For the fourth time now, David Eagleman, neuroscientist to the stars, asked me when I am I coming to Houston to work with him directly. My answer is, as always, as soon as I have the resources to join you I’m on da plane.
I know I project a sense of confidence on this blog, but the truth is that I am at the end of my rope, and I need the support of the community that believes in the same ideas and possibilities that I believe in.
This trip to Houston is not frivolous. It is a key component to my future career that I have been honored with, and wish desperately to fulfill.
If this can’t happen soon, it might not happen at all. Many students, struggling with debt themselves, are paid to come join this program, but I am, as always, the exception to the rule. If you know me at all, you know how difficult it is for me to ask for help. But this is the big one, it’s important.
All it would take is for every one of you to reach into your heart and give me 10 cents. It’s so simple, and dumb. And I’m embarrassed to even ask, but your support would mean so much to not only me, but to the experts that are starting to believe in me as well.
Also, my cat just died in my arms. But you know, no pressure.
Philosophy may someday dissolve into psychology and psychology into neurology, but since the lesson of neuro is that thoughts change brains as much as brains thoughts, the reduction may not reduce much that matters. As Montaigne wrote, we are always double in ourselves. Or, as they say on the Enterprise, it takes all kinds to run a starship.
Face-to-face diplomacy has long been the lynchpin of international politics, yet it has largely been dismissed as irrelevant in theories of cooperation and conflict—as “cheap talk” because leaders have incentives to dissemble. However, diplomats and leaders have argued for years that there is often no substitute for personally meeting a counterpart to hash out an agreement. This article argues that face-to-face diplomacy provides a signaling mechanism thatincreases the likelihood of cooperation. Face-to-face meetings allow individuals to transmit information and empathize with each other, thereby reducing uncertainty, even when they have strong incentives to distrust the other. The human brain has discrete architecture and processes devoted to parsing others’ intentions via cues in face-to-face interaction. These processes enable actors to directly access the intentions of others with a higher degree of certainty than economic and gametheoretic models of bargaining predict.
That’s real nice that the Harvard researchers who did the bbi with the rat tail got a little sun:
And the end goal, of course, is to establish a human-to-human brain connection [via]
…before the UW human bbi interface guys showed up just a few weeks later. Doesn’t necessarily mean neuroscience is moving fast, just that interscience communication is down, and many are happy that way.
When military research is open access, you got problems academia.