Innovation Class/Book

Here is the outline for my innovation course/book, which teaches people all the skills they need to become an inventor (it's intentionally tongue-in-cheek).

I. Beyond the internet: how to escape the grind of software development and reinvent the wheel.

Why does it seem like all of our innovators go into software development? Perhaps it's where innovation is most encouraged. But, there's a hell of a lot more to life than Facebook and vidiot games.

II. Keep a notetaking device handy vs. it can't be done any other way.

Taking notes to record fragments of inspiration are indispensible for an inventor. Finally, a "use" for Twitter (providing your insights are under 140 characters).

III. Sleep is good (as a series of short bursts)! a.k.a. How to take a catnap and still work hard.

Edison was famous for his catnaps. I like to take short to moderate naps during the late afternoon as well. It's like two days in one -- you work during the business day, and then you have the evening free (as you are refreshed and cogent). Sleep is horribly underrated in our society.

IV. What to do when they want your head.

Every now and again, people will gang up on you for not approaching a problem in the same manner they do. Probably for the same reasons ideological coercion and ethnic cleansing are so common.

V. What to do when only a part of what you've worked on works.

This happens all the time. Keep it modular and think laterally.

Notice that "how to file a patent" has yet to be covered. That's because we're still working on defining what ever it is we're inventing.

Biology and Physics: how one hand washes the other

Today at Soft Active Materials there were a lot of interesting talks, and after each session (morning and afternoon) there was a discussion panel.

For the afternoon panel, the following question was posed: what does Physics have to offer Biology, and vice versa? The question did not elicit much discussion, perhaps because it is so philosophical. So that is the question of the day -- what can Physics and Biology contribute to each other? I am not talking about in areas such as biophysics. I am referring to, say, the marriage of genomics and how cells/organisms respond to pressure gradients.

One concern was the nature of funding agencies. Another comment suggested that physics can provide a mimimal set of criterion and parameterization for understanding biological systems. My opinion is that physics can contribute two things of value: a set of tools to tackle hard and potentially intractable problems, and a way to look at old problems anew. This second point is of no small consequence -- paradigm shifts occur this way, and is extraordinarily valuable to the advancement of technological applications.

So, what do other people think? Please let me know in the comments section. Otherwise, good first day, and look forward to tommorrow.

Soft Active Materials Conference I

This week (5-18 through 5-21) I will be attending "Soft Active Materials: from granular rods to flocks, cells, and tissues" in Syracuse, NY.

Here is the program for more information. Here are a set of lecture notes for the session. I participated with a brief slideshow called "Emergent Natural Selection and the Evolution of Novel Biological Surfaces". Enjoy.

Review of "Intelligent Movement Machine"

Review of: Graziano, M.S.A. (2009). Intelligent Movement Machine: an ethological perspective on the primate motor system. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
by Bradly Alicea

Introduction

The field of human, animal, and robotic movement, portions of which have gone by many names in the literature, is a vast and moderately synthesized area of study. Part of the problem is that only a few people bridge the multiple areas of specialty that are essential for a truly comprehensive understanding of movement. Michael Graziano is one of these key people. Graziano works on the electrophysiology of primate motor cortex, but also has an interest in how this translates into animal behavior. This explains the subtitle of the book: an ethological perspective. Graziano's synthesis is actually two-fold: one is to organize the literature on movement in a systematic manner, and the other is to unite observations of animal behavior with what we know about the underlying neural mechanisms.

Structure of the book
Since the field of movement as defined in the last section is only moderately synthesized, Graziano devotes a large section of the book towards bringing evidence to bear from the literature. The focus is on electrophysiology in Primates, so those hoping to understand movement phenomena outside of simple limb movements and feeding behaviors might come away disappointed. However, he does spend some time discussing personal space and movement behavior, which draws from his work on defensive postures. Despite his somewhat diverse choice of topics, he certainly does not make a unified field theory-type proposition.

While he may spend a few too many chapters on reviewing the current state-of-the-art, it sets up the last few chapters of the book. In this portion of the book, Graziano explains how he spent some time at the Bronx zoo to better understand what he was observing in electrophysiological experiments. Anyone who was spent time at a zoo realizes that non-human Primates exhibit many complex and sophisticated physical behaviors, even in captivity. In this sense, Graziano's approach is a sorely needed addition to the literature.

