This guys foundational understanding of particle physics and evolution are held up by those same giant turtles. quarks and protons dont "decide" to "work together" in the way an animals can. this guy needs to read a lot more dawkins and look up game theory or prisoners dilemma.
FANTASTIC listen!!! I love how Bloom takes the time to understand nature and biology and it's survival behaviors, (psychology of nature?) and shows us how we in turn behave and react to each other individualy and as a community, then as a global village with our various collective belief systems. Bloom is amazingly insightful. Over all, we have a choice to understand our world and in turn ourselves more and more. What a wonderful mind he has.
He said it himself.Quarks group together in order to survive they don't do it because they choose to,it is a was of surving.Things that group together do so to make end's meat.A true argument would be that if in nature a thing/being had the choice between grouping or being selfish both having equivalent results and it would choose social behavior. And he intervened to save that bag because it made him feel good and accomplished...making yourself feel good is selfish behavior.
@trrunkz There is a spell check(red wavy line under words when misspelled, right click the word). Funny how people harping on misspelling almost never mention that.
We want to give our kids the best conditions and to survive a group will help your children to survive and it will benefit you so that is why we are here and birds are still pooping on eachother
Non-violent times? I guess if you don't live in Iraq or any of the other countries that "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" has destroyed.
Howard is just a paranoid bitch... all his talk are biased, and practically no argument, he have not lived and experience life in asian countries, he is just a bitch scared to integrate into foreign culture..
i think america has made headway-slowly. asmore and more of the older folks people and politicians- the younger wave can make thier mark, and when their gone... hopefully things will be so diluted. but it will probably take alot of time. but who knows. and i wouldnt want the goverment to step in- in anyway, hell its seems like they are recklessly trying to destroy us in some ways. i think Jefferson said every hundred years there should be revolution. look at other countries.why not us?
Shouldn't Truth be defined as Absolute and Infinite, whatever Religion (or not) we claim? For Truth cannot change or be changed? (The lie cannot the Truth make)
i cant help but think his voice is jsut like jeff goldbloom's and with all due restpect to him but i also cant help but think hes going to program a virus for the mothership lol
@throwntomato That way of thinking is what makes America AMERICA. And when you look around you see it getting worse. I doubt it will change. I feel it's too late anyways. Life as our parents knew it is very different as we know it and is still ever changing. I just wish it was in a more positive way.
Social rules don't apply to quantum objects. They don't have a will of survival or any goals. They may not survive forever when they're alone but that doesn't mean they try to "team up". This argument does not refute the central point of the theory of the Selfish Gene.
Bloom may be an intelligent and sophisticated individual but this was just weak.
I came to this conclusion, what you wanted to say in short is this: when you send astronauts to space to colonize other planets you will resolve the issue of low self-esteem of the group by sacrificing bodily orifices of the other astronauts to the ones of the main astronaut, in the other words they will become his bitches. For that you'll use the mind control system of Old man from the mountain in which everybody will be brainwashed by promises of non-existent 72 alien virgins in the afterlife?
Wow how stupid, no Bloom, not everything is social and not everything is individual, do you really need something so obvious to be pointed out.
The selfish gene is a methaphor about the relation of altruism and natural selection, you don't have to take it to plank scale.
Also, Dawkins doesn't reject kin selection in principle, he only rejects it as the origin of religion because there are far easier explanations, child naivety and anthropomorphism tendencies being the chief ones.
Imho, it is less appealing when the interviewer actually sounds interested(*coughindoctrinatedjkcough*). Was he talking about masturbation? he must be one of those guys who think of masturbating every ten minutes. If i had an interview, one subject i would definitely bring up is masturbation. Its quick, fun, safe, and easy. The term Relieving yourself is no longer confined to defecation and urination. The bathroom now serves three purposes.
@Ideulogy wrong, Orthologs and Paralogs are two types of homologous sequences. while you can use Orthology for art of grammer, it is also used to describe diff types of bird species. comes from orthologous.
The entire selfish gene section was such a waste of time to listen to. I reckon somebody should correct him then give him a chance to redohis arguement.
The truth is that there is no truth? This guy makes it sound like individuals themselves decide truth based on opinion and personal perspective... I think that would moreso define conviction, not truth. There is an underlying current to all existence, reality, physical and supernatural plains and that is truth. It exists indefinitely and cannot be bent or shaped to fit an individual agenda.
