Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity

     Ken's TED talk raised some interesting points. He argued that schools place arts at the bottom of the educational hierarchy, when they should instead be taught with just as much importance as the bigger subjects such as math and language. And his example with the dancer was very strong and really hit home is argument, especially with the fact if given the same situation today, the girl would have most likely just been diagnosed with ADHD and given medications for it. I agree with Ken's opinion, but I think it's even worse than he pictures it. Sometimes, art is even looked down upon or laughed at. To some people, if you told them that you were going to school for music or to an art school, they would tell you that you wouldn't be able to find a job. And there's the classic "band geek" stereotype. This, coupled with the existing educational conditions for the arts, is what makes the arts all the more buried, and it shouldn't be.

Benjamin Zander on music and passion

     This TED talk was very eye-opening and inspiring. If I had to pick a category, I would probably say that I've listened to classical music before, but only the most well known pieces because I had to learn them or listen to them in band. But I never gave it the thought that Benjamin pointed out, and that is the range of emotions and feelings it can conjure up, and how some pieces can be like a story. I've always heard a piece of classical music and just thought of it as fast, slow, major, minor, but the way Benjamin pointed out the details of suspense like in a Shakespearean play made me look back on the classical music I've learned and how he makes a very true point.
     What I also like about these music TED talks is that it I feel like they get a different part of your brain involved. I would classify it as passive thinking, since while your brain is working, it is just working off of what you feel and not necessarily what you already know. Like in the Bobby McFerrin talk, Benjamin also got the audience involved when he asked them what note would come next, and even though you may not have studied music before, you can still passively feel that note. I find that very enjoyable, and enjoyable in a different way, since, like I said, it is more passive.

Robert Full: Learning from the gecko's tail

     I found this talk more appealing to me than the other one, probably because this Robert's presentation dealt with the marriage of biology and engineering, and as an engineer, I found this very interesting. Once again, I learned something new that I never knew before, like with the crows and their intelligence, but this time it was with geckos and their ability to climb, and the importance of their tail. And this showed the importance of expanding and encompassing studies into different areas, such as in this case with biology and engineering. This is along the lines of what I would want to do with my studies as an engineer, and that is to incorporate my academic learning with what I also enjoy doing in my spare time, which is music. And the point that Robert made with interdisciplinary studies leading to learning and seeing things that would have never been seen before just makes me want to work on my studies even more, as nerdy as it sounds.

Joshua Klein on the intelligence of crows

     Although I'm not the biggest fan of biology, I found this talk very interesting. I learned about the higher intelligence of crows, which is something I never knew before about them, and to be honest, something I would have never given the thought about either. Joshua really opened my eyes to the sometimes hidden and overlooked intelligence of other animals on our planet besides us and monkeys, and what is even more interesting is that it's the intelligence of crows, which we often look at as pests and annoyances. What I really thought was fascinating was his experiment involving the vending machine, and his "mission statement" afterwards of how crows, and other animals, could possibly be used to do beneficial things, like cleaning up trash or search and rescue. This had me thinking of the possible uses of other animals we consider "pests", such as rats or cockroaches, and the possibility of even a system that incorporated multiple animals to complete a task, or a number of tasks. What tasks or animals, I don't know yet, but if crows aren't the only ones with the amount of intelligence they have, then I'm sure something amazing and/or groundbreaking is definitely possible.

Brian Cox: Why we need the explorers

     Brian Cox's TED talk dealt with the problem of science and exploration being the first to be affected by hard economic times. He brought up the point of how science and exploration actually pays for itself, and how it fuels other ideas and innovations. For example, he stated how if it weren't for the first viewing of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, we wouldn't have quantum physics and as a result, wouldn't have the transistors and silicon chips that are omnipresent in today's modern technology.
     I agree with Brian's viewpoint on the importance of science, exploration, and curiosity, and how it should not be the one most affected by a bad economy. If anything, it should be the last to go, since it has the capability of turning the economy around, through new inventions, improving old technology, and creating jobs.
     I also thought the mention of the "pale blue dot" was a very emotional argument, which is a good thing. It demonstrated the power of science and the inspiration it can lead to, and that we are merely a blue dot from 44 billion miles away. I interpreted this as a reason to make the most and the best of the time here on Earth, and without science and exploration, this realization that Earth is a small part of the universe would have never been made.

Murray Gell-Mann on beauty and truth in physics

     In this TED talk, Murray describes his opinion on elegant equations and how, in general, most equations can be simplified since the terms we need to describe them usually already exist. This relates to the concept of symmetry. Murray puts it as "an object or phenomenon exhibits a kind of symmetry if performing certain operations consistently on all parts leaves it description unchanged", and he demonstrated this with the example of how Newton described gravity as the force between two bodies, and years later Coulomb discovered the electric force between two charges, and the two were very similar in how they both dealt with the inverse square of the distance between the two objects. Murray also showed a slide of how equations were able to be simplified from a set of 8 equations to a set of 4 equations to a set of 2 equations, and this was possible using symmetrical relationships between the equations involving rotational symmetry and special relativity. This is, what I took it to mean, his meaning of beauty and elegance in science. How complex things may have complex equations, but can be simplified to simple and elegant ones.
     I immediately thought of Albert Eintein's e=mc^2 equation when Murray mentioned elegant equations. It is a simple equation that describes a not-so simple principle in physics, and was only derived in the 20th century. And with that in mind, I can see what Murray is trying to say when elegant equations are more likely to be right than inelegant ones. There is less to work with, meaning that there's less room for error. So not only is it easier to understand and describe, but it is also easier to use and apply.