Homo sapiens redux

Are we really more than the sum of our parts? Reductionism originally arose from French philosopher Rene Descartes. In his 1637 treatise entitled "Discourse on the Method" he postulated that "the world was like a machine […] and that the machine could be understood by taking its pieces apart, studying them, and then putting them back together to see the larger picture"(Wikipedia). Essentially this has been the basis of science the last 371 years. Originally this postulate was thought to be true for both objects and living organisms. Presently, the consensus is that no living system can be explained by the sum of its parts.

Can we really be sure? As science progresses and keeps finding all of the machine's parts, a complete understanding of our surroundings seems unlikely at this point in time. Let's look at a simplified timetable of science's understanding of the human body:

1- Corpse dissections allow early scientists to identify the various colorful organs inside our bellies.
2- Further inspection of the organs reveals the intricate architecture of tissues within a single organ
3- Microscopes allow for the observation of cells
4- Stronger microscopes reveal that every cell has its own organs (such as the nucleus, vesicles, etc.)
5- Discovery that cells are little "bags of proteins" and each protein has its own specific role
6- A protein's construction is encoded by DNA
7- Human genome is sequenced…80-90% of the human genome is baptized "junk DNA"
8- Junk DNA is used by a cell more than non-junk DNA

This list highlights one thing: just when we start to take the "machine" apart and look at the pieces we realize that each piece is itself a machine. If each new discovery brings forth another machine to take apart, is it right to say “we are more than the sum of our parts”? Maybe once all the parts have been discovered, characterized and understood we will have answered all the questions.

The problem with saying “there is more to something than the sum of its parts” is that it takes into account only past discoveries. Can we still be sure of this statement if we consider future discoveries? For example, the human body is a lot less mysterious in 2008 AD than in was 2008 BC. Contrast current ideas such as stem cells, DNA and vaccines with the Bronze Age. That’s how different things will be in another 4000 years. I am sure Bronze Age “doctors/scientists” knew about the body’s organs but obviously not cells. Likewise, it 2008 who knows which pieces of the puzzle science has not discovered.

Reductionism considers that all the pieces of the machine are known. How can you see the big picture with only 10% of a puzzle’s pieces? If science persists long enough on a given topic, is it possible to find all of the puzzle’s pieces? Can you imagine its impact on religion/spirituality….