That guy really didn't understand The Selfish Gene. That book has nothing to do with the behavior of quarks. He also doesn't seem to understand that the theory doesn't say that individuals and groups don't compete or don't cooperate. Clearly they do both, but genic selection explains why individuals and groups expressed this diverse behavior. They do it because they do whatever effectively spreads their genes.
He uses a strawman argument against the selfish gene and then tries to apply it to particle physics... alright he can do that if he wants, but he's just lost all credibility in my book.
2 JEWS pretending to be "Atheists" telling us about our freedom (or lack thereof) while omitting the FACT that Jews are the ones who are robbing us of our freedoms(along with our money and our lives). Controlled dissent at its best.
Yeah, I must be "kidding" or "out of my mind", right? Because the Jews don't really have a monopoly on the media, they don't really control the Federal Reserve, there's no such thing as "Kosher tax", AIPAC doesn't exist, and Jews have no control over our legal and political system.. All are mere figments of my overactive imagination. And I must be a "hateful" "racist" for daring to SPEAK of their ACTIONS. Yeah.. it's all one big "joke". Only those of us who know the truth aren't laughing.
Rational self interest isn't just about individualism; if I have a rational self interest to join a particular group then I'm still in the capacity of an individual making a choice. You're making the flawed assumption that rational self interest equals misanthropy when it is anything but that - you look out for yourself and if that means joining to a group, you're still looking out for yourself. If you didn't gain from it then you wouldn't have joined - hence the selfish gene theory is right.
left vs. right (good cop/bad cop) , black vs. white, religion vs atheism, all distractions. communist vs. our freedom, terrorists vs. our freedom, autobots vs. decepticons
Good interview, but Bloom used a straw man on Dawkin's Selfish Gene theory. Altruism and group cooperation is completely compatible w/ selfish gene theory, as long as altruism and cooperation done w/ organisms w/ many similar genes. Also, genes move in groups because it is beneficial to the individual gene. The gene group being stronger is a means to the end that the single gene survives. Bloom dropped the ball on this one.
@bu1ckgnx I have to agree. The selfish gene hypothesis is not the strawman social darwinism that Bloom presents as Dawkin's selfish gene. It goes to genetic groupings that aid gene survival and social animal interactions that aid survival in the host organism or it's kin, and includes such things as altruism and self sacrifice. Bloom really didn't seem to have a grasp on the topic and ended up debating something that wasn't the selfish gene hypothesis.
He's conflating the Massachusets bay founders with the other founders. Obviously the Quakers weren't authoritarian, the Baptists who fought against the Massachusets bay and eventually settled in Rhode Island were very libertarian, at one point they were living - quite peacefully, without what we would call a government. So no, this guy is mischaracterizing the very first settlements.
Furthermore, the fundies today don't know shit about history.
I've just read "the dawkins letters", and i while doing that i constantly had the impression of the author missing the point. I got the same impression when howard bloom started to talk about group selection. i must really be a dawkins fanboy.
Of course, in principle, nothing is totally reducible, but making "in principle" arguments of evolutionary change is missing the point. Meaningful arguments are arguments for relative frequency. Dawkins suggested a change in paradigm, but his argument is still based on the relative frequency of genic selection based on the number of properties of organisms, groups, etc that are reducible to genes.
Insightful, but he seems to misunderstand the selfish gene principle. Groups exist, the point is that they exist under inclusive fitness - the fitness of the group is, thus, a derivation of the fitness of the individual and/or that individual's genes. Group selection only takes place when group is selected for a property (total range, variation, etc) that is not reducible to its constituent organisms and/or genes.
I'm extremely disinclined to identify a man who within the first two minutes of the first time I hear him speak bunches Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson together as the best of friends and by implication both "anti-authoritarian" founding fathers and pits them against a group of (oh so conveniently unnamed) "religious authoritarians." Hamilton was the greatest authoritarian at the founding of America. Bloom is a moron on this point. Authoritarianism is neither religious nor secular.
I just left a comment and somehow youtube deleted it. It was a good one too.
