Yeah. TBH I highly doubt the mainstream, condensed narrative of history. The focus is always on individuals; each invention conveniently having just one inventor, one hero... Whereas in reality, it's almost always a group of people sharing ideas and each making progress until one person stumbles upon the incremental improvement which makes the invention finally useful; that person gets all the credit, everyone else is a footnote, you have to dig into the history to actually learn about those other people. When I read serious history books or articles, I'm often shocked to learn about the contributions made by people I'd never heard of previously. When it comes to mainstream narratives, it's 'early bird gets the worm', there is little regard for contribution quality or even quantity. Someone could be doing most of the work, then some random person who's been quietly following that person's work comes along and delivers just the last missing piece; the frosting on the cake, so to speak, and they get the credit for the entire thing.

There are only a few cases I can think of where people seem to have a semi-realistic view on invention. Children often ask "who invented the computer?" and they are often disappointed by the answer because, it was so drawn-out (multiple generations), so granular, that you can't even make up an approximate answer. People grasping really hard will utter names like Charles Babbage but then acknowledge that there are a huge number of mathematicians, physicists and engineers behind it. Literally anyone who invented anything related to electricity and material science made a contribution too. It's the reality for most inventions that they materialized quickly within a single generation; this created a race situation and simple people basically agreed on some relatable finish line and then named a winner on that basis. The summary of history is written for simpletons; it's a caricature, it characterizes it in some way but it's also comical.

I had a giant laundry list. Most of it got build. My one trick was to not build anything but dream up the next thing in stead. It is hilarious to compare notes to see if they got the details right. It usually gives me a feeling as if the collective mind used my idle brain cycles to run other peoples thoughts by. The entire thing may arrive with an unreasonable amount of detail and float away a few hours later only to return in completed form a few years later.

Also funny is to have an idea just complete enough to be able to find the patents.

Many inventions simply happen when the environment is ready for them, e.g. manufacturing techniques have advanced to the point where something is possible.

Not terribly surprising, since using focused light to start fires was known to the ancients. From there, it’s not a huge leap to optics (however crude).

As I understand it, the Vatican astronomers called Galileo out on his claim to have invented the telescope. It didn't stop them from buying a couple of his scopes.

I quite like this. While we experience our own thought process as unique, and see it that way in other people who come up with ideas we'd never have thought of, there is nevertheless an entire ecosystem around even the most brilliant genius.

I also think there's something about the nature of reality which suggests that if we try, we will eventually discover what is there to be discovered. As David Deutsch puts it, "everything that is not forbidden by laws of nature is achievable, given the right knowledge". Of course the "invention" is about discovering the right knowledge, in what order and how we come about that.

(And, to throw in a fun pet issue of mine, this infuriated me about Atlas Shrugged - the idea that solitary geniuses can invent mind-boggling technology and that therefore the rest of society needs to bow down to them. Like, no - once it was known that free energy could come out of the air, the world's scientists would be racing to reproduce this finding, and would probably do so in short order.)

I've adopted a personal rule about "invention," loosely based on the patent system. Claiming to have had an "idea" is not enough. Ideas are a dime a dozen. But a patent requires a coherent description, novelty, and practicability.

And disclosure.

Reduction to practice is where I think the rubber meets the road. This is where you find out if someone actually understands the subject matter well enough to have invented something, and at least has discovered and overcome the major pitfalls. Plus the act of making something work really helps to clarify the idea and demonstrate non-obviousness. And if it can't be reduced to practice, then it's not an invention.

There's nothing wrong with publishing an idea but leaving recognition for inventorship to someone else.

In addition to the filament material, Edison's research program also worked tirelessly on improving vacuum technology. Getting electric current into a glass bulb without leaks or cracking due to thermal expansion, and keeping the air out, are no small feats.

The game concept sounds very fun! Would you not just travel back in time to get there first though? Hoping that kind it twist is in the spirit of the game…

I was curious about the actual patent no.1:

The first US patent "was granted to Samuel Hopkins for a process of making potash, an ingredient used in fertilizer on July 31."

US Patent No.1 "was granted to Senator John Ruggles for a traction wheel for steam locomotives on July 13. The 9,957 patents granted before the numbering system are now known as the X-patents."

ref: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/milestones

> Basically the theory is that ideas are actually like radio waves, in the environment, and our brains are like radio receivers that pick up ideas existing in the universe.

That sounds interesting. Like an accidental combination of movie + song + recent news that gives useful insights in some area.

With today's digital tracking, I wonder if we can quantify it: "X% of programming language creators read both Asimov and Terry Pratchett in non-English speaking countries".

> For example rats who master a maze in one part of the world make it easier for unrelated rats anywhere in the world to master the same maze pattern — it’s as if the learned skill/idea is “broadcast” to all rat brains.

Oh, you were being literal. That's deep into pseudoscience territory. What's the proposed mechanism for this "broadcast"?

Sounds like a Torchwood scenario

I knew someone who believed in that. Morphogenetic fields, he called it.

Something about tribes living close to each other, but with no contact, inventing the same stuff. After the first one got a tech, the others would also invent it, but faster.

Seemed a bit far fetched to me. Like, they are living in similar conditions, so it seems reasonable that each of them develops similar tech.