Dennett is blatantly wrong about how science has "shown" how creatures with souls arise from non living material. Nobody understands how life originates.
@glic7236 I think he meant that science proves that consciences must have arisen from non living material, but yes, nobody understands how.. that's the next question
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
@portwes Perhaps religion is like a painting. Science is like a photograph. Painters may hate photography, an often soulless thing (though it has become an art itself)... and a painter may claim his painting tells more, and the photo makes his painting look like a caricature.
Yet one has to admit, photography is the more accurate of the two. And if you want to see what's really there, it's better to take the photo. No matter how much you may love the painting.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only "select" from variations that are possible and that have survival value. Furthermore, natural selection can only operate once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it was not involved in life's origins. Natural selection is a passive process in nature. It’s simply another term for “survival of the fittest." The real issue is what variations are possible in nature. Read my Internet article NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION
@Mogley52 I'm not sure what you mean by "natural selection cannot produce anything". It depends what you mean by "produce". Natural selection can - and does - "produce" entirely new species and classes of species. The relevant point though is that this does not happen in just one step - but in so many steps that on our timescale (i.e. year-to-year), it is almost impossible to see the change. A bit like your hair growing or a human being ageing.
D.C.D. is full of shit. How does Mr. Darwin 2 explain the fact that Sanskrit, a very old language, is more sophisticated than predominant language of the modern world and its Internet?
@Thephyguy "In the late 1700s, European identity was shaken when scholars discovered that Sanskrit was closely related to the European languages, though much older and more sophisticated."
"India was viewed as Europe's mother civilization by Frederick Schlegel in Germany and by Voltaire in France. William Jones, a British colonial administrator, considered Sanskrit the most marvelous product of the human mind." (Google it)
@parkerjwill Well philologists and linguists have gone even further back and now have something they call proto-indoeuropean which was a precurser to sanskrit and latin. its funny how you think dropping big names like that somehow augments that slightly silly and heavily biased remark =P European langauges far surpass the other languages due to science and technology alone. They are also the ones that study other languages. India/sanskrit doesn't.
ok ok ok ok OK... I concede - I was wrong you were right - I'm small and you're big - I suppose I was thinking of bacteria on dead things - I WAS WRONG!!! I stand corrected... you can put away your potion set and mummified parents. There... I said it...
I really enjoyed the bit about people should stop complaining about life and it's eventual end. It's so true, there isn't much that bothers me more then people complaining about how 'hard' life is.
Especially when you consider that in general we (north americans) have an incerdibly high standard of living compared to what people have had in the past.
Unfortunately, massive numbers of people are either directly enriched by religion, or can use it's brainwashing facilities to seize power, maintain power, or just keep a population group docile and loyal to a heiarchy dedicated to their exploitation. It may be the "opiate of the masses" but it's also a worldwide ATM to those unscrupulous enogh to use it. What's the addict's reaction when you take away his drug?...What's Your reaction when someone tries to steal your bankcard?
Yes we were dead for millions of years before we were born?? So where were you then? It is no accident you are here my friend. I agree with many things you say, but you can have Evolution and God in one. Earth has a nervous system. Isn't this God you talked about? In a sense? Bottom up creation(natural selection/will)... is fact because bottom is not operating on a different principle to top so you are not opposing God as one, but God as a divided one like man's. God must exist as driving Law.
@cruelbusiness1984 Natural unguided processes? The guide is you man! In miniature. Everything has it's opposite and God(perfection/unity) is the opposite of all matter(imperfection/division) hence our problem? You say many smart things, but you don't know much in one short life? Me either! We tend to look too much at others wrong doings and forget our own...(how selfless haha)
All is division of the same thing in essence, so love your neighbor..enemy..haha hard. Thanks anyway cruel business.
awesome interview I hope more people tune in on this priceless knowledge. I think for some one to truly appreciate the words of these two pioneers. They have to truly be not do but be a more open minded person who is free from the popular crap that the media has to offer. congratulations to all who are responsible for these types of interviews and lectures. I am grateful to live in an age where we have so many intellectuals that are able to liberate us from the infection of superstition.
awesome interview I hope more people tune in on this priceless knowledge. I think for some one to truly appreciate the words of these two pioneers. They have to truly be not do but be a more open minded person who is free from the popular crap that the media has to offer. congratulations to all who are responsible for these types of interviews and lectures. I am grateful to live in an age where we have so many intellectuals that are able to liberate us from the infection of superstition.
"What you see here is the full extended interview, which includes a lot of rough camera transitions that were edited out of the final program (along with a lot of content)."
@lanamal they should b sentenced 2 30 days of 'how 2 move smoothly' and 3 times of watchin the movie up close. tortuous not because of content but because of the shaky shakey :P
Humans throughout the world will eventually accept evolution as fact. They just have to go through the same stages that a terminally ill person goes through:
1) Denial
2) Anger
3) Bargaining
4) Depression
5) Acceptance
Most of the world today is stuck in the "denial" stage, while the developed world is, for the most part, in the "bargaining" stage (e.g. "maybe God CREATED evolution!").
Only an enlightened few are in the "acceptance" stage. Patience, my friends.
@ejdf870 its almost worse then a loss. like in a beautiful mind, not only doesn't he exist, but he was never there and these 'spiritual experiences' never existed.
@ejdf870 I thought you got that from House, it was on a recent episode. I knew it was the actual emotional process, I guess it was just a coincidence.
@Codester145 Wow, you mean someone else already said this?? I doubt it. They might have said something similar, but they couldn't have read my mind exactly.
