>>12004448>>12004461Again, you seem unwilling or unable to understand the simple fact that what has been produced by neuralink, the company, and the scientific community at large (including the ones who later founded neuralink) are dichotomous. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, and I'm not in the habit of repeating myself so this'll be the last time I say it. If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem.
>It is their company.This is irrelevant, for the above reason.
>That's true. Nobody ever denied that.So for all intents and purposes the claim that "it was tested on monkeys" is false, since we have no way to verify its veracity. It's the null hypothesis we have to go with until the converse is shown.
>Quote me where I did that.I did, several times. You claimed repeatedly that I've said their device doesn't work. I never did.
>The affiliation is mentioned because...?In order to re-package an existing device so that Musk can try to sell it to the public as if it is somehow something new, which it isn't.
>Oof, maybe check this guy's post Benjamin Rapoport: Electrical and software engineer, and MD
Dongjin Seo: Electrical engineer
Max Hodak: Self-proclaimed "reality engineer"
Paul Merolla: Computer scientist
Philip Sabes: Has an engineering background but has been working in neuroscience for a long time, so close enough (1/3)
Tim Gardner: Neuroscientist (2/3)
Tim Hanson: Statistician and mathematician
Vanessa Tolosa: Biophysicist
Do your homework buddy.
>You're not a scientist.Not that it's particularly relevant here but I am.
Anyway, enjoy the thread. I won't be replying anymore.
