[FRIAM] by any means necessary

[glen]

I mentioned GurusPod's evaluation of Schmachtenberger:

https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/daniel-schmachtenberger-jamie-wheal-jordan-hall-making-sense-about-making-sense-of-sensemaking

but couldn't find the tally of scores. A friend found it for me. Here it is:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oe-af4_OmzLJavktcSKGfP0wmxCX0ppP8n_Tvi9l_yc/edit#gid=0

My favorite guru, https://www.youtube.com/c/ContraPoints, scores rather low (μ∘μ = 1.5). Schmachtenberger ⇒ 4.05. I'd love to see some others on the list, like Gregory Bateson, Stuart Kauffman, Stephen Wolfram, etc. But GurusPod is more interested in modern pop. Kids these days are unlikely to be hypnotized by doorstop books full of words. Peter Thiel or Elon Musk might be good suggestions, though. I'm sure they're on the radar.


On 2/15/22 11:56, glen wrote:
> Excellent! Thanks. However, it's also important to note that the lawsuit is against UC Davis, not Neuralink. So, to whatever extent that Neuralink funding, mixed with tax payer funding, drives university research (and possibly other things like overhead or paying a percentage of salary for some with teaching loads, etc.), those backseating costs can deeply impact whatever it is we call a research university.
> 
> I'm about halfway into my "evaluation" of https://consilienceproject.org/. What I've seen so far has a healthy plating (I was going to say veneer, but that's too thin) of pretty words. But those pretty words sound a tiny bit like Neuralink's corporatized strawman/response to these accusations. I bring up Consilience because it's placed in between a for-profit company and a research university. On Consilience's About page, you see 2 ethical commitments:
> 
> • collective attribution of authorship, and
> • transparency in methodology
> 
> These may seem a bit contradictory to some observers. My guess is that, given some time and effort (maybe even semi-automated NLP computation), I could ferret out who wrote which featured article. What I'd like to be transparent is who contributes what to each article. (This is a professional task I have to some extent with my clients ... so it's not mere hobby.)
> 
> Going back to the lawsuit against UC Davis and the 3 example spectrum (and perhaps even the political tangent SteveS raised), where does Neuralink end and UC Davis begin? In our capitalist society, is it reasonable for Neuralink to be less susceptible to the flattening you describe by aggregating (not summing over) all subjects' projections from a high-dimensional construct?
> 
> We see a similar thread in the "academic free speech" rhetoric the alt-right is pushing these days (though there are lefty exceptions) ... aka when is an academic not talking as an academic? And in the Barret and Gorsuch exhortations that they're not partisan hacks ... even when talking at a partisan event.
> 
> [sigh] I know these fluffy issues aren't interesting to most people. It's way easier to shut up and calculate. But not only are they interesting to me, I think they're necessary, then, now, and later.


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