are you using? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Sadly, that falls apart if the dictionary doesn’t define “properties” as “that which have been observed” > > Do you understand that, in the natural world (the relevant context), properties are by definition those things that are measured about matter? Suppose you have a particle. What are its properties? Well, we have no idea until we measure them. \ Oh, now we know its properties. But if those properties are mind-independent, then whether or not you know them is by definition _ **irrelevant** _ to whether it has those properties. As per the Wiki cite you’re unaccountably fond of: “If it is true that reality is mind-independent, it is thus inclusive of objects that are unknown”. I’ll then refer back to the dictionary definition of “properties”, which _ **likewise** _ doesn’t require them to have been observed. While I like the move where you parenthetically introduce a quick assertion about what you assume is the relevant context, I’m not interested in so limiting the discussion. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > If we briefly assume that for the sake of argument – which I’m loath to do until you can find a cite – would any claim be objective, or would everything be mind-dependent? > > Here is a cite (don’t trust me?). Well, no; the bit you lopped off there was your claim that “A large portion of physicists believe that it is not.” I wanted a cite as to whether a large portion of physicists believe that. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Yes, but a moon that nobody happens to be perceiving isn’t the mind of anybody. It’s, like, the opposite of your example. > > Nope. The moon is being perceived – in my imagination. Er, no; you’re _ **not** _ perceiving the moon when you’re merely imagining the moon. Good heavens, do you think you can collapse a probability waveform by [del]perceiving it[/del] imagining it? Would you testify under oath that you witnessed a murder if you only ever, y’know, visualized it? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/107 "2011-01-04T03:53:51Z")
I think we are well past the basic subject of the OP and far into the realm of GD. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/108 "2011-01-04T05:16:15Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > …which you don’t provide. Convenient, that. What, you’re suggesting I am lying? This is absurd, considering the definition I provided can be found in a variety of sources ([here](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning) was the very first google result), pretty much all you have to do is google. Incredibly easy to verify. But you didn’t do that. Apparently I have to babysit you through this process of basic communication. (Btw, the dictionary I was using was Dictionary v2.1.3 for the Macintosh – the most convenient option for me). This is hopeless. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/109 "2011-01-04T05:28:11Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, no; the bit you lopped off there was your claim that “A large portion of physicists believe that it is not.” I wanted a cite as to whether a large portion of physicists believe that. This has to be one of the most desperate, idiotic things I have been confronted with in a SDMB discussion in weeks. You want me to cite you a study regarding the percentage of physicists’ opinions on the question of reality being mind-independent? This is sort of like asking for a study regarding mathematicians’ opinion on whether 2+2=4. I doubt such a study exists; the best I can do is assure you that as an expert in the field, it is true. I can also cite the [measurement problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem) in quantum mechanics. Read. Go to town. You could stand to learn something. The fact is (and this is absolutely basic, run-of-the-mill quantum mechanics 101) that reality is not well-defined until a measurement takes place. Physicists are of different opinion on the interpretation of this fact; many believe (and I cited examples in my previous post) that there _is no reality_ until measurement. Perhaps read about Wheeler’s (one of the greats) “Participatory anthropic principle”. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/110 "2011-01-04T05:34:32Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > At the time, you seemed to understand what I’d written; you disagreed with it, and I disagreed with _ **that,** _ but what’s key is that you got my position right: “You think that the following: _Proposition: The moon is made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties_ Is an objective claim? Then you don’t understand what “objective” means. Any claim that is undecidable is by definition not objective.” And I have been repeating (this will be the fourth time now… it is clear you simply do not understand it) the exact same understanding of your position: _the theorem that [the moon being made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties] exist[s] objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found_ (This time I have replaced “they” with the relevant reference in brackets, since it is the only way I can make this any clearer) ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/111 "2011-01-04T05:56:41Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Yes, but a moon that nobody happens to be perceiving isn’t the mind of anybody. It’s, like, the opposite of your