But anyway
TJ, You have a growing number of supporters, there will always be haters, and ignorant people who are intolerant of our perspectives, but no matter what keep your courage, stay pertinacious, and never give in to oppression. Know that your now a part of making the world a better place, your expression is crucial to the most essential discourse between Haves and have nots. Freedom and fascism. Good vs evil
how can anyone kick a sack off potatoes 2 1/2 feet in the air. if he thought there was a human in a bag. that was some kick. is he exaggerating or is everything he says bullshit too.
You guys are talking about innocent Iraqi people that strap bombs to them because their family was murder in cold blood by a US Military Apaches chopper.
Or you can kill innocent children with an Apaches chopper and never talk about why they are strapping bombs to them.
=
watch?v=RTHEDajky5c
=
I wonder what the cost of throat cancer will coast ya? Better buy insurances now. other wise you will have to pay for u own treatments or not get any help @ all!
That's a totally false representation of neo-Darwinism. Howard's suggesting that there's no moral system without group selection. He should read the 'God Delusion' and see what Richard has to say about group selection.
When Howard started talking about quarks as if they had human cognition or as if Darwinian natural selection applied to them he lost me.
Im very confused by all the comments. If people are made from protons electrons and nuetrons, and there alive. Can it really be said that protons, and electrons are not alive? IM not a scientist so if some one could explain that to me it'd be nice. Secondly with out actually reading his books. I would not personally judge some body's theory. Because in an interview like this you may simply not be able to communicate ur point enough.
simply put TAA did not challenge him on one point. I very much wounder what he would have said. If half the comments were questions asked in the video. I like how this guy thinks out side the box. How ever if you do that people need to challenge all of your ideas all the time. even in basic interviews. I know of a lot of very intelligent people who come across as dumb. Because they do not communicate there points well.
I would say the point he makes in video one, about birds flying being insane. Strikes me as odd too. As evolution is incremental. Unless i really dont get the theory. It kinda seems like in the point he makes. that birds ever intended to fly. Didn't they start out with shit wings that could not even do that? flight took millions of years to develop, and i dont think getting to the sky was ever the goal. I'm pretty sure it was to kill shit and to avoid getting killed.
Also if im a animal wanting to fly in the emptiness of space is not absurd. T Rex did not have wings. if i only weigh 30 pound damn thats more then enough motivation. Yes im aware flight did not develope in tandem with Rexes, but insert any predator and theres your motive.
Next time TJ please scrutinize your guests more. I would love to have scene you tear him a new ass hole if he wrong. Or have a better understanding of wtf he means if hes right.
@SlaytanicMayhem I feel kinda dumb now. I remember thinking yesterday that the point of life seems to be only to reproduce more of it self. I guess it makes sense that some thing that cant reproduce would not be life. /thx for the explanation.
@fearthepib; Well protons and neutrons and electrons do not go through cell respiration. They don't show any signs of being a living thing. It's argued that all living things must contain carbon..but what do we know? Haha when you get into things that small, it becomes the grey area of science. You may not be a scientist, but you have good observations and ask good questions. It's up to you to figure things out and find your own truth =)
@fraudster111 a stone has energy: it doesnt make it alive...
Unless your definition of alive is "having energy": this is a bad definition since everything has energy in this universe. So this definition of "alive" does not discriminate between things.
Check out the definition of life in a diccionary...
@TristanTheSaint Do you know how many definitions of life are there? A lot. The real question is. If you believe protons, neutrons, and electrons are not alive. How come we "living" things are made up of them? How and non living things make up living things?
@fraudster111 I do know there are many definitions of life or life forms. Elementary particles are the building blocks of matter, and matter is the building block of life.
Saying matter is alive is a point of view, but, the various definitions of "life" discriminate between various types, yours simply states everything is alive.
@fearthepib Maybe he couldn't communicate his point fully. However, his argument was that since sub-atomic particles "work together" group selection must be true.
Protons,neutrons and electrons are not living things. They do not fulfil the characteristic of life. One can't use convenient analogies to support one's theories.
The behaviour of sub-atomic particles has NOTHING to do with how natural selection occurs.
Well I thought it was interesting but his analysis on Dawkins' theory was way off key - nepotism on the subatomic level? No lol, just no. Quarks might as well work together spontaneously - why do they NEED to work togther to build a "search engine"?
Truth consfused me as well, read some damn Hofstaader or something before you even begin talkng about that and think your intelligent.
Catal Huyuk was probably a religious sanctuary, not a city.