Unfortunately, human life is like a conveyer belt: we start at one end and move through the "stages" only to end in the bucket of death, leaving room for others to go through the same process. That is why history repeats itself. And in that respect I don't see any hope for some global "enlightenment" in the future.
@twooffour That's the point- when you realize there's nothing, you're "enlightened". There's not going to be balloons and ticker tape (like in those ridiculous car commercials) when you finally are enlightened.
Ah, I see you're on a trip now... well, at any rate, what? Huh?
I meant I'm not particularly educated in this stuff, just (for now) following the common sense of trusting the scientific community that offers results and achievements everyday over a bunch of myth-pounding crackpots. Not "enlightenment", just dumb common sense.
What "nothing" are you talking about? Evolution isn't "nothing".
Where would be Charles Darwin,since the book that launched him into eternity of knowledge,he says:
To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual...having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.
@Herodwel Well he said many things. If you are actually interested, should check out the reasons why he didn't want to publish to begin with, and why for so many years he didn't.
@Herodwel Well that quote is but one.. and his feelings and thoughts about the subject evolved quite dramatically... umm... so.. yeah.. about that reading thing.. better start now!
@Herodwel haha.. you get all bum hurt because you are so biased about needing god. just a have a hurt bum is all. Not even reading will fix that. In fct.. I don't know if there is a cure for god addiction.
It's like Dennett and Dawkins are having fantastic sex of the minds, discussing and rolling around in the hay, and then this guy walks in, and starts telling them what to do and how to do it, with not realizing a fraction of what a beauty he is witnessing in this talk.. Alas, hes only doing his job, but who of us seriously minds a leaf blower? I can imagine how anti-climactic that is to have to carry on a semi-fake "porn scene" afterwards. But a good interview, I like Dennett, he's a swell guy.
I'm a psychologist, and the philosophical, lofty part about "meaning of life' and "meaning of death" and "why life is worth it, it is a privilege", etc, is fantastic. Secular humanists and those of us who work with the public in a secular way (as we are not pastors and also would be unethical to have people swallow our religion) need such philosophical arguments for the consolation of our clients regardless on their theological views. Excellent!
@plucknpick Do some research on each of those topics and I think you will find that they are not at all the Achilles' heels of evolution that you think they are. I don't want to start an argument, I'm just saying that you are misinformed.
@plucknpick Did you omit the Piltdown chimer with intention LMAO? - For exemplary, and VERY obvious macroevolutionary transition history, including the respective fossil record, consult the evolution of WHALES from LAND-mammals.
I can imagine a human walking down to the corner shop, in fact, I saw someone do it the other day! But to think that a human, taking strides shorter than one meter, could cross from Africa to South America. Well that's impossible. That's tens of THOUSANDS of kilometers! No-one can walk that far!
@ethositachi ..who said one person walked that far, as best we know the journey from africa to the south american continent took upward of 20,000 years so about 1000 generations each moving a little further and leaving decendents that populated this route as they went.
you can copy and implant genes to cells/done by human being (life itself).Life means metabolism and self existence."Synthetic" life was produced by copying and using a living bacteria.Genome resonace tests done by pharmacy giant Pfizer show that variations inside a specie is possible but you probably understand that a fish cannot generate to an ape such RNA/DNA jumps dont exist in nature
neurons and microtubules are carrier of information (switches) but dont store anything.Your brain is processing 10 million bits data/second ,how about the entropy?
many examples available the tree of life(Darwin) dont correlate with dna/genome.
you can copy and implant information (genes)to cells / done by human being (life itself) ,metabolism and self existence is needed to call it life.Resonace tests with genomes done by Pfizer show that variations exist inside a specie but you probably understand that an fish cannot generate to an ape such a run of RNA/DNA dont exist
@newloser Because living things eat the dead thing. Those living things are either placed there when you die by flies or other bugs, or those living things were already present on the dead thing when it was alive. When you die, your defenses are down and anything that wants to eat you can eat you.
@ninjajesus81 You see the dead become the living. It's called food, you probably have eaten before. Those materials were dead and some of them were never really alive yet it becomes part of you, a living organism. So inanimate matter becomes part of living organisms every second of everyday and its been happening for a very long time. I have one question about the debate though, couldn't Richard have found an undergrad with a camera so they could have had 2 camera ppl?
@SmogHouseTradingCo My food never becomes living. My food provides me with protein (not living), carbohydrates (not living) and fat (not living). Those constituents build living cells, but they're not living themselves.
@ninjajesus81 Until they are reorganized into a living cell. You just said that proteins, carbs and fats are not living, but they build living things. So yes, they do become living. If you were to deconstruct and find where each molecule in one of your skin cells came from it would be non-living material. Example of seeing food become living. You have a sterilized room with a piece of meat in it. Place a maggot on the meat. can the maggot grow and make more LIVING cells? Yes.
@SmogHouseTradingCo The meat doesn't become living just because you eat it. It becomes part of a living machine.
Take a clock for instance. A clock is a machine. If you take the clock apart, each piece of the clock is not a machine in and of itself. It only becomes a machine when put together. A spring is not a machine. A gear is not a machine.
So proteins, fats and carbs don't become living, just like iron, magnesium and calcium don't become living just because we eat it.
@ninjajesus81 I would agree with you if a clock was made up of living cells, but it's not so your analogy is mute. What you say results in nothing being living but the organism as a whole, which is just not true. Regardless if we take a living organism and somehow track all of its molecules to where they were before the organism was there, we would find inorganic matter. Maybe we are just arguing semantics over a whole organism being called alive vs one cell being called alive.
@SmogHouseTradingCo You didn't understand my analogy at all. Proof of that is you saying the clock needs living cells for me to be able to compare them. That makes no sense considering my analogy.
