Ladies and Gentlemen,
Upon being invited to speak to you this evening, I was given two valuable guidelines: I was advised that my audience would be comprised primarily of active inventors and patent attorneys and that I should not talk too long. Both of these are very agreeable restraints. Knowing that one cannot reasonably develop an idea of any importance in less than five minutes and that one must make an introductory announcement of a theme to be enlarged on and some kind of a summing up, that left me an opportunity to choose four topics.
As many of you are inventors, I would like to talk a little about the theory of invention, a topic that often gets lost in the big process of invention and marketing of inventions. Next I would like to explore matrix inversion, third level education and the possibility of' applying invention theory to the process of invention and innovation with possible real benefits. Next I plan to explore briefly the problem of laws and regulations designed for the convenience of law makers, regulating bodies and the advocates who must interpret and apply these predominantly adversary rules. Is there a chance for introduction of quantitative optimization into these procedures? Finally, I hope to explore a few experimental beginnings toward application of the matrix inversion concept to systems inventions and innovations, a place where I believe we can reverse the present national trend toward stagnation and unsuccessful competition with other nations where some of these ideas are being applied with devastating effectiveness.
Now to begin the examination of invention and its theory, let me remind you that every inventor, especially the novice inventor and the one invention inventor who wants to make a career of it, have a heavy ego investment in the mystique of invention. If invention can be reduced to a procedure that can be carried out by any reasonably intelligent, hard working individual, then where is the glory that inheres in being that near genius thing called an inventor? Certainly there is true genius displayed in some inventions and in some inventors who time after time and in novel areas come through with magnificent solutions to problems, but we should not restrict our praise to those who invent devices and preparations. Much genius is displayed in discovery of mathematical relationships and their algorithmic formulation. Business and social insights as well as political statesmanship may contain a large share of inventive innovation.
I find that most inventions are made by one of five techniques. These techniques are seldom clearly recognized by the inventor; who usually is unaware of using a technique that he has developed intuitively and by the school of hard knocks, and all too often he becomes a specialist in one mode of invention and is unaware of the increased versatility he could gain by practicing the alternatives when the primary skill stalls or circles unproductively.
Let me examine the most prominent styles of invention that I recognize and
perhaps you will find yourself in one or more of them.
1. We can invent by deductively monitored deliberate controlled inductive aberration. In simple terms, we can invent by making hypotheses that are deliberately just slightly illogical and then examining the implications deductively to see whether the slight aberration is a new valid principle.
2. We can invent by linguistic translation. We state a problem in one form and translate it into a nearly equivalent, already solved scenario.
3. We can invent by linguistic reformulation. This is analogous to mathematical change of variable procedure and is quite different from the translation of topic 2.
4. We can invent by matrix inversion, e.g. we study the problem from the answer end instead of the usual question end.
5. We can invent by code-message reformulation. It is quite possible to generate, deliberately, figures of thought in which new solutions to problems become obvious. These “Figure of Thought” packages can be mathematical, technical, computer implementable, or in everyday language terms.
Probably Mode 1 is more common than one would expect. Einstein's special relativity
theory is just such a case where one makes the slightly dubious assumption that
time is just another one of the boys among the three familiar dimensional coordinates
but gives it an air of traditional respectability by assigning it a negative
sign. This turns out to work very well in explaining much of the Newtonian physics
that got into trouble when we began to work with particles and astronomical
dynamics of very fast moving objects. I was able to use essentially this
identical strategy in developing a “Happening“ formulation of the space-time
package where we introduce a new but very familiar variable ‘H' for happening
and let it have symmetrical dimensions of X, Y, Z and T. This and an
inverted version have led to very useful compaction algorithms for multivariate
data and in the hands of Jerry Cox has a computer implementation known as the
AZTEC code in which you report only when something happens in one of the variables
instead of endlessly repeating in computer sampling jargon “nothing new”, “nothing
new”. Another example is the conversion of the Cal Tech “Phony Pony” four legged
robot into a bi-triped robpt that
we discover has been anticipated in the six legged insect and its gaits. If
you were a horseman, you would love being the six legged version of running,
trotting, walking, cantering, etc. The key idea is that a tripod is intrinsically
stable so that the animalor robot can stand on one tripod while preparing to
move to a new position.