The first "city" would probably be Lagash. But it is not convenient today to give a Mesopotamian city, with a culture that disproves the very concepts of modern Capitalism, that honor.
Inappropriate anthropomorphism has led to one long Argument by Metaphor from Bloom. Particularly around the Selfish-Gene + Quark segment, his comprehension of both was pretty cringe-worthy.
This is pretty entertaining philosophy, but I wouldn't use him to back any arguments I might make for protecting, fixing, or improving on various aspects of Capitalism.
@sciencemile The selfish gene is also an anthropomorphism but it is a useful explanatory tool as is Bloom's anthropomorphism of quarks. His tying quarks in with human survival patterns was obviously for amusement's sake.
Isn't Howard Bloom a Tea-partier? Fuck knows...its all dumb. However, I can assure you theamazing atheist hasn't read: fydor, hemingway, falkner, vonnegut, shake, myshnkenff, or rand. that given, what most of society once swayed, he did not read, and is still ignorant, and is still dumb. but if he has, bless his heart, its been 'cause his dear high school teachers told him so.
Poor Howard has to go to TAA to be heard. Hes too much of a looney toon for someone credible. TJ, your a fat goof who thinks hes intelligent. gtfo lol
This was a very interesting interview TJ. Something I might have to get to reading soon. It's funny that everyone says that people are selfish. But they aren't built that way genetically. Hmmm.... So interesting... makes me think.
he mistakes matter for living beings, either he is trying to make an analogy or he is not as smart as TJ claims he is, after all protons and eletrons and neutrons are tied together by the weak and strong nuclear forces, they have no choice. Living beings are self replicating things that desire to live, that is why while a virus lacks a nucleus and metabolism of its own (i might not be 100% sure here) it still fills these 2 requirements and its considered a living being, Dawkins is right!!!!!!!
@S2000fred To make such a statement and end it with "Dawkins is right!" is paradoxical. In order to make a true distinction between matter and living beings, you have to figure out how life originated. I'm SURE Dawkins doesn't think it just popped into existence.
@AcidLady85 first nobody is claiming they poped into existence, i was stating that he apparently doesn't know the difference of simple matter and what we define as a living being, it is 2 completely different things, yeah perhaps i overdid with the dawkins win, it was me just putting a cherry on top showing how poor his understanding of those 2 things was if and i say if he wasn't using these 2 as an analogy.
@S2000fred Perhaps my English isn't perfect, but I just assumed he was making a simplified analogy. It's easier for people to understand the nature of things when anthropomorphized.
@S2000fred That all depends on how you look at it. Anything could be a living thing or just simple matter depending on how you define what life is. You define life as something that self-replicates and desires to live. A more scientific mind would say that that is the definition of life as we can practically understand and refer to it, and that "life" is really a more abstract thing. Don't say he is unintelligent because he is delving into the more abstract aspect of it, because it's not.
@Nathan54AB are you claiming that definitions can be relative?? aren't you confusing it with opinions?? you know the implications of definitions being relative?
if there were no common ground for definitions then much of our society would be chaotic, think: Judge-"so you plead guilty to child molestation?" pedophile-" o no your honor, i believe your definition for molestation is wrong, i simply hugged the kid from behind" Judge-" i'm sorry your free to go" lol ok maybe this was a bad example
@S2000fred so yeah as you see definitions need to have a common ground, otherwise i don't think we would have all sorts of different standards for human rights etc.
yeah i guess i was a douche calling him an unintelligent person, he just ticked me off when he started making claims about life when he isn't even a biologist, i mean for example i'm a Physics student but i wouldn't be making claims that Hawking's theories of black holes are wrong and come up with my own definition without evidence
@S2000fred You missed a key word in my statement. Let me quote myself.
I said, "That is the definition of life (your definition) as we can PRACTICALLY understand and refer to it."
"Practically" is a key word there. Having pointed that out, your example of child molestation is irrelevant.
I think you're viewing this video in a scientifically literal manner, when it's actually philosophical in nature. I mean, philosophically, nuclear forces that hold atoms together ARE a lot like social forces.
Quarks, protons, electrons and neutrons are all living things, so that analogy fails. In living things, of course the genes all work together, because otherwise, how else would a creature be as successful? As amazing as you are, Howard Bloom, Dawkins is right about the "selfish gene". I believe by "selfish gene" Richard Dawkins is referring to the individual self-interest of genes as a whole in an organism or species, as opposing to keeping in regard the self-interest of other species.
