Now here's a novelty: we live on - are the only inhabited house on - Shannon's Lane in the Blackstairs
Here's the executive summary of what Shannon, a true creative genius, had to say on the matter of thinking creatively. Back in our Geordie days in the 1980s, there was a radical Scottish theatre group called the 7:84 Company; named for the observation that 7% of the people owned 84% of the wealth. Shannon believes this to be true of creative people: most of the useful ideas come from a tiny subset of the whole population. The same power law applies to word use in any language and to publishing where Harry Potter sold as many copies as the whole rest of 20thC fiction. He believed that three attributes needed to be present in a truly creative mind.
- Experience, training, knowledge. You have to know something about the field before you make earth-moving contributions.
- Smarts, nous, IQ. Creativity is not for dullards.
- Drive, curiosity, motivation. Creative people like to find things out, how things tick.
- Positive dissatisfaction. A hard-to-shake certainty that we could do better . . . at everything. If we tweak this and try that, it might all work more efficiently. It is the opposite of a lazy-arse, pragmatic "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
- A deep appreciation of a neat&nifty result, even if you haven't arrived at it yourself.
- A terrier-like determination to finish things off, even if it means missing lunch or staying late. [I was never so alive as when I was in graduate school working all the waking hours].
- Simplification. Trim the fat off the problem and reduce it to its bare necessities. Identify the key issues and stop being distracted by details on the surface. Having sorted the core, you can re-clothe the whole with refinements and additions.
- Seek similar. This is where deep knowledge of the field pays off: you have in your head hundreds of previous problems and their solution. Andrew Wiles saw the similarity between two utterly different branches of mathematics to solve Fermat's Last Theorem.
- Restate, review, look sideways. Get a different perspective on the problem: go for a run, write it all backwards. This is where a [smart] greenhorn, with no experience (but no baggage), can make the key contribution.
- Generalisation. Take your narrow, limited, specific solution and ask, with a creative person's restless curiosity, if it is applicable in other cases, under other conditions in different fields. "Can I use this same clever idea represented here to solve a larger class of problems?"
- Deconstruction. If you think hard you may be able to show the essential structure and connectivity of the problem. That will help break a lumbering monster into chewable slices which can be knocked off piecemeal.
- Clunky is okay. A first working model may be a kludge, held together by chewing gum and string, but, hey, it works. See above for how positive dissatisfaction will streamline your monster into something more elegant and efficient.
- Turn it over. Sometimes the different perspective is to take the solution and work back to find the problem. Our technological world is full of inventions that had no purpose until they existed as solutions: the glue on post-its, thalidomide as therapy for leprosy, teflon, Sugru.
That's good stuff from Shannon on creative thinking. Regarding the use of Shannon information in genetics my humble opinion is that information is the wrong metaphor for the whatever-it-is that associates sequences of DNA with features of genotypes. I am experimenting with the notion that 'meaning' is a better metaphor, if interpreted in terms of the semantic system that I have identified, that applies far beyond language into organismal cognition and perhaps beyond that into the intracellular domain. The definition of the constituents of this kind of meaning, in brief is: the dimensions of the space of interaction I propose that it also applies more basically to the functionality of natural artifacts such as DNA. Such meaning is the structure of the active content of genes viewing this content as 'DNA memory'. As well as this dimensional structure of DNA words, genes possess the equivalent of the 'encyclopedic meaning' of words that constitutes the bulk of the content of DNA meaning and memory. This is the know-how of phenotypic features. Given this structure, factoral (my term for this semantic system) meaning pervades the intracellular domain as it is involved in the innumerable interactions of molecules and organelles and other constituents. In my text I have previously hypothesised that the factoral system is the space of the interaction of organisms with their environments. My genetic hypothesis is a further extension of this notion and an attempt to demonstrate the extreme primality of this system. The system is in two parts. One part relates to the structural physical features of things and the other to the normativity of an event such as a cellular stimulus that requires a response.
ReplyDeleteAll of this implies that factoral meaning is integral to the genetic system.
Your Shannon quote says "Information is the resolution of uncertainty". The role of my semantic system is the determination of the semantic flow in chemical form from stimulus to features of the genotype.