2) Linguistic reformulation is a beautifully simple form of invention once you catch on to the idea and know at least two or three substantially different technical trades and their jargons, say, for example, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and biology or medicine. I can attest personally to the utility of this approach. Long years ago I tried in a Ph.D. thesis problem to embody the essentials of nerve axon impulse transmission into an electronic simulation - a fifteen element iterative analog simulation computer - which was a little far-out at the time. To implement the supposed all or none decisiveness of the nerve stimulation lore, there was necessary a “decisive” yes or no circuit that would not sit on the fence between 0 and 1 and dither. I cooked up a simple electronic trigger circuit for this purpose that worked well and subsequently discovered that a young and rising computer industry needed just this kind of a decisive element to perpetuate the fiction, deeply embedded in almost all digital computers, that truth comes in only two shades, yes and no, black or white, grey truth values having been outlawed for c convenience. It is entertaining that yesterday, just as I was talking with your respected Mr. Earl Reiland , I was presented with a copy of an entirely unauthorized commercial announcement trumpeting a new approach to this goal.
3) Linguistic reformulation is quite another aspect of invention. We frequently
find that the established language contains inside itself a guarantee of failure.
An example of this is found in modern medicine where computers strive to find
the value of something that is intrinsically variable and is bound to be frustrating
until we invent language that contains this idea. We have introduced the concept
of episodality to replace periodicity in studying the processes of the body
such as breathing, heart beating, hormonal cycles, etc. By realizing that a
breath cycle and a heart cycle can be much more accurately described as episodes
with a series of ever present event features following one another in a regular
sequence but not necessarily at a fixed time interval, we suddenly got fine
fits to theory. Recently we have undertaken to synchronize by computer these
two functions in humans by having the computer tell the subject just when to
inhale and when to exhale in order to fit exactly five or another chosen number
of heart heats into one respiratory cycle. The results are fascinating. Suddenly
we get a highly reproducible modulation pattern characteristic of the individual's
brain control patterns and its sensitivity setting of the moment but also discover
a totally unexpected access to so-called “elevated status of consciousness”
besides having a much more precise and reproducible vector electrocardiogram
for diagnosing disease or health state.
4) Matrix inversion is a great hope that is grossly underused. It leads directly to “systems invention” as against device invention and invites device “inventions-to-order“.
Some of the spirit of matrix inversion is embodied in the currently developing medical procedure called Problem oriented Medical Diagnosis. Here instead of testing each of the many known and testable functions and parametric values of the patient, one starts a diagnostic tree by asking what is wrong and then breaking this down into categories according to what one can or should do about it. One can come up with unexpectedly simple diagnostic categories like aspirin and bed rest disease where nobody really cares which virus is operating so long as the care is predictable.
A charmingly simple application of this principle is embodied in the proposal for Family Participating Computer Assisted Health Care in the Home, a theme that we are trying hard to market and implement at the present time. It arises from examining the national crisis we are in with respect to overwhelming costs of health care now escalating to over a tenth of our gross national product and far beyond what is necessary for good if not superlative overall health care. Where does the problem arise? It is intimately related to the tremendously inflated cost of physician, nurse, technician services and the economic costs of moving the subject back and forth from home or office to out-patient service or keeping him in hospital. As we have discovered in auto maintenance, painting and decorating and gardening, we must now do-it-yourself where formerly one hired professionals. With the sudden advent of very inexpensive dedicated microcomputers that can be modularly assembled to meet the patients needs loaded with a detail of an individual's problems and lab data and the appropriate care expertise required, we can now put such a modular machine in the individual‘s home at a lease cost of perhaps 10 dollars per day that will, with the tender loving care of a family member, be nearly the equivalent of a full time attendant doctor-nurse-technician team and that will administer good care very comfortable to the patient, be it an acute ailment recovery, rehabilitation or long terminal illness. Many of us would like their individual facility for daily “how-goes-it” analysis or for physical or mental exercise. I have called some of this Mental jogging to supplement physical jogging.
It is startling to see how an audience of engineers, of laymen, of industrialists
or of physicians will within minutes come up with new and functional modular
functions that could be incorporated into this system and I sincerely hope that
the systems development can be made operative before the microcomputer knows
about organizing for monopolistic benefits.
Code-message reformulation is more difficult but also more rewarding as a mode of invention. Here one must find the key “figures of thought” that conform to the theme of consideration and rebuild them until they are humanly and computer tractrable and comprehensible, yet able to manipulate the subject matter efficiently and accurately. In effect we are solving a problem by providing language in which it will solve itself if handled by reasonably intelligent, diligent and cooperative individuals properly motivated to find solutions - not to extend litigation.
I have addressed this problem as the Level III problem of higher education. We do a fairly good job of level I (Facts and Figures) and level II (how to do it) education, but we fail to introduce level III (how to create new solutions to problems) until Ph.D. level and may even
let then never it hit surface. Time after time I see Ph.D. students working hard and gathering data and analyzing problems solely in terms prescribed by an advisor and never creating a single new concept. This was once the essence of the Doctoral degree and was not to be achieved by any amount of routine competent data gathering and analysis.
Our students are aghast when I suggest that they create new mathematics to meet new needs, especially in the biomedical and social science fields. Really this is no harder than it was in Physics or Chemistry but is not yet stylish. Along this line we have introduced feed-forward theory, vector-point-function transfer, impedance analysis, interpenetrating domain analysis, Spatial Impedivity, Mutual Impedivity Spectrometry and several other such mathematical formulations for biomedical sciences and one can easily see dozens of other new forms to supplement classical forms from the physical sciences.
One place we should be working hard is in applying and adapting optimization
theory to individual, family unit and community quality of life management.
We have simply never been taught the theory and technical methods for practicing
the science and arts of controlled risk-taking to gain optimal benefits, and
our legal and regulatory procedures militate strongly against this happening.
Our adversary legal tradition prompts us to find the other fellow in error, not to find a livable cooperative compromise. Our regulations protect us against specific risks and hazards but only under the table does anyone specify how much we should be protected and at what cost in other hazards or penalties. I have had fun with a set of Ten Commandments for writing good standards. This emphasizes the intent and competence of regulators as against protecting the standard writers. We have yet to see huge suits against FDA, EPA or FAA for damage assignable to their respective safety and protection regulations.
I hope that you are keeping alert to the regulatory trends exemplified by this document that is driving a lot of R & D out of the country.
What can we as inventors, administrators, attorneys and members of the non-vocal public do about it? I believe we can do a great deal and rather quickly if we will undertake a matrix inversion approach and address the problems that block solution rather then doing our usual things and hoping a solution will turn up. We have a little reorganized resource in upcoming reciprocal cable TV assembly.
Perhaps we can get the epidemiology of individually parameterized quality of life studies going. The Santosha index approach shows how to dimension and scale these quality of life costs and benefits but we are woefully short of epidemiological data and manipulative practice.
Can you offer proposals for introducing quantitative optimal goals into 1ega1 regulations to counter the intrinsic hazards and roadblocks of adversary procedure?
Can we use the Readers Digest Syndrome to introduce into high places the rudiments of new tools of thought?
Is there a chance that we can implement a cooperative real life Center for Invention and Technology Utilization? We already know some of its characteristics from the patterns that have succeeded in other successful competition nations. For example, it must not be ‘owned” or heavily dominated by one of its constituencies. At the University I have met difficulties in selling the notion of a center in which it participates strongly but which it does not own or dominate. Industry responds almost identically with good reasons for its response. Government agencies, state, local, federal, are similarly shy about participating in an effort where they may be outvoted. To me there is a fine challenge to managers, marketers and legal minded expert to find a livable track through this morass that will permit success.
5) Perhaps there is promise for nurture in the Stevenson Wydler bill now passed.
I have put together a design for one version of this kind of center in a large
book called a Compendium that is over four inches thick. Yesterday my wife prepared
a second binder that she has labeled Compendium Addendum. In closing I will
show you from this pile of paper one page in which the objectives of this microcosmic
design that looks feasible for the Twin Cities - Minnesota neighborhood
are enumerated. I will welcome your contributions and criticisms to this design.
[See Center for Design…. Speech]