Background to The Complexify Lab
My name is Mil Williams. I’m on LinkedIn here. This is my CV — variegated for sure.
:-)
My goal in developing the philosophy and potential practice of Complexify, and now its related Lab, is to create neurodiverse thinking tools, platforms, technologies and ultimately new software and hardware architectures, in order to solve complex, not complicated, problems.
Problems such as those that democracies — with relatively short democratic and sociopolitical cycles, and therefore also, quite often, short attention spans — face when geopolitical behaviours delivered by nation states with a more effective, usually because anti-democratic, capability to think and strategise long-term lead to tragedies such as Syria, Ukraine, and now, it seems clear, Sudan; and maybe, in the end, dare we suggest, even the recent pandemic.
Then there are other big challenges such as climate change which seem to escape our capacity to resolve them coherently when, mainly, we have chosen historically to simplify in order to solve what we can, instead of complexify in order to deal with what we must.
What next?
On this introductory page you can find some things I’ve said recently in respect of what I want to achieve in the Complexify project, quoted directly not out of a desire to hear my voice repeated but so you can get a sense of a developing set of thought processes, conducted I hope in good faith.
If you prefer to go straight to the pages where I describe the constituent parts of The Complexify Lab, and how I propose creating a business and technological model that satisfies all deserving stakeholders in an example beachhead sector which would be law enforcement, security & espionage, and the military need to strategise long-term more creatively against an ever more creative community of enemy states and outlier actors, start directly by clicking here.
Note: this suggested beachhead is just one sector I have a bit more domain knowledge about. Here’s a presentation which uses climate change as the common denominator, as well as battle-of-almost-attrition we are already arguably suffering from. Complex (not complicated) problems in need of neurodiverse solutioning methods are many: that is, using such proposed non-traditional technologies to support human beings into being greater versions of themselves, generation after generation and into a more collective future-present, I propose we will then be capable of dealing with much more.
First, then, some quotes:
I want to be the Marie Curie of intuition: the Eurofighter in its first manifestation of unstable and — because of this — fabulously dynamic human flight. I want to explore all intuition: as deeply as we can go, and as dangerously as is safely retrievable. And I want my role in all of this to be buttressed, supported and enabled by a team I work in who organise the long-term funding, finances and strategising of a lab where I am its subject: striving all the time to understand the downsides as well as enjoy the upsides of capturing all intuitive thinking and then validating it in hyper-respectful, inside-out ways that optimise, enhance and expand our current intuitive capacities.
*
[There] needs to exist time for me to also expose myself — in meta-cognitive and auto-ethographic ways — to the radioactivity of gut feeling, and similar.
These, then, are my wishes in all of this. Where I absolutely do add value no one can deny: exposing myself to arational radioactivity in psychologically protected but assertively deepening ways, either way.
*
The final goal of the four Workstreams (A, B, C and D) that I propose is Workstream D: what in other posts I have called the “intuition lab” that would be for intuition what Marie Curie was for radioactivity research.
And I would be the very first subject to run the deepest of risks in exploring and upskilling us all in a distributed genius across all levels of organisational hierarchies. There would need to exist an ongoing and constant psychological support and recovery process in place so this did not become unsustainable or impossible for me and other subjects. Like a kind of depressurising tool or space every time one emerged from deep intuition exploration.
The Complexify Lab: Workstreams A, B, C and D
Some thoughts I had this morning:
I'll be incorporating [some of these] project [proposals] in the new whitepaper and portfolio I termed just today "The Complexify Lab". One such example is this one:
There will be a dotcom version of the project’s domains (corporate and lab) for going forward with the four Workstreams A, B, C and D which I sketched out further yesterday, in the morning's post [see the last quote on this page, below].
I am softening fast on who can be included in Workstream A as inputting on their needs and ideas, too: that is, effectively co-creation. The idea being to add in to the US big-tech organisations located in Ireland and delivering with Irish-based personnel, for existing traditional, only privacy-sensitive (or maybe even less than) architectures & IT-tech, UK-based interests, too.
Some of my projects came to a halt a year or so ago because the UK technologists who carried out initial discovery refused to permit secrecy-positive ideas.
I've thought a lot about what happened then, and my ideas around four Workstreams to enable all positions and philosophies of IT-tech to have a comfortable place at the table of my intuition-validation ideas have emerged as a result of my wanting to remain the essentially inclusive imagineer and tech thinker I have always aimed to be.
And have emerged from deep reflection on my part, too.
So: the UK has a place, yes; not just its military but also its security and espionage interests, if they so wish.
Not Workstreams B, C and D: just A. But the British have never believed in the significance of binding democratic stakeholders together by respecting citizen privacy: they've believed in preserving the necessary peace by deep observation and permanent inspection.
That's a valid choice. It now has its place: Workstream A (as per yesterday [see the last quote on this page, below]) with US big-tech located in Ireland, as well as partners who may wish to return after a year and half of their own reflection.
I actually hope they do.
Meantime, the fundamental Marie Curie-style intuition research — the laboratory I want us to build in order that people like me may expose ourselves to the most terrifyingly fabulous skillsets that serve one day to prevent future Putinism and Ukraines of the awful longitudinal processes we're all currently suffering from — will be firmly embedded in Workstreams C and D: the secrecy-sensitive and secrecy-positive ones.
In this sense, then, maybe, Workstream B can be a safe and commercially deliverable nexus between the firmly traditional architectures of big-tech and big-government since forever and the newly creative and heavily research-based approaches I advocate for C and D.
So trad in big-tech, Ireland, the US and now the UK, delivering direct-to-market and practical products and services to keep the cashflow rolling; whilst the paradigm-shifting delivery lies in Scandinavia, particularly Sweden and its own partners of choice: and eventually informing everything.
Some things on the same subject I wrote on previous days:
I suggest that direct-to-market Workstream A, licensed by the holding, be located in Ireland and be delivered by Irish/US big-tech located there, using existent software and chip architectures, including AI and metaverse tech duly tweaked, innovated and repurposed.
Workstreams B, C and D, meanwhile, shall be the job of Sweden and a wider Scandinavia's specific and existent capacity to think human/tech interfaces and processes from a massive scratch.
It's also suggested that Workstream A and B may overlap for the duration of the project in varying degrees.
But the deep nexus between everything will be the Marie Curie-style intuition lab which will kick in for Workstreams C and D, and whose structure and focus will then be able to deliver on the most profound and pure human capacity to think intuitively ever seen in our history.
The benefits for all Workstreams will be present, of course: just varying, and mediated by the rationales each way of understanding tech will demand of us all.