Heart of the neuroethological approach
Ethology is different from approaches to human behavior in that the former focuses on fixed action patterns. These action patterns can range from preening to arm waving to head shaking. Typically, such behaviors are relatively easily quantifiable in that they are discrete and repetitive. In this way, fixed action patterns are also thought to have a relatively simple neural basis. Graziano uses this framework to explain how behaviors observed in nature are produced at the single-cell level. This is one way of resolving a frustration from earlier in his career that involved the constricted behavioral repertoire observed during traditional electrophysiological recordings.

One criticism of this approach, of course, is how complex movement observed in naturalistic settings map to electrophysiological results collected in highly-artificial environments. This returns us to Graziano's early-career angst and how these two approaches can be reconciled in the first place. On the one hand, he has certainly succeeded at thought-provocation. This work adds a critical missing piece to the story behind movement, and how it relates to both species differences and symbolic behavior. However, we must keep in mind that movement involving many different components is not simply additive, and that what might explain an isolated movement might not be the whole story when naturalistic movements are taken into account.

Conclusions

One statement that particularly resonated with me was a statement to the effect that some electrophysiologists think Graziano's approach is crazy. I think this statement sums up one of the biggest unsung problems in science today: although "interdisciplinary research" is a popular buzzword, most scientists have no idea how to appreciate the approaches of their colleagues in other fields. This has been an ongoing frustration in my own life, and I am not entirely convinced that such skills can be taught. Aside from sociological griping, the scientific basis of the book is most definitely sound. I find it a reasonable and innovative approach to a problem that has in some ways been studied to death, yet in other ways is still vaguely understood.

Dawkins talk, Michigan State University, 3/2/09

I attended the Richard Dawkins talk at MSU the other night. This was part of their WorldView lecture series. This was the first event in the series for which the Wharton Center was sold out (about 1200 or so seats). I have now attended lectures from four great minds in evolution: Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson (at Michigan State) and Ernst Mayr and Steven Jay Gould (at the University of Florida). Dawkins is good for
his combination of scientific and religious skepticism with evolutionary biology, which was in full form the other night.

The Dawkins talk was called "The Purpose of Purpose", and was a good general audience talk. I noticed how self-promoting the whole Dawkins enterprise was: his website looks like its part e-commerce website, part self-help guru website. This is a good model for aspiring intellectual brokers (e.g people who want to become rich and famous in exchange for 10 years of higher education). Anyways, the talk was about how not everything in the world around us has "purpose" (e.g. got there via a designer or is there for our utilization), and how things that look like they have purpose and things that DO have conscious purpose (such as art or human artifacts).

Our hosts for the evening. LEFT: Dr. Fred Dyer (MSU Zoology), RIGHT: Dr. Richard Dawkins (Oxford). COURTESY: Dr. Wesley Elsberry.

To accomplish this, he broke down purpose into two different types: archipurpose and neopurpose. Archipurpose involves things that are causal but not neccessarily purposeful (like a bird's wings or stars in the universe). When pre-scientific peoples looked up into the sky, they assumed that the stars were put there by God for our pleasure. They then built monuments and sacrified virgins accordingly. On the other hand, neopurpose is the direct byproduct of conscious intervention, and its products generally serve a definable purpose. This is not to be confused with the purpose of a bird's wing -- wings are there so that the bird can fly, but got there via natural selection rather than by a master
designer.

There were parts of the talk where he seemed a bit sluggish (perhaps it was just my imagination). The old Dawkins chestnut that our bodies are the vessels for our genes (and thus serve an archipurpose) was used as an example. while I understand what he is saying, I think that specific argument is a bit shortsighted. He also contrasted domesticated species, whose evolution is governed by neopurpose (artificial selection by human breeders) with wild, naturally-selected species. I thought this was an excellent way to drive this point home, and wished he had spent a bit more time exploring this theme. But overall, it was an outstanding talk.

Fred Dyer, the chair of our Zoology Department, fielded questions from the audience. At WorldView, questions are solicited from the audience and the moderator fields the best of the crop. This works well, since giving the mike to audience members in a first come, first serve fashion can lead to really bad questions. Dawkins revealed that he was not dogmatic about his atheism and skepticism: he would gladly change his mind in a heartbeat if he saw convincing scientific evidence of God. He also has no time for homeopathic medicine, which reminds me of a great quote from the Futurama episode "Crimes of the Hot":

Robot: Calling all scientists......

Human: I have a degree in homeopathic medicine!

Robot: You have a degree in boloney!

Dawkins is currently on a barnstorming tour across the USA. If you can catch one of his speaking engagements, I highly recommend it.