From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 10:24:29 MDT
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Mark Walker wrote:
> From: "Anders Sandberg":
>
> > Real innovation cannot be planned, but you can try to set up a climate
> > that benefits innovation.
> >
> Is this a definitional claim or an empirical claim. When the American's
> planned to go to the Moon by the end of the decade was this not a case of
> "real innovation"? From what you say I guess not. Why not?
I think it is a little more subtle than this and depends on ones
definition of "innovation". Does building a "bigger" rocket
require "innovation"? Does building a more "reliable" rocket
require "innovation"? Does designing a space suit require
"innovation"? I would tend to lean in the direction that the
application of principles one already knows should not be
considered "innovation". It simply requires the application
of sufficient resources to apply what one already knows.
The creation of something "new" would be classified as "invention"
The creation of something that one knows "in theory" but not
"in practice" should probably be "innovation". Examples I might
consider would be the development of the laser, the formation
of a Bose-Einstein condensate, or the production of really
long buckytubes.
I suspect there is a range from the application of known principles to
really creative inventions and that innovation falls someplace in between.
Spike might be one of the better persons to comment since he is a "real"
engineer. The questions, as posed, create raise interesting points
as to what would be "application", "innovation" and "invention" in
areas such as software development or AI development.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 10:35:21 MDT