I think I had to agree with everything Howard Bloom said until he talked about "The Selfish Gene". Dawkins is a well-studied biologist and ethologist and as smart as the Bloom is, he wasn't the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science! "Survival of the fittest" is clearly how evolution works. If you aren't a successful being, you don't get to pass along your genes, which is how successful traits are passed along. At least Bloom gave Dawkins credit for his brilliance.
12:00 in the video, Bloom states that these guys were kicking something that may have been a human. He never told us if it was or not, now I'm fucking curious.
lol, social rules for neutrons and quarks? Sorry, that's a little out there. They worked together. We don't know why exactly, but saying that they have some kind of social contract seems very odd. It sounds like the same pseudo science that was in that movie "the secret". The movie starts out ok, but then they make a big leap. The saying that inanimate things work together as though they are thinking about it or because "the cosmos" just works that way seems kind of far fetched to me.
@SystematicChaos08 Did you never hear of the PMRC? It was a big thing in the 80s where Tipper Gore was trying to censor music. that is really the only example I can think of
I think whatever he thinks he's disagreeing with Dawkins on, he's confused. He's misinterpreting Dawkins as saying he doesn't believe in cooperation somehow.
i'm reading the Lucifer principle and its good. only problem is that I was looking for Genius of the Beast but the book store didn't have it
themegaradical 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Wow, how did Jeffrey Rush get so smart?
RPSM101 3 months ago
This guys foundational understanding of particle physics and evolution are held up by those same giant turtles. quarks and protons dont "decide" to "work together" in the way an animals can. this guy needs to read a lot more dawkins and look up game theory or prisoners dilemma.
MrAtheistGuy1 3 months ago
What have quarks got to do with the survival techniques of organisms?
Triipticz 4 months ago
lol 5.7 and a half feet tall
Triipticz 4 months ago
WHERE'S PART 1?!
Parralyzed 4 months ago
Comment removed
filthyphillyboy 5 months ago
Anyone seen TREE of LIFE ?
FANTASTIC listen!!! I love how Bloom takes the time to understand nature and biology and it's survival behaviors, (psychology of nature?) and shows us how we in turn behave and react to each other individualy and as a community, then as a global village with our various collective belief systems. Bloom is amazingly insightful. Over all, we have a choice to understand our world and in turn ourselves more and more. What a wonderful mind he has.
mqemphatic38 6 months ago
He said it himself.Quarks group together in order to survive they don't do it because they choose to,it is a was of surving.Things that group together do so to make end's meat.A true argument would be that if in nature a thing/being had the choice between grouping or being selfish both having equivalent results and it would choose social behavior. And he intervened to save that bag because it made him feel good and accomplished...making yourself feel good is selfish behavior.
trrunkz 7 months ago
@trrunkz sry for spelling guys english is not my first language
trrunkz 7 months ago
@trrunkz There is a spell check(red wavy line under words when misspelled, right click the word). Funny how people harping on misspelling almost never mention that.
H4I2I2EE 4 months ago
@H4I2I2EE I am sorry english is not my native laguage i did the best i could
trrunkz 4 months ago
so in the bag was a person? or not? did he/she made it? i know this video is old, and its understood that the person lived, just to be certain.
jhNNNNNNNy 8 months ago
I absolutely love this man! Cheers to Howard Bloom!
DurexDurpaneu2 8 months ago
We want to give our kids the best conditions and to survive a group will help your children to survive and it will benefit you so that is why we are here and birds are still pooping on eachother
rr733 8 months ago
Non-violent times? I guess if you don't live in Iraq or any of the other countries that "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" has destroyed.
mofoshrimp 8 months ago
Right, Howard, a "prankster" logged on to Youporn. Riiiiight.
jd55192 9 months ago
Got to love that good old Skype lag.
anarchistbigred 9 months ago
Howard is just a paranoid bitch... all his talk are biased, and practically no argument, he have not lived and experience life in asian countries, he is just a bitch scared to integrate into foreign culture..
knight2battle 9 months ago
@DNFmcX
i think america has made headway-slowly. asmore and more of the older folks people and politicians- the younger wave can make thier mark, and when their gone... hopefully things will be so diluted. but it will probably take alot of time. but who knows. and i wouldnt want the goverment to step in- in anyway, hell its seems like they are recklessly trying to destroy us in some ways. i think Jefferson said every hundred years there should be revolution. look at other countries.why not us?
mokeymina 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Shouldn't Truth be defined as Absolute and Infinite, whatever Religion (or not) we claim? For Truth cannot change or be changed? (The lie cannot the Truth make)
And isn't Truth the true name of God?