@ninjajesus81 Alright, take a fungus, and separate one cell from the others. Does that cell continue to live? Yes unlike clock parts. I understand your analogy and where it fails to describe the fact that we are not made up of inanimate parts. We are a community of living cells working together, each cell qualifying itself for the title of living. Your clock analogy would work for a single cell possibly but not the organism as a whole. Thanks for pointing out that my spell check made an error...
@SmogHouseTradingCo What we're made of can be described in smaller and smaller things. We're made of organs, we're made of cells, we're made of molecules, we're made of atoms. You arbitrarily stopped at cells and said that's what we're made of.
We don't eat cells and those cells become part of us. We eat molecules and they become a part of us. Those molecules aren't living, but they're used to make something that's living. My analogy was fine. The parts of a clock are not machines. The clock is.
@ninjajesus81 I have to ask what is living then? Your analogy only reinforces the fact that we are inanimate things put together or better to think, we are inanimate molecules in an ongoing series of reactions. So is the reaction itself life or are the parts of the reaction covered under the term living? Again we are arguing about the semantics of whether life is the name given to inanimate things self replicating(basically) or the whole mass of the organism? My opinion is the latter.
@ninjajesus81 We're really arguing for the same thing, just semantics. You give the word life to a chemical process, I give it to all reactants in the reaction. So Just like we say the log is burning in an oxidation reaction, I say the inanimate molecules are living.
You can't help wishing that Dan Dennet had been your grand-dad when you were a kid, can you! (or is that just me?) A wonderful thinker and educator, and, unlike the brilliant but slightly awkward Dawkins, Dennet is so likeable, even lovable.
An AI program pre loaded with just some basic instructions that will allow it to program itself would be the ultimate computer program. That is the definition of the human brain. The top of evolution, the ultimate creation; no other brain can top ours. If natural selection could explain this, there would be hundreds of different species in the fossil record with this adaptation, since it so powerfull for the species who has it. This suggests that evolution in this planet is directional.
@shockeyjones There are basic programming instructions in every brain. You fear pain, fight or run when threatened, etc. In the human brain those pre-programming instructions seem to be far less than in any other species. Hence almost all our behavior is learned. It seems inconsistent with natural selection that species with hundreds of millions of years of evolution has not developed the adaptation of self programming and us with only a couple of million years of evolution have.
@dejesusluisx The fallacy here is that the brain WAS NOT PRE-PROGRAMMED. Therefore, the "finding" of directional evolution is not proved (or even suggested).
@shockeyjones I think you are confusing my point with the point other people have suggested that we humans are “hardwired” for seeking God. My point different and is more scientific than philosophical (see above). On the other hand, the “hardwiring” point is not necessarily related to the brain. The hardwire is in the soul, but that is another story...
With all these series of interviews, with all their marvelous thoughts and ideas... I enjoy scanning over the offices and homes of these people. It is wonderful that Daniel Dennet uses a turntable, along with the old classic album cleaner on top. A cassette player can be seen. He also has a decent collection of CDs.
Evolution builds upon existing things, and even the process of stereo systems and musical appreciation was never smooth, but the common ancestry is unmistakable.
It must be so damn frustrating for these christies, their usual tactic of preying on people who are ill, suddenly isn't working for them in the public spotlight, Dennet and Hitchens, both standing in the face of death and still coming through it with the exactly the same positions they held before.
A message to Dawkins. I don't appreciate that we appreciate it like he said. I appreciate that he appreciates we can appreciate it and i am sure there are other people here that appreciate the fact that i appreciate that you can appreciate that we appreciate these facts.
Doesn’t atheism lead to the rejection of objective truth claims? If so how is Dostoevsky’s claim "if god is not, anything is permissible”, not accurate?
I've watched this several times and it gives me such a calm, satisfied feeling. They're both so right--all the stuff they're talking about on the deck, it's just, well, right on the money! Cheers, Dawkins and Dennett! :)
One of the more fantastic interviews I've seen on the internet, let alone on YouTube. The joy of being alive, wonder of the cosmos and natural world, and compassion of fellow humans... all wonderful and great topics, between two of my favorite examples of humanity.
What about the Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Alfred Russell Wallace. Why don't these people (like Dawkins) ever talk about these 2 people? I'm pretty damn sure they have heard of them!
@cyberdaemon - Both of these men are not prone to ignoring the contributions of their fellow man, the fact they don't utter their names right in the very few moments of their life that they are on camera doesn't mean they value them any less. It almost sounds like you are demanding that they recognise them specifically by name.
@cyberdaemon - There is no yea but. there are tens of thousands of people that they should mention by that kind of logic. You already know they do mention peoples names, you already know they take no credit for things that they did not do themselves, you just watched a video where they publicly are thanking EVERYBODY that contributed to where we are now, you watched this and the thanks they gave to everyones kindness and co-operation and you sit there saying huffff, they didn't mention. Really.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I love the fanboy and almost perverted obsession you guys have with these guys. At least Dennett is a somewhat reasonable philosopher. However, Richard Dawkins is more of a joke than anything. I doubt you guys even know what these two propose in their philosophies. Richard Dawkins, for instance, believes there are no morals. Holocaust was fine!
Dynamic production fail. It's just distracting in the end.
Keep the camera grounded with both gents in frame for talks like this.
