Simplifying complexity can show individuals their anxiety over particular subjects is likely due to perceived complexity. Wonderfully helpful in day to day life
You got my attention with "Complexity Theory." Now let's watch and see if that was reasonable or I should have expected more puppies. Edit: It was reasonable. Nice talk. Even if there wasn't exactly much news in it.
All creationists need to watch this talk. The one thing they all seem to have in common, besides being religious, is that they don't understand how complex, living beings can arise from relatively simple rules like natural selection.
I've had no problem watching this, except for the assumption that these behaviors are evolutionary phenomena. Natural selection does sometimes play a pert in nature, but would not give rise to evolution. No new rules are created, no new information is created. But behavior and biology are greatly affected by taking away certain genes or rules. PS: Natural selection cannot be termed as a rule, only a method for changing the rules.
D347Hza I have no idea what your definition of "rule" is here, because you're using the term in a way I find very odd. In this context I refer to it only in the meaning of "pattern, model", which is also the etymological root of the word. Using that definition, natural selection is without a doubt a rule of nature.
I agree- creationists misinterpret the Bible which says humans are to have dominion over animals; they interpret the word as domination. If we could learn to care for and coexist peacefully with nonhuman animals we could gain so much especially from their demonstration of unconditional love, which ultimately is what is responsible for survival of the fittest of all species, IMHO.
D347Hza You need to review the theory of evolution. Natural selection is the most important part of the mechanism for evolution. Natural rules are just natural instincts, like stay away from predators, eat high energy food...etc. All instincts are the product of evolution and many of them are species specific.
isakoqv I was referring to the definition of rules as stated in the video i.e. IfThisThenThat. Natural selection in my definition is not a rule, but a by product of the way nature works. I can not and will not drive evolution in any way - only Devolution. The Bible does say we should care for the earth that has been entrusted to us.
Love others as you love yourself. That's the simple rule that can heal our society. Our society is sick because of selfishness that produces shallow relationships that cannot endure. Instead of focusing in what connect us, we focus in our differences and make them bad! #loveissimple #loveiscomplex #loveisasimplesocialrule #simplylove
one of the few examples I've seen to effectively use a Prezi-style presentation to complement lecture content. it's usually an unnecessary distraction, but this was a great illustration of data
Nic....I've had this idea but I did not have the tools to cunduct research, but at least I'm glad someone with the resources to document and test this idea, devoted some time to it. I only wish I had resources and could talk to great minds like the ones that present themselves to TED.
O tema trazido por Nicolas Perony, neste vídeo, é muito interessante, e os exemplos que ele trouxe ilustraram de maneira didática para a compreensão da simplicidade e complexidade no cenário social moderno. Mesmo utilizando estudos com animais, destacou a importância do papel da liderança, em torno de uma "perturbação" A liderança ás vezes acontece num gesto simples, em torno de um objetivo comum e, aos poucos se fortalece e torna-se exemplo de resiliência de uma comunidade ante aos desafios do seu dia a dia. Parabéns!! Mary jane Araújo de Lima Manaus/Amazonas
Kinda reminds me of this one scene from A Beautiful Mind where the main character was studying pigeon movements and trying to make a mathematical model out of them.
JLTGames hating puppies is just stupid considering dog owners who form a bond with their dog tend to be healthier, happier and live longer lives than people without dogs.
R.J sadler WinterXL Ok I think you two have had enough of this. He hates puppies you slap a comment back and that's it. There is no point in dragging this thread out any longer. RJ just to let you know your last comment out of context to the reply is really creepy and strange. you've got preteens and pedos in one sentence and healthier and happier in the next sentence. A really disjointed comment.
writerconsidered How is it out of context? He replied to my comment that dog owners tend to be healthier and happier with a comment that I should not want to alienate Justin Beiber fans, which are all a bunch of preteen girls(even the ones who appear to have balls), and I am asking why I should care about alienating them? The healthier and happier part was in reference to my comment he replied to. You do know you should try and follow a conversation from the beginning or else it will seem disjointed to you when I reference parts from earlier?
