Back when I was just starting graduate school, I remember already feeling as if I understood the components needed for great scientific research: knowledge of a domain, the ability to implement a system or execute an experiment, and a creative insight about a phenomenon worth studying. While the domain knowledge and ability to execute seemed like pre-requisites for doing science at all, the capacity for creativity seemed to the element that separated a great scientist from the good. Since I felt like I was good at identifying creative research, I hoped that once I immersed myself in academia and started gaining domain knowledge and engineering skill, the creative ideas would come to me. Now, almost a year into my PhD program, I feel like I have learned a great deal, but I am left with the question: Where are all those good ideas?
This was the rather bold title of a PARC Forum talk that I attended yesterday.
The talk was given by Dr. Paul A. Rhodes, the CEO of a company called Evolved Machines, which is focused on studying neural circuitry and finding ways to synthesize it artificially. This, in essence, is the “new paradigm” mentioned in the title of the talk: the old paradigm being the basis of artificial intelligence on symbolic logic.
So, I’m in the middle of reading John Thackara’s In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World, and just finished a pretty interesting section on how our perception of the passage of time changed with the invention of the clock…