Inb4Reach 2 days ago
i was hoping Dawkins would pull out his 9 mil on the camera man and set up a tripod.
dopeasfuckk 6 days ago
Dennett is blatantly wrong about how science has "shown" how creatures with souls arise from non living material. Nobody understands how life originates.
glic7236 1 week ago
@glic7236 I think he meant that science proves that consciences must have arisen from non living material, but yes, nobody understands how.. that's the next question
dopeasfuckk 6 days ago
BUTTT mr .. how do you know if something is conscious?.. thats a non-scientific question
stikowsky 2 weeks ago
@stikowsky scientists can stipulate consciousness... such as functioning senses, nervous systems...etc.
dopeasfuckk 6 days ago
Can we please stop planting the oats now?
TheMadBeach 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 4 weeks ago
@sykmgl It's almost impossible to avoid "caricaturing" religion. Religion BEGS for it. And we are happy to oblige! How obvious *rolls eyes*
portwes 1 month ago
@portwes Perhaps religion is like a painting. Science is like a photograph. Painters may hate photography, an often soulless thing (though it has become an art itself)... and a painter may claim his painting tells more, and the photo makes his painting look like a caricature.
Yet one has to admit, photography is the more accurate of the two. And if you want to see what's really there, it's better to take the photo. No matter how much you may love the painting.
sorsocksfake 1 month ago
@sorsocksfake Good analogy! Maybe I'll use your thoughts in the future . . .
portwes 4 weeks ago
Two atheists caricaturing religion. What joy *rolls eyes*
SyKmGl 1 month ago
two people so intelligent reading all the time
grafzahlization 1 month ago
How many times had Dawkins had the face expression of "Really? Do you really need me to answer that?"
h2321 1 month ago
two of the best, bravest minds around. massive respect and admiration for them
OverdriveRevival 2 months ago 4
44:19 Thats just great.
Gumikrukon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Really tough at the end of the interview. Thanks for posting.
1umbnonearth 3 months ago
I love these guys.
ashburnhouse 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins want to suck Dan's dick.
Entropy56 4 months ago
@Entropy56 save it, creep.
ashburnhouse 3 months ago
@Entropy56 and your religious or stupid
FIGHTFANNERD3 3 months ago
@Entropy56 you're disgusting
sexyloser 2 months ago
Heartwarming, eyeopening and browsoothing interview, goes into my favs!
SpaceVulcan 4 months ago
Their optimism makes me feel all warm and fuzzy
rogrob11 4 months ago 2
Yeah, don't thank your "sky daddy"
EmRosERD 4 months ago
It gets very awkward towards the end.... The whole production process without the editing.. Anyway, Richard Dawkins is pretty amazing.
ManDudeYeah 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins has gone off the rails:
search for Richard Dawkins and male privilege on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog.
Participating in flaming a woman because she dares to say 'don't objectify me at a conference'? Poorly done, Dawkins.
8yankee 4 months ago
the dawk and dan are awseome
cptmuska 4 months ago
emergence is fucking awesome. worship the mystery and majesty of emergence.
bmbenblog 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only "select" from variations that are possible and that have survival value. Furthermore, natural selection can only operate once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it was not involved in life's origins. Natural selection is a passive process in nature. It’s simply another term for “survival of the fittest." The real issue is what variations are possible in nature. Read my Internet article NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 I'm not sure what you mean by "natural selection cannot produce anything". It depends what you mean by "produce". Natural selection can - and does - "produce" entirely new species and classes of species. The relevant point though is that this does not happen in just one step - but in so many steps that on our timescale (i.e. year-to-year), it is almost impossible to see the change. A bit like your hair growing or a human being ageing.
typicalmelburnian 5 months ago
D.C.D. is full of shit. How does Mr. Darwin 2 explain the fact that Sanskrit, a very old language, is more sophisticated than predominant language of the modern world and its Internet?
parkerjwill 5 months ago
@parkerjwill uhhhhh It's not?
Thephyguy 5 months ago
@Thephyguy "In the late 1700s, European identity was shaken when scholars discovered that Sanskrit was closely related to the European languages, though much older and more sophisticated."
"India was viewed as Europe's mother civilization by Frederick Schlegel in Germany and by Voltaire in France. William Jones, a British colonial administrator, considered Sanskrit the most marvelous product of the human mind." (Google it)
parkerjwill 5 months ago
@parkerjwill Well philologists and linguists have gone even further back and now have something they call proto-indoeuropean which was a precurser to sanskrit and latin. its funny how you think dropping big names like that somehow augments that slightly silly and heavily biased remark =P European langauges far surpass the other languages due to science and technology alone. They are also the ones that study other languages. India/sanskrit doesn't.
Thephyguy 5 months ago
@Thephyguy Does your finding it "funny" that I drop big names trying to augment an argument invalidate it?
parkerjwill 5 months ago
I love Daniel Dennett. I love that man.
vaister 6 months ago
poor Richard, that producer is being a complete noob...
meanderband 6 months ago 26
Comment removed
rqm797 7 months ago
Comment removed
rqm797 7 months ago
Was this at Dennett's house, and if so, what cd's are on the shelf. That's what I would like to know!
Razrback11 7 months ago
dennett get on the treadmill
warLock21X 7 months ago
the santa clause nutcase
warLock21X 7 months ago
ok ok ok ok OK... I concede - I was wrong you were right - I'm small and you're big - I suppose I was thinking of bacteria on dead things - I WAS WRONG!!! I stand corrected... you can put away your potion set and mummified parents. There... I said it...
newloser 7 months ago
All the of the genius' last names apparently start with a "D": Dennett, Dawkins, and DARWIN
celloWiz10 8 months ago
I really enjoyed the bit about people should stop complaining about life and it's eventual end. It's so true, there isn't much that bothers me more then people complaining about how 'hard' life is.
Especially when you consider that in general we (north americans) have an incerdibly high standard of living compared to what people have had in the past.
