Are you more than your atoms? | Erica Carlson | TEDxPurdueU

Scientific inquiry is often pursued through reductionism: finding an explanation by studying something at its most fundamental level. At TEDxPurdueU, Erica Carlson demonstrates that this isn't always useful. Complex structures seem to be more than the sum of their parts -- and this concept is important when asking questions like what makes us human.

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

[adamj]

What an interesting topic! This makes me feel more prepared to think about reducible and emergent properties. Thanks especially for the illustrations along the way.

I also really like the open-ended questions at the end. Thought provoking!

[bobstuart]

I really enjoyed this presentation for its ability to bring understanding to this challenging topic. The implications are thought provoking.

[cathmcn]

But she is saying reductionism can't say WHY. The computer program didn't answer that.

[DeeSnowJDM]

Amazing! Wish I could've been at the conference

[MakeshiftEstablished]

Some would argue that asking the question why (in the way that you and her mean it) is a pointless exercise in futility. When it comes to the more interesting question of why as in, causality and conditionality, a computer could do just fine in analyzing and presenting that information for us to understand and use. Plus, if designed correctly, it would have less bias than any human could possibly have.

[rogerherrera]

Open ended question... I hate it when people pass the question to me. Good presentation! :-)

[rachaelpaden]

I found the topic interesting. I would like a follow-up talk by this speaker.

[jamesgoldheart]

you are more than the sum of your atoms, in other words your more than just matter.

[MakeshiftEstablished]

If the Mona Lisa isn't reducible to it's constituent parts how come a computer program was able to break it down and find she was 83 percent happy, 9 percent disgusted, 6 percent fearful, and 2 percent angry, according to the British weekly "New Scientist."

[marywunderlich]

Very interesting. Explained with such clarity.

[MattJCarlson]

It was better than cats! I want to watch it again and again!

[maninspired]

Summary A: Emergent behavior often occurs completely independent of the component parts.

[MattJCarlson]

It was better than Cats! I want to watch it again and again!

(wait... I feel a bit of deja vu...)

[azzanine]

Reductionism is but one lens to view the world in. We most definitely are more then the sum of our parts but that doesn't discredit the philosophy.
Also that rock analogy feels awfully unfinished. Sure it's hard due to it's atomic structure more then the individual atoms but WHY do the individual atoms form that structure. You could say the rock is hard due to being formed by intense volcanic heat and or pressure. But the more you keep playing the "why game" by its very virtue you need to keep getting deeper to the point you are talking about quarks and the like.
The reductionist philosophy is most likely a result of persistently asking why. As the nature of true science is to never stop investigating.
I think there's 2 aspects of discovery; 1 being Exploration which is outward, then there's 2 analysis which is more inward.

[lateralpazwalk]

Read "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel C. Dennet.

[maninspired]

Summary B: Life / humans represent emergence.

Nothing super profound here, but interesting.

[MakeshiftEstablished]

@booshank21 thank you for pointing out the woo woo...I don't like woo woo.

[jasbomfim]

Dear Erica, I am sorry to say that I am disappointed with your presentation, but I would like to make what a constructive criticism. Thinking of Laplace's demon (paradigm of reducionism), which could predict all past and future states of system given coordinates of all particles, as well as their momentum, you are several steps beyond. Thinking only of chemical composition, you are only talking about what are the particles - not their coordinates. Your ideas are interesting but centuries old...

[MakeshiftEstablished]

@booshank21 and that logical fallacy is a DOOZIE