example. > > > > Nope. The moon is being perceived – in my imagination. > > Er, no; you’re not perceiving the moon when you’re merely imagining the moon. Good heavens, do you think you can collapse a probability waveform by perceiving it imagining it? Would you testify under oath that you witnessed a murder if you only ever, y’know, visualized it? I can’t imagine you are debating in good faith with these semantic games. Is this how you try to “win” an argument? By obfuscation? Of course one can perceive something without collapsing its wave-function – it merely has to be a hallucination (or any subjective mental phenomena involving ones imagination and the perceptive centers of the brain). We are discussing a moon that is made of cheese (but only when NOT looked at or measured in any way). So it is in every case completely indistinguishable from the ordinary moon. This cheese-moon cannot be perceived objectively, by definition. Note when I say “by definition”, I am referring to the first sentence in this paragraph… the part in parentheticals… can you go back and look at it? See it? See the definition? This cheese-moon cannot be perceived objectively _by definition_. In other words, if I declare that “the cheese moon exists!” and invite others to objectively verify my claim, it will not be objectively verifiable _in principle_. This is in contrast to the fact that I can nonetheless go ahead and posit, _subjectively_, that such a thing exists. Effectively, the cheese-moon, if posited, must by elimination be a subjective aesthetic. Why not the pepperoni moon? Both are equally unprovable and unfalsifiable… the opinion is subjective, even though you seem to be confused by the fact that the subjective opinion is regarding what _could_ (under other circumstances, namely if it weren’t impossible _in principle_) be objective. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bith_Shuffle)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/112 "2011-01-04T06:00:35Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Being an effective philosopher inherently requires a fairly comprehensive macro perspective of human motivations and behavior. These are things autistic people lack, almost by definition. So your answer is no. This is absolutely false. Much of philosophy, such as Logic or Metaphysics, does not even concern people except in some tangential sense. More importantly, you can deal with questions of consciousness or language without having an intuitive grasp of others’ emotions. ---
**Author:** ![ecco477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b2d939/32.png) [@ecco477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ecco477)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/113 "2011-01-04T11:58:03Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but [Temple Grandin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin)suffers from autism and came up with a bunch of new practices for the humane handling of livestock on cattle ranches and slaughterhouses. It’s not exactly philosophy (at least not human philosophy…maybe cow philosophy), but it’s certainly seems more abstract than counting cards and other feats of math. Excellent example. In order to be “philosophical” you have to be a deep thinker about life…cows ARE life! And she changed their lives forever BECAUSE of her philosophy…do unto others as you would have them do unto you(not a direct quote, Temple is very empathetic) She could literally feel and see what the cows were experiencing, and it devastated her. So her moral code and deep thinking changed things forever. She not only thought deep thoughts, but acted on them. Something most humans don’t have the faith in their own philosophies to do! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/114 "2011-01-04T13:41:48Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > What, you’re suggesting I am lying? This is absurd, considering the definition I provided can be found in a variety of sources ([here](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning) was the very first google result), pretty much all you have to do is google. Incredibly easy to verify. But you didn’t do that. Apparently I have to babysit you through this process of basic communication. The link you just provided gives the following for the primary definition: > [@](#): > > 1. > > what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word. I agree with that definition. I _ **adore** _ that definition. The entire reason I wanted you to supply a definition was because I’d hoped you’d provide something that backed my argument rather than yours; you have. Remember, my position is that “meaningful” merely needs to convey something intelligible; you’re the one trying to insert a requirement beyond that. It’s incredibly easy to verify which of us was correct; you’ve just done so. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > At the time, you seemed to understand what I’d written; you disagreed with it, and I disagreed with that, but what’s key is that you got my position right: “You think that the following:\* Proposition: The moon is made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties\* Is an objective claim? Then you don’t understand what “objective” means. Any claim that is undecidable is by definition not objective.” > > And I have been repeating (this will be the fourth time now… it is clear you simply do not understand it) the exact same understanding of your position: > > the theorem that [the moon being made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties] exist[s] objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found But that’s not mere repetition; you’re now changing the item under discussion. Look carefully at that italicized bit you’d typed out: your question there pertains to whether it’s an objective claim. Your restatement here regards whether existence is proven until objective evidence is found – which is a completely different point. I’m making an objective claim – possibly true, possibly false – when I make a statement about objective facts; proving whether it’s objectively true or false is a different kind of undertaking, requiring all sorts of unrelated concepts and terminology, which the English language naturally provides. Whether something tastes good is _ **also** _ a different kind of undertaking, for which we have yet another perfectly intelligible word at hand: subjective. > [@](#): > > This cheese-moon cannot be perceived objectively by definition. In other words, if I declare that “the cheese moon exists!” and invite others to objectively verify my claim, it will not be objectively verifiable in principle. This is in contrast to the fact that I can nonetheless go ahead and posit, subjectively, that such a thing exists. Whether you can _ **posit** _ the cheese-moon is irrelevant to whether you can _ **perceive** _ it – subjectively or objectively. Likewise, that it may not be objectively verifiable – in principle or in practice – is irrelevant to whether it happens to _ **be** _ objectively true or false; whether we can know whether something is true or false is a separate question from whether it _ **is** _ true or false. > [@](#): > > Of course one can perceive something without collapsing its wave-function – it merely has to be a hallucination (or any subjective mental phenomena involving ones imagination and the perceptive centers of the brain). Er, no. The reason you don’t collapse the wave-function of that “something” when you’re merely dealing with a hallucination of it is because you’re dealing with the subjective hallucination instead of the objective “something”. > [@](#): > > You want me to cite you a study regarding the percentage of physicists’ opinions on the question of reality being mind-independent? Only if you’re going to post that “A large portion of physicists believe that it is not.” You offered that claim. > [@](#): > > I doubt such a study exists Suits me. ---
**Author:** ![ecco477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b2d939/32.png) [@ecco477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ecco477)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/115 "2011-01-04T14:03:35Z")
The posters here are perfect examples of how NOT to be philosophical! Philosophers bask in truth…they do not waste time arguing over petty details…:smack: ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/116 "2011-01-04T18:46:35Z")
> [@The Other Waldo Pepper](#): > > It’s incredibly easy to verify which of us was correct; you’ve just done so. It is nothing but purposefully deceitful to pick out the primary definition of the word from the linked definition as “proving you are right”, when the second definition is the obviously relevant one: _the end, purpose, or significance of something_ ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/117 "2011-01-04T18:52:09Z")
> [@Muad\_Dib](#): > > There are many examples of savants in the fields of mathematics, music, art and memory, but not philosophy. > I have a growing suspicion that many people who were thought of as prophets and great mystics may have been autistic savants in the realm of philosophy. They were people who had become utterly cut off from the world around them and obsessed with the inner, “spiritual” world. The inner, “spiritual” world is not philosophy, though it might touch on it at some points. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/118 "2011-01-04T18:54:55Z")
> [@ecco477](#): > > The posters here are perfect examples of how NOT to be philosophical! > > Philosophers bask in truth…they do not waste time arguing over petty details…:smack: 😕 Have you **ever** read philosophy?! Start with Plato. The “arguing over petty details” are the best parts and the passages where Socrates proclaims the Truth _ex cathedra_ (see the _Phaedo)_ are the worst. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/119 "2011-01-04T18:57:44Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But that’s not mere repetition; you’re now changing the item under discussion. Actually, no. Again, the only logical response is that you are intentionally obfuscating. I have merely taken the statement from post [98](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13311266&postcount=98): _the theorem that they exist objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found_ And substituted for ‘they’ the relevant example of ‘objects that are unknown’ referred to in the previous sentence. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/120 "2011-01-04T18:58:27Z")
In answer to the OP, Immanuel Kant was probably the philosopher Most Likely to Be Diagnosed as an Idiot Savant. (Nietzsche’s diagnosis would be far more interesting.) But, in most cases, you have to look at a philosopher’s **biography** to determine that sort of thing; reading his books will provide little insight. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579.md?page=7)