NotDuncan 8 months ago
Unfortunately, massive numbers of people are either directly enriched by religion, or can use it's brainwashing facilities to seize power, maintain power, or just keep a population group docile and loyal to a heiarchy dedicated to their exploitation. It may be the "opiate of the masses" but it's also a worldwide ATM to those unscrupulous enogh to use it. What's the addict's reaction when you take away his drug?...What's Your reaction when someone tries to steal your bankcard?
charleneaponte1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you
have time come visit my chann
FatReleaseSystem 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you
have time come visit my chann
TheNitricOxide 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you
have time come visit my chann
StrikeTsunami 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you
have time come visit my chann
simplechocolatediet 8 months ago
God bless Richard Dawkins!
Irishtupperware 9 months ago
lmfao....! poor Dawkins... stupid camera man! lol that was funny
rsgirl10 9 months ago 2
Yes we were dead for millions of years before we were born?? So where were you then? It is no accident you are here my friend. I agree with many things you say, but you can have Evolution and God in one. Earth has a nervous system. Isn't this God you talked about? In a sense? Bottom up creation(natural selection/will)... is fact because bottom is not operating on a different principle to top so you are not opposing God as one, but God as a divided one like man's. God must exist as driving Law.
TheFajingMove 9 months ago
@TheFajingMove science renders god useless. natural unguided processes explain all of reality. its how we find answers 2 questions
cruelbusiness1984 8 months ago
@cruelbusiness1984 Natural unguided processes? The guide is you man! In miniature. Everything has it's opposite and God(perfection/unity) is the opposite of all matter(imperfection/division) hence our problem? You say many smart things, but you don't know much in one short life? Me either! We tend to look too much at others wrong doings and forget our own...(how selfless haha)
All is division of the same thing in essence, so love your neighbor..enemy..haha hard. Thanks anyway cruel business.
TheFajingMove 8 months ago
"the planet has grown a nervous system and it's us", beautiful.
robertogj 9 months ago
LOL at 43:49 when they pan around to Dan's face and he hasn't anything to say.
dpaanlka 10 months ago
Daniel Dennet looks so much like Charles Darwin!
TheCleverAncestor 10 months ago 25
@TheCleverAncestor and that guy from "cocoon" that sells oatmeal and diabetes supplies.
no2religions 9 months ago
@TheCleverAncestor wow your right
BudBrownBlues 9 months ago
@TheCleverAncestor Darwin's Dangerous Identical Twin!
baillou2 6 months ago 11
@TheCleverAncestor and Santa Claus!
paydirt69 5 months ago
@paydirt69 Happy Festivus!!!
dealer789 4 months ago
@TheCleverAncestor He looks like SANTA CLAUS
MrPrincebinondo 3 months ago
getting horny about atheism; making evolution into a purpose giving perspective on life; degradading science to a purposefull 'fixed' ideal
mfreekg 10 months ago
awesome interview I hope more people tune in on this priceless knowledge. I think for some one to truly appreciate the words of these two pioneers. They have to truly be not do but be a more open minded person who is free from the popular crap that the media has to offer. congratulations to all who are responsible for these types of interviews and lectures. I am grateful to live in an age where we have so many intellectuals that are able to liberate us from the infection of superstition.
Hammerman831 10 months ago
awesome interview I hope more people tune in on this priceless knowledge. I think for some one to truly appreciate the words of these two pioneers. They have to truly be not do but be a more open minded person who is free from the popular crap that the media has to offer. congratulations to all who are responsible for these types of interviews and lectures. I am grateful to live in an age where we have so many intellectuals that are able to liberate us from the infection of superstition.
Hammerman831 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Novel about an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 10 months ago
These cameramen are fucking retarded.
WSilva832 10 months ago 3
@WSilva832
one camera man,
"What you see here is the full extended interview, which includes a lot of rough camera transitions that were edited out of the final program (along with a lot of content)."
from the description of the video.
Flamingwhut 10 months ago
cool, im glad these two people spread their minds.
uf3y 10 months ago 2
Amazing conversation from two very knowledgeable men. I have a deep respect for both of them.
DaGavinX 11 months ago 3
FUCKING CAMERA MEN YOU ARE LUCKY TO BE IN THE PRESENCE OF SUCH GREAT MINDS, LISTEN YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING.
lanamal 11 months ago
@lanamal they should b sentenced 2 30 days of 'how 2 move smoothly' and 3 times of watchin the movie up close. tortuous not because of content but because of the shaky shakey :P
cruelbusiness1984 8 months ago
38:00
Richard Dawkins: Fucking idiotic cameramen fuckheads.......
loordargyle 11 months ago
35:45 - 38:00
:P
ispaniola 11 months ago
Humans throughout the world will eventually accept evolution as fact. They just have to go through the same stages that a terminally ill person goes through:
1) Denial
2) Anger
3) Bargaining
4) Depression
5) Acceptance
Most of the world today is stuck in the "denial" stage, while the developed world is, for the most part, in the "bargaining" stage (e.g. "maybe God CREATED evolution!").
Only an enlightened few are in the "acceptance" stage. Patience, my friends.
ejdf870 11 months ago 53
@ejdf870 Creationism-denial
Anti-evolution movement-anger
Intelligent design-bargaining
Intelligent design fails-depression
Most ppl actually go through all the stages except acceptance.. ;-)
DaGavinX 11 months ago 2
@ejdf870 its almost worse then a loss. like in a beautiful mind, not only doesn't he exist, but he was never there and these 'spiritual experiences' never existed.
cruelbusiness1984 8 months ago
@ejdf870 could not have said it better =D
redarmyjay 8 months ago
@ejdf870 or they go straight to acceptance and their beliefs are not affected in any way.
lskandarr 8 months ago
@ejdf870 Hey, I watch House too. =D
Codester145 8 months ago
@Codester145 What do you mean?
ejdf870 8 months ago
@ejdf870 I thought you got that from House, it was on a recent episode. I knew it was the actual emotional process, I guess it was just a coincidence.