2gointruth 1 year ago
Stefan Molyneux is another insightful person worth listening to.
DNFmcX 1 year ago
i cant help but think his voice is jsut like jeff goldbloom's and with all due restpect to him but i also cant help but think hes going to program a virus for the mothership lol
SPARTAN112CE 1 year ago
he sounds like Jef Goldbloom
trex65ghia 1 year ago
how true; " as long as i can get ahead, screw everybody else"......today's mantra.
throwntomato 1 year ago 3
@throwntomato That way of thinking is what makes America AMERICA. And when you look around you see it getting worse. I doubt it will change. I feel it's too late anyways. Life as our parents knew it is very different as we know it and is still ever changing. I just wish it was in a more positive way.
DNFmcX 1 year ago
Why does he sound like a robot?
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 1 year ago
The Puritans are New England...one of the least religious parts of the country
In contrast, the south didn't get as much in the way of religious xiles, yet are the most religious region today
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 1 year ago
lol YouPorn
adtv2 1 year ago
Social rules don't apply to quantum objects. They don't have a will of survival or any goals. They may not survive forever when they're alone but that doesn't mean they try to "team up". This argument does not refute the central point of the theory of the Selfish Gene.
Bloom may be an intelligent and sophisticated individual but this was just weak.
Crokkle 1 year ago
Wasn't meant to be all this difficult, folks. Jesus is the truth. Follow Him. Know Him.
TheProfessorEnglish 1 year ago
While this guy is has incredibly interesting ideas I don't agree with him on referring to subatomic particles as a social system.
smithrmichael1997 1 year ago
WE ARE STILL CHILDREN.
saltfan2 1 year ago
I came to this conclusion, what you wanted to say in short is this: when you send astronauts to space to colonize other planets you will resolve the issue of low self-esteem of the group by sacrificing bodily orifices of the other astronauts to the ones of the main astronaut, in the other words they will become his bitches. For that you'll use the mind control system of Old man from the mountain in which everybody will be brainwashed by promises of non-existent 72 alien virgins in the afterlife?
SagTactlessness 1 year ago
Wow how stupid, no Bloom, not everything is social and not everything is individual, do you really need something so obvious to be pointed out.
The selfish gene is a methaphor about the relation of altruism and natural selection, you don't have to take it to plank scale.
Also, Dawkins doesn't reject kin selection in principle, he only rejects it as the origin of religion because there are far easier explanations, child naivety and anthropomorphism tendencies being the chief ones.
rgzdev 1 year ago
How can you mention Madison and Hamilton as key founding fathers and not mention John Adams?
EricIndiana 1 year ago
Imho, it is less appealing when the interviewer actually sounds interested(*coughindoctrinatedjkcough*). Was he talking about masturbation? he must be one of those guys who think of masturbating every ten minutes. If i had an interview, one subject i would definitely bring up is masturbation. Its quick, fun, safe, and easy. The term Relieving yourself is no longer confined to defecation and urination. The bathroom now serves three purposes.
WyldOrbit 1 year ago
Good interview though. Some good questions.
WyldOrbit 1 year ago
"for some people truth is strapping a bomb to themselves..."etc...
I dislike this comment. Whether or not that is the truth to the individual, it still is not the true truth.
What is truth? Truth is sincerity.
WyldOrbit 1 year ago
Ornithology - The branch of zoology that deals with birds.
Orthology - The art of correct grammar and correct use of words; The right description of things.
...You've got to be kidding me. That's just too good.
Ideulogy 1 year ago 20
@Ideulogy wrong, Orthologs and Paralogs are two types of homologous sequences. while you can use Orthology for art of grammer, it is also used to describe diff types of bird species. comes from orthologous.
persesmonk 1 year ago
The entire selfish gene section was such a waste of time to listen to. I reckon somebody should correct him then give him a chance to redohis arguement.
ryonalionthunder 1 year ago
He's amazing.