There´s an hopeful implication there, that would have deserved some hammering home, I think. If complex behavioral outcomes emerge from a few, simple rules on the individual level (And yes. They do.) - there might one day be a scientific way to reverse-engineer desired outcomes on a societal level down to few, simple rules on the individual level. Something like:... These 800 million people need to deliver some warm vanilla pudding to their right-hand neighbor within the next four hours - and this will in a long, seemingly chaotic chain of events push the funding for nuclear fusion research over the final threshold, thereby throwing a massive wrench into the gears of climate change. Right now, we seem to have no reliable way to get big groups of people to constructively do anything specific, no matter how desirable the outcome. Might there be, to big societal problems, be surprising little things for the overwhelmed individual to contribute?
Here are the rules: They strive to get the public to like them They take the political beliefs from their parents. They like people who agree with them, and don't like those who don't agree. (Note: At this point, groups with similar beliefs are formed) When the groups become extreme, they don't work together. When they don't work together, they don't get support from the public. When they don't have support from the public, they work together. When they work together, they gain support from the public. When they gain support from the public, the groups become extreme.
TheBFanboy How spot on....and, sadly, utterly nihilistic. Our political system cannot help but bread apathy in intelligent people. You have to be crazy or evil to actually want to take part in it all. :/
I think you can only explain this at certain scales. For example, you may explain geopolitics but this wouldn't explain country, party or classroom-scale politics
Great talk, except the "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts", which I believe is not true because the sum of the parts is so big. The only way how the whole can be greater than the sum of it's parts is through data storage. For example, the invention of writing in human history. Before that, even collective memories in spoken form could not be as big as the sum of their parts. Talking about absolute sum, not about what individual parts can achieve separately. This is my opinion, which I hold as true, just as who said "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" held their opinion as true.
mryellow123 Depends on the definition of DNA as 'external' or 'internal' storage. If external, then, in my opinion, it is open for debate and has some potential to produce something bigger than the sum of the parts, where the parts are the human neurons while the DNA would be the equivalent of a piece of paper that is passed on through generations, improving and accumulating knowledge in the process. Likewise if we instead put the written language as internal, as part of the environment. The system consisting of both the pieces of paper intermediary of the knowledge, and the collective neurons of people making use of those papers, cannot be more than the sum of it's parts. This keeps being valid if we regard pieces on plenty of other systems. The CPU is not that intelligent. It is a scheme that executes instructions, that come from the other parts of the computer. But if we include those parts where the instructions/data/knowledge is stored, then the system cannot be more than the sum of it's parts. Unless we somehow exclude time from the equation. In that case, an evolving system can be more than the sum of it's parts in terms of knowledge/information, by virtue of allowing it's parts to interchange such information, and store and improve on it.
Tyrone Wilson Hehe, Sheldon is the new ambiguous compliment, especially for those not grasping sarcasm. Me gusta. So, thank you. Naively, not sarcastically.
the problem here is everything is explained through evolution, as though evolution is some exogenous or endogenous force that pressures metamorphosis, on a physical or even social level. Evolution is the catch all phrase for I don't know.
***** Trying to be a smartass? I smartass you back ;) Like you said, it's "almost". I'd say it's statistical, everything on earth from sports to something as mundane as trains, things have a certain number of people in the world that think they're interesting. If I think, someone who likes TED, those talks are less interesting every day and way more bla or irrelevant, the conclusion that they are appealing to fewer people is actually not that far fetched. If I'm, as a normal joe TED viewer suddenly fall out of the spectrum of people they appeal to, it's unlikely that I'm the only one. Sry for my English, actually my 3rd language
TheKlaun9 ok fair enough. can you give some examples of older ted talks that you think appeal to ted viewers. so i can contrast them to the vids ted produces now. your English is fine by the way..
***** I think the last talk I took something from was "Mikko Hypponen" 3 months ago, it wasn't the greatest thing ever, but it wasn't all "bla". After that you'll find at least 3 interesting talks every month. Just click on a few that sound interesting, maybe you'll agree, maybe we're too different. I half of the talks that are "6 months" old right now are really interesting. The best one in the last year was "Bob Mankoff" IMO, but that looks like it was something completely different that somehow ended up here. Londgen, Cohen, Li, Papandreou, there was this North Korean woman I can't find right now - some outstanding talks IMO amongst some other decent ones. IMO the topics are more relevant, the talkers don't think they just came up with the best thing ever and it's something that's really not that great. Btw I'm not saying TED has become something different and they will never again have good talks there, it just seems like there was a conference or two (I don't know how many there are and how they select what goes up on this channel) that are not worth watching at all