Codester145 8 months ago
@Codester145 Wow, you mean someone else already said this?? I doubt it. They might have said something similar, but they couldn't have read my mind exactly.
ejdf870 8 months ago
@ejdf870 Yeah, this was on a recent episode of House MD.
Codester145 8 months ago
@ejdf870 It was talking about a terminally ill patient though, not evolution.
Codester145 8 months ago
@Codester145 Oh, yeah. The terminally ill patient part is not mine, but the statement I made relating it to religion is.
ejdf870 8 months ago
@ejdf870
I wish it was true.
Unfortunately, human life is like a conveyer belt: we start at one end and move through the "stages" only to end in the bucket of death, leaving room for others to go through the same process. That is why history repeats itself. And in that respect I don't see any hope for some global "enlightenment" in the future.
pharyngealized 8 months ago
@ejdf870 Denail? Bargaining? In the USA maybe, come to Europe, almost everybody will agree that evolution is a fact.
Mephizzle 7 months ago
@Mephizzle That isn't supported by any poll
Thephyguy 5 months ago
@ejdf870
I'm already at "acceptance", and not even in the slightest bit englightened.
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour That's the point- when you realize there's nothing, you're "enlightened". There's not going to be balloons and ticker tape (like in those ridiculous car commercials) when you finally are enlightened.
ejdf870 6 months ago
@ejdf870
Ah, I see you're on a trip now... well, at any rate, what? Huh?
I meant I'm not particularly educated in this stuff, just (for now) following the common sense of trusting the scientific community that offers results and achievements everyday over a bunch of myth-pounding crackpots. Not "enlightenment", just dumb common sense.
What "nothing" are you talking about? Evolution isn't "nothing".
twooffour 6 months ago
@twooffour Yeah, that's what I meant, using slightly fancier words.
ejdf870 6 months ago
@ejdf870
Where would be Charles Darwin,since the book that launched him into eternity of knowledge,he says:
To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual...having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.
Herodwel 6 months ago
@Herodwel Well he said many things. If you are actually interested, should check out the reasons why he didn't want to publish to begin with, and why for so many years he didn't.
Thephyguy 5 months ago
@Thephyguy
I read.You are the one who don't read enough about his life.;]
Herodwel 5 months ago
@Herodwel Well that quote is but one.. and his feelings and thoughts about the subject evolved quite dramatically... umm... so.. yeah.. about that reading thing.. better start now!
Thephyguy 5 months ago
@Thephyguy
That make me laugh.But yes,better start now.
Herodwel 5 months ago
@Herodwel haha.. you get all bum hurt because you are so biased about needing god. just a have a hurt bum is all. Not even reading will fix that. In fct.. I don't know if there is a cure for god addiction.
Thephyguy 5 months ago
@Thephyguy
Have you losed your mind,silly kid?We still don't have a cure for people without brain,too.Sorry.
Herodwel 5 months ago
@Herodwel LAWL there is the wizard of oz, you uncivilized barbarian.
Thephyguy 5 months ago
@Thephyguy
Now i'm really laughing.bye
Herodwel 5 months ago
@Herodwel Boooooooo.... religious people are messing up clear thinking.
Thephyguy 5 months ago
@ejdf870 lol they mad at you
OldManNipples 5 months ago
Comment removed
cptmuska 4 months ago
It's like Dennett and Dawkins are having fantastic sex of the minds, discussing and rolling around in the hay, and then this guy walks in, and starts telling them what to do and how to do it, with not realizing a fraction of what a beauty he is witnessing in this talk.. Alas, hes only doing his job, but who of us seriously minds a leaf blower? I can imagine how anti-climactic that is to have to carry on a semi-fake "porn scene" afterwards. But a good interview, I like Dennett, he's a swell guy.
Kan2209 11 months ago
Filmed in Autumn, uploaded in Spring.
StBarthelemy1572 11 months ago
"you can make a thing with a soul with stuff that don't have souls, such as gingers"
Vgard 11 months ago
I like the transparency of the filmmakers - leaving in all the in-between stuff. I like how casual this whole video is.
butson89 1 year ago
Two brilliant men.
ashkenn87 1 year ago
I'm a psychologist, and the philosophical, lofty part about "meaning of life' and "meaning of death" and "why life is worth it, it is a privilege", etc, is fantastic. Secular humanists and those of us who work with the public in a secular way (as we are not pastors and also would be unethical to have people swallow our religion) need such philosophical arguments for the consolation of our clients regardless on their theological views. Excellent!
carlevincent 1 year ago
Java Man, Peking Man, Haekels Embryos, lack of fossile evidence for MACROEvolution, the need for ANY transitional fossile....
The fallacy continues
plucknpick 1 year ago
@plucknpick Do some research on each of those topics and I think you will find that they are not at all the Achilles' heels of evolution that you think they are. I don't want to start an argument, I'm just saying that you are misinformed.
spase667 1 year ago
@plucknpick Did you omit the Piltdown chimer with intention LMAO? - For exemplary, and VERY obvious macroevolutionary transition history, including the respective fossil record, consult the evolution of WHALES from LAND-mammals.
kleenex3000 1 year ago
@plucknpick
I can imagine a human walking down to the corner shop, in fact, I saw someone do it the other day! But to think that a human, taking strides shorter than one meter, could cross from Africa to South America. Well that's impossible. That's tens of THOUSANDS of kilometers! No-one can walk that far!
ethositachi 11 months ago
@ethositachi ..who said one person walked that far, as best we know the journey from africa to the south american continent took upward of 20,000 years so about 1000 generations each moving a little further and leaving decendents that populated this route as they went.
gtirjohn 11 months ago
Does anyone know the film that Dan talks about (Homer Groening's)?
dabrownone 1 year ago
lol nice fairytail :P
sintje21 1 year ago
@sintje21 You must be talking about the Buy Bull.
MrJohnnyrace 1 year ago
human culture evolves like bacterial culture. i love it.
itchynights 1 year ago
@Aladoniss
you can copy and implant genes to cells/done by human being (life itself).Life means metabolism and self existence."Synthetic" life was produced by copying and using a living bacteria.Genome resonace tests done by pharmacy giant Pfizer show that variations inside a specie is possible but you probably understand that a fish cannot generate to an ape such RNA/DNA jumps dont exist in nature
tangerineful 1 year ago
neurons and microtubules are carrier of information (switches) but dont store anything.Your brain is processing 10 million bits data/second ,how about the entropy?
tangerineful 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aladoniss
many examples available the tree of life(Darwin) dont correlate with dna/genome.
you can copy and implant information (genes)to cells / done by human being (life itself) ,metabolism and self existence is needed to call it life.Resonace tests with genomes done by Pfizer show that variations exist inside a specie but you probably understand that an fish cannot generate to an ape such a run of RNA/DNA dont exist
tangerineful 1 year ago
Comment removed
tangerineful 1 year ago
he gives the single best idea in human history for Charles Darwin wich theory is already proven partly wrong
he say's the soul or thoughts are in neurons but it's unproven
you cannot make living stuff out of dead stuff/ proven fact
i stopped at 5:22 because this guy talks BULLSHIT
tangerineful 1 year ago
@tangerineful No references to anything I see. I guess you feel your word is good enough. Thanks for the 'insight' though
dabrownone 1 year ago
@tangerineful
dude - living stuff come out of dead stuff all the time.
I suggest you open your eyes.
newloser 1 year ago
@newloser
sorry you are wrong dead is dead
tangerineful 1 year ago
@tangerineful
What happens when you die? You deteriorate... why?
newloser 1 year ago
@newloser Because living things eat the dead thing. Those living things are either placed there when you die by flies or other bugs, or those living things were already present on the dead thing when it was alive. When you die, your defenses are down and anything that wants to eat you can eat you.
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
@ninjajesus81 You see the dead become the living. It's called food, you probably have eaten before. Those materials were dead and some of them were never really alive yet it becomes part of you, a living organism. So inanimate matter becomes part of living organisms every second of everyday and its been happening for a very long time. I have one question about the debate though, couldn't Richard have found an undergrad with a camera so they could have had 2 camera ppl?
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo My food never becomes living. My food provides me with protein (not living), carbohydrates (not living) and fat (not living). Those constituents build living cells, but they're not living themselves.
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
@ninjajesus81 Until they are reorganized into a living cell. You just said that proteins, carbs and fats are not living, but they build living things. So yes, they do become living. If you were to deconstruct and find where each molecule in one of your skin cells came from it would be non-living material. Example of seeing food become living. You have a sterilized room with a piece of meat in it. Place a maggot on the meat. can the maggot grow and make more LIVING cells? Yes.
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo The meat doesn't become living just because you eat it. It becomes part of a living machine.
Take a clock for instance. A clock is a machine. If you take the clock apart, each piece of the clock is not a machine in and of itself. It only becomes a machine when put together. A spring is not a machine. A gear is not a machine.
So proteins, fats and carbs don't become living, just like iron, magnesium and calcium don't become living just because we eat it.
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
@ninjajesus81 I would agree with you if a clock was made up of living cells, but it's not so your analogy is mute. What you say results in nothing being living but the organism as a whole, which is just not true. Regardless if we take a living organism and somehow track all of its molecules to where they were before the organism was there, we would find inorganic matter. Maybe we are just arguing semantics over a whole organism being called alive vs one cell being called alive.
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo You didn't understand my analogy at all. Proof of that is you saying the clock needs living cells for me to be able to compare them. That makes no sense considering my analogy.
And it's not "mute", it's "moot".
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
@ninjajesus81 Alright, take a fungus, and separate one cell from the others. Does that cell continue to live? Yes unlike clock parts. I understand your analogy and where it fails to describe the fact that we are not made up of inanimate parts. We are a community of living cells working together, each cell qualifying itself for the title of living. Your clock analogy would work for a single cell possibly but not the organism as a whole. Thanks for pointing out that my spell check made an error...
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo What we're made of can be described in smaller and smaller things. We're made of organs, we're made of cells, we're made of molecules, we're made of atoms. You arbitrarily stopped at cells and said that's what we're made of.
We don't eat cells and those cells become part of us. We eat molecules and they become a part of us. Those molecules aren't living, but they're used to make something that's living. My analogy was fine. The parts of a clock are not machines. The clock is.
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
@ninjajesus81 I have to ask what is living then? Your analogy only reinforces the fact that we are inanimate things put together or better to think, we are inanimate molecules in an ongoing series of reactions. So is the reaction itself life or are the parts of the reaction covered under the term living? Again we are arguing about the semantics of whether life is the name given to inanimate things self replicating(basically) or the whole mass of the organism? My opinion is the latter.
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo We're not inanimate things. We move, therefore we're animated.