ChurchInAshes 1 year ago
What the hell does any of this have to do with the truth?
belugafishgod 1 year ago
I must disagree about selfish gene theory but this guy is brilliant.
Ilamarea 1 year ago
i cant stand this format. skype sounds horrible
johncrazy8s 1 year ago
Bit of an abrupt end right there.
TheKingCL 1 year ago
The truth is that there is no truth? This guy makes it sound like individuals themselves decide truth based on opinion and personal perspective... I think that would moreso define conviction, not truth. There is an underlying current to all existence, reality, physical and supernatural plains and that is truth. It exists indefinitely and cannot be bent or shaped to fit an individual agenda.
MyOnlyFarph 1 year ago
That guy really didn't understand The Selfish Gene. That book has nothing to do with the behavior of quarks. He also doesn't seem to understand that the theory doesn't say that individuals and groups don't compete or don't cooperate. Clearly they do both, but genic selection explains why individuals and groups expressed this diverse behavior. They do it because they do whatever effectively spreads their genes.
SilentMike0 1 year ago
peace the fuck out
NaMgKCa 1 year ago
He uses a strawman argument against the selfish gene and then tries to apply it to particle physics... alright he can do that if he wants, but he's just lost all credibility in my book.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
this guy is fun
dmix09 1 year ago
I just noticed that in the begging your voice kinda sounds like VFX's voice
TheBrotherOfSisters 1 year ago
2 JEWS pretending to be "Atheists" telling us about our freedom (or lack thereof) while omitting the FACT that Jews are the ones who are robbing us of our freedoms(along with our money and our lives). Controlled dissent at its best.
RedEFourWore 1 year ago
@RedEFourWore Whatever you say Eric Cartman.
frymastermeat 1 year ago
@RedEFourWore
You are kidding right haha?
rwboh737 1 year ago
Yeah, I must be "kidding" or "out of my mind", right? Because the Jews don't really have a monopoly on the media, they don't really control the Federal Reserve, there's no such thing as "Kosher tax", AIPAC doesn't exist, and Jews have no control over our legal and political system.. All are mere figments of my overactive imagination. And I must be a "hateful" "racist" for daring to SPEAK of their ACTIONS. Yeah.. it's all one big "joke". Only those of us who know the truth aren't laughing.
RedEFourWore 1 year ago
Good Stuff! Good to see this type of talk and interview !
freedomrecordsmusic 1 year ago
Rational self interest isn't just about individualism; if I have a rational self interest to join a particular group then I'm still in the capacity of an individual making a choice. You're making the flawed assumption that rational self interest equals misanthropy when it is anything but that - you look out for yourself and if that means joining to a group, you're still looking out for yourself. If you didn't gain from it then you wouldn't have joined - hence the selfish gene theory is right.
kawaiigardiner 1 year ago
left vs. right (good cop/bad cop) , black vs. white, religion vs atheism, all distractions. communist vs. our freedom, terrorists vs. our freedom, autobots vs. decepticons
johnnyappleseedism 1 year ago
Bloom seems to be obsessed with birds. Anyway ...
Imprinting is a form of learning and /or bonding, not truth.
Truth is always contextual. 1+1=2 SEEMS always true but, does it apply to clouds or water droplets ? No. There are no absolute Truths.
EclecticCurrent 1 year ago
The first founding fathers were Diests.
The ones he describes are nothing more then the first Christians that came there.
At first there were Native Americans then the Vikings.
PhreakStep 1 year ago
Good interview, but Bloom used a straw man on Dawkin's Selfish Gene theory. Altruism and group cooperation is completely compatible w/ selfish gene theory, as long as altruism and cooperation done w/ organisms w/ many similar genes. Also, genes move in groups because it is beneficial to the individual gene. The gene group being stronger is a means to the end that the single gene survives. Bloom dropped the ball on this one.
bu1ckgnx 1 year ago 31
@bu1ckgnx I have to agree. The selfish gene hypothesis is not the strawman social darwinism that Bloom presents as Dawkin's selfish gene. It goes to genetic groupings that aid gene survival and social animal interactions that aid survival in the host organism or it's kin, and includes such things as altruism and self sacrifice. Bloom really didn't seem to have a grasp on the topic and ended up debating something that wasn't the selfish gene hypothesis.
ratholin 1 year ago
@bu1ckgnx
He didn't say that they were incompatible, he was just arguing that the Selfish Gene Theory isn't the ONLY model of evolution.
timtimtimmaah 1 year ago
@bu1ckgnx ......So it's both?!!
