Invention or Discovery?

[From Hank Folson 960916]

With Bruce Abbott's introduction of Simon, and Hans Blom's comments about
the state of PCT, plus my perception that in several threads parties on
both sides do not seem to be getting much satisfaction out of the
discourse, I want to talk about the difference between invention and
discovery, as they refer to PCT.

With a PCT bias, I see invention defined as the combining of different
pieces of information in our imagination in a novel way to produce a new
idea (like a theory of human behavior) or a new object (like a better
mouse trap.)

A discovery occurs when something that already exists in nature is finally
perceived by someone either by accident (e.g. Columbus & the Americas) or
intentionally (e.g. Newton's Laws of Motion, or the basic structure of all
living organisms).

What is PCT? Invention or discovery? My position is that any theory or
concept about the nature of living organisms must start out as an idea in
someone's imagination. Thus it is initially an invention. Once the idea,
theory, invention has been tested, or proof of the existence of what the
invention claims is found in organisms, the invention now becomes a
discovery.

So what does this have to do with PCT? If PCT is just an invention, we
have many options. An invention only has to be new or different -
regardless of whether it is valid or useful. Thus we can add to or
subtract from the ideas at will, if PCT is just an invention. But if PCT
is a discovery, as I personally believe, then our options are severely
limited. There is no point to adding our personal ideas to the discovery
unless they are compatible with the discovery, or extend the discovery. In
either case, the added ideas eventually must be brought from invention to
discovery in nature. We can (and should) also have personal ideas that
would disprove the theory. These ideas must also be taken from invention
to discovery. In this case, the discovery would be that PCT is wrong.

Please correct me, Hans, but your position is that PCT, and all other
theories of living organisms, are in the invention stage.

Non-PCT researchers and their work are often brought up on CSGnet. Usually
the distinction between invention and discovery is ignored. Their work is
giving standing it does not merit, because it is in the invention stage,
not the discovery stage.

Bruce Abbott, I believe you are looking at inventions (e.g., some of
Simon's thoughts), and treating them as discoveries. The problem I have
with the Simon discussion goes farther: The discussion is based only on
_your_ perception of Simon's statements. Thus disagreement is inevitable,
as others have _their_ perceptions of Simon's statements. You are all
wasting your time discussing Simon in this way, because until you
communicate with Simon, there is no way to go from invention to discovery.

I do want to make clear that Simon's or anyone else's statements can be
used as a starting point for discussion. Any statement, whether classed as
invention or discovery or neither, can lead to other thoughts and
discussion which might further our knowledge of PCT, or even blow PCT
right out of the water. But it is foolish, and a waste of energy, to spend
any time on the statements themselves. Their value to us and PCT lies only
in what we do with them.

The speed and effectiveness of PCT research can be improved if we always
ask, "Is this invention or discovery?", and focus our efforts on
determining if the inventions can be developed into discoveries.

Sincerely, Hank Folson

[From Bruce Gregory 960916.1120 EDT)]

(Hank Folson 960916)

With a PCT bias, I see invention defined as the combining of different
pieces of information in our imagination in a novel way to produce a new
idea (like a theory of human behavior) or a new object (like a better
mouse trap.)

A discovery occurs when something that already exists in nature is finally
perceived by someone either by accident (e.g. Columbus & the Americas) or
intentionally (e.g. Newton's Laws of Motion, or the basic structure of all
living organisms).

An alternative way of looking at the situation is that Newton's
Laws of Motion are an invention. What Newton discovered is that
his invention described the way the world behaves. PCT is Bill
Powers invention. What Bill and many others have discovered is
that this invention describes the way living systems work.

Bruce

[from Wayne Hershberger]

When Linus Pauling was asked by the host of a NOVA program how he had
discovered the laws of chemical compounding for which the Nobel committee
had honored him, he replied, looking directly into the camera, "I made it
up." Obviously, Linus Pauling has his head screwed on straight.

Wayne A. Hershberger Email: wah@niu.edu
Department of Psychology Fax: (815) 753-8088
Northern Illinois University Phone: (815) 753-7097
DeKalb, IL 60115

[Hans Blom, 960916c]

(Hank Folson 960916?)

With a PCT bias, I see invention defined as the combining of
different pieces of information in our imagination in a novel way
to produce a new idea (like a theory of human behavior) or a new
object (like a better mouse trap.)

A discovery occurs when something that already exists in nature is
finally perceived by someone either by accident (e.g. Columbus & the
Americas) or intentionally (e.g. Newton's Laws of Motion, or the
basic structure of all living organisms).

A great many things have been written about how people "invent" or
"discover" something, none of them very satisfactory to me. Most
texts stress the irrational element: it happens, but we don't know
quite how. It's not a logical process; we cannot get there by
deduction. Others stress the other side of the coin: in an exhaustive
search process, everything can and will be invented (if you stress
the active aspect) or discovered (if you stress the passive aspect).

Both views are, without doubt, correct. The problems with an
exhaustive search are, however, that it takes so long and that it
will not be immediately clear which of the great many new discoveries
will be useful. Early AI programs (theorem provers) took this route,
and these programs were indeed able to (re)invent known theorems
given only axioms. But they generated a lot of junk as well (junk in
the sense that those theorems, although true, are seemingly of no use
-- maybe until someone discovers an application for them).

Since brains are so slow and unreliable, they are of no use in an
exhaustive search, except maybe when a search domain is small. Newton
undoubtedly did not try out all possible functions before he found
the "right" one; he had the luck that his functions are relatively
simple and that his observations told him much about how to constrain
the search. The brain does what one could call a "heuristic search",
the laws of which are still very much unknown. Yet it will find a new
result once in a while. If that result is perceived as significant
(by others!), we call it an invention or discovery.

Please correct me, Hans, but your position is that PCT, and all
other theories of living organisms, are in the invention stage.

So it must be clear by now that I have a different way of looking at
inventions and discoveries. They are much the same thing to me.
Discovery has more the aspect of a single notion (discovering
America), invention more the aspect of combinining already known
notions into a new result. But the difference may not be that clear.
Does a theorem prover "invent" a new theorem (by combining its
axioms) and do we then "discover" that theorem (as an interesting
output of the program)?

You say that a "discovery occurs when something that already exists
in nature is finally perceived by someone" ...

If that is the case, every single human life is full of discoveries.
Discoveries are normal, and even cocktail talk -- let's try to see
the positive side -- is mostly transfer of what one person thinks of
as a discovery to someone else. But usually pretty uninteresting to
the listener. But I'm sure that's not what you mean by a discovery.
You see it as something great and special.

But what is it exactly that Columbus discovered? America? That new
word is surely an invention -- or the reuse of an existing name for
something else. New land? New land was being discovered all the time.
I think that it was the _usefulness_ of the new land that made it a
_significant_ discovery. And it seems that we have the tendency to
attach the word "discovery" to the very significant ones only.

And is an _intentional_ discovery (e.g. Newton's Laws of Motion) a
discovery or an invention? We would call it the former, probably, if
no conscious searching was performed. Or if we make the (common)
mistake that the finding is not a human invention but an objectively
given "something that already exists in nature".

I'm not sure whether this is of any help...

Greetings,

Hans