Life isn't defined very well, which is why we run into problems when we try to classify viruses.
By now, I've really forgot what we were originally arguing.
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
@ninjajesus81 We're really arguing for the same thing, just semantics. You give the word life to a chemical process, I give it to all reactants in the reaction. So Just like we say the log is burning in an oxidation reaction, I say the inanimate molecules are living.
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago
@newloser i knew it. i am going to make my special potion.
BLUEEYESSEVEN 8 months ago
Comment removed
tangerineful 1 year ago
You can't help wishing that Dan Dennet had been your grand-dad when you were a kid, can you! (or is that just me?) A wonderful thinker and educator, and, unlike the brilliant but slightly awkward Dawkins, Dennet is so likeable, even lovable.
USERNAMEfieldempty 1 year ago
An AI program pre loaded with just some basic instructions that will allow it to program itself would be the ultimate computer program. That is the definition of the human brain. The top of evolution, the ultimate creation; no other brain can top ours. If natural selection could explain this, there would be hundreds of different species in the fossil record with this adaptation, since it so powerfull for the species who has it. This suggests that evolution in this planet is directional.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx The fallacy here is that the brain WAS NOT PRE-PROGRAMMED. Therefore, the "finding" of directional evolution is not proved.
shockeyjones 1 year ago
@shockeyjones There are basic programming instructions in every brain. You fear pain, fight or run when threatened, etc. In the human brain those pre-programming instructions seem to be far less than in any other species. Hence almost all our behavior is learned. It seems inconsistent with natural selection that species with hundreds of millions of years of evolution has not developed the adaptation of self programming and us with only a couple of million years of evolution have.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx The fallacy here is that the brain WAS NOT PRE-PROGRAMMED. Therefore, the "finding" of directional evolution is not proved (or even suggested).
shockeyjones 1 year ago
@shockeyjones I think you are confusing my point with the point other people have suggested that we humans are “hardwired” for seeking God. My point different and is more scientific than philosophical (see above). On the other hand, the “hardwiring” point is not necessarily related to the brain. The hardwire is in the soul, but that is another story...
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
With all these series of interviews, with all their marvelous thoughts and ideas... I enjoy scanning over the offices and homes of these people. It is wonderful that Daniel Dennet uses a turntable, along with the old classic album cleaner on top. A cassette player can be seen. He also has a decent collection of CDs.
Evolution builds upon existing things, and even the process of stereo systems and musical appreciation was never smooth, but the common ancestry is unmistakable.
OneWorldHistory 1 year ago
love this
ImRunningazoo 1 year ago
It must be so damn frustrating for these christies, their usual tactic of preying on people who are ill, suddenly isn't working for them in the public spotlight, Dennet and Hitchens, both standing in the face of death and still coming through it with the exactly the same positions they held before.
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
A message to Dawkins. I don't appreciate that we appreciate it like he said. I appreciate that he appreciates we can appreciate it and i am sure there are other people here that appreciate the fact that i appreciate that you can appreciate that we appreciate these facts.
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Doesn’t atheism lead to the rejection of objective truth claims? If so how is Dostoevsky’s claim "if god is not, anything is permissible”, not accurate?
dinokralt4 1 year ago
If I were Dawkins I'd punch that director in the pussy.
ashburnhouse 1 year ago
Dennett is so bad ass
sflash7 1 year ago
I've watched this several times and it gives me such a calm, satisfied feeling. They're both so right--all the stuff they're talking about on the deck, it's just, well, right on the money! Cheers, Dawkins and Dennett! :)
josephgoodrich 1 year ago
One of the more fantastic interviews I've seen on the internet, let alone on YouTube. The joy of being alive, wonder of the cosmos and natural world, and compassion of fellow humans... all wonderful and great topics, between two of my favorite examples of humanity.
Long live Daniel and Richard.
coil311 1 year ago 27
@coil311 =) Agreed.
TheCleverAncestor 10 months ago
Darwin was a genious.
NaturalSelection101 1 year ago
Hallelujah = glorify god (translation of the Hebrew word).
Isn't it ironic ?
moshecsbgu1 1 year ago
actually they taught a gorilla that it will die one day so we are not the only species capable of that
blazereef 1 year ago
What about the Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Alfred Russell Wallace. Why don't these people (like Dawkins) ever talk about these 2 people? I'm pretty damn sure they have heard of them!
cyberdaemon 1 year ago
@cyberdaemon - Both of these men are not prone to ignoring the contributions of their fellow man, the fact they don't utter their names right in the very few moments of their life that they are on camera doesn't mean they value them any less. It almost sounds like you are demanding that they recognise them specifically by name.
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
@TheSpankymonkey Yea but they should at least mention them.
cyberdaemon 1 year ago
@cyberdaemon - There is no yea but. there are tens of thousands of people that they should mention by that kind of logic. You already know they do mention peoples names, you already know they take no credit for things that they did not do themselves, you just watched a video where they publicly are thanking EVERYBODY that contributed to where we are now, you watched this and the thanks they gave to everyones kindness and co-operation and you sit there saying huffff, they didn't mention. Really.
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I love the fanboy and almost perverted obsession you guys have with these guys. At least Dennett is a somewhat reasonable philosopher. However, Richard Dawkins is more of a joke than anything. I doubt you guys even know what these two propose in their philosophies. Richard Dawkins, for instance, believes there are no morals. Holocaust was fine!
Tohnrenable 1 year ago
@Tohnrenable no objective morals.
voodoocigam 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tohnrenable
"Dawkins, for instance, believes there are no morals. Holocaust was fine!"
Please cite a source for this.
Thanks!
nemirn 1 year ago