Envoid344 8 months ago
good video
kilija383 1 year ago
great photo, TJ!
SteevDragon67 1 year ago
What does he say is at the front of the V of geese?
firemaster885 1 year ago
@firemaster885
I think he said the guy riding the bicycle
Clagnaught 1 year ago
He's conflating the Massachusets bay founders with the other founders. Obviously the Quakers weren't authoritarian, the Baptists who fought against the Massachusets bay and eventually settled in Rhode Island were very libertarian, at one point they were living - quite peacefully, without what we would call a government. So no, this guy is mischaracterizing the very first settlements.
Furthermore, the fundies today don't know shit about history.
fringeelements 1 year ago
I've just read "the dawkins letters", and i while doing that i constantly had the impression of the author missing the point. I got the same impression when howard bloom started to talk about group selection. i must really be a dawkins fanboy.
simon24h 1 year ago
Bloom's argument is subject to the same constraint, but for the opposite side. He does not address this limitation.
runzombies 1 year ago
Of course, in principle, nothing is totally reducible, but making "in principle" arguments of evolutionary change is missing the point. Meaningful arguments are arguments for relative frequency. Dawkins suggested a change in paradigm, but his argument is still based on the relative frequency of genic selection based on the number of properties of organisms, groups, etc that are reducible to genes.
runzombies 1 year ago
Insightful, but he seems to misunderstand the selfish gene principle. Groups exist, the point is that they exist under inclusive fitness - the fitness of the group is, thus, a derivation of the fitness of the individual and/or that individual's genes. Group selection only takes place when group is selected for a property (total range, variation, etc) that is not reducible to its constituent organisms and/or genes.
runzombies 1 year ago
I'm extremely disinclined to identify a man who within the first two minutes of the first time I hear him speak bunches Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson together as the best of friends and by implication both "anti-authoritarian" founding fathers and pits them against a group of (oh so conveniently unnamed) "religious authoritarians." Hamilton was the greatest authoritarian at the founding of America. Bloom is a moron on this point. Authoritarianism is neither religious nor secular.
andrechandlerlouis 1 year ago
@andrechandlerlouis correction: disinclined to identify such as a man *as a genius of some sort*
andrechandlerlouis 1 year ago
Anyone else getting a kind of Jeff Goldblum vibe from his voice?
Rhysesmum 1 year ago
His understanding of "The Selfish Gene" leaves much to be desired. His personification of quarks does not impress me much either.
valhar2000 1 year ago
I just left a comment and somehow youtube deleted it. It was a good one too.
But anyway
TJ, You have a growing number of supporters, there will always be haters, and ignorant people who are intolerant of our perspectives, but no matter what keep your courage, stay pertinacious, and never give in to oppression. Know that your now a part of making the world a better place, your expression is crucial to the most essential discourse between Haves and have nots. Freedom and fascism. Good vs evil
AntiNaysayer 1 year ago
@AntiNaysayer Oh, shut up. TJ is an extremely greedy and manipulative douche, and if you can't see that then you are fucking blind.
maulcs 1 year ago
how can anyone kick a sack off potatoes 2 1/2 feet in the air. if he thought there was a human in a bag. that was some kick. is he exaggerating or is everything he says bullshit too.
gavinsstuff 1 year ago
life
get one
Samindabox 1 year ago
Is this guy secretly Jeff Goldblum? Sounds just like him.
mattghtpa 1 year ago
I did really enjoy this video. Thanks!
Szmirka 1 year ago
13:20
You guys are talking about innocent Iraqi people that strap bombs to them because their family was murder in cold blood by a US Military Apaches chopper.
15:30
Or you can kill innocent children with an Apaches chopper and never talk about why they are strapping bombs to them.
=
watch?v=RTHEDajky5c
=
I wonder what the cost of throat cancer will coast ya? Better buy insurances now. other wise you will have to pay for u own treatments or not get any help @ all!
DruidAnthony 1 year ago
That's a totally false representation of neo-Darwinism. Howard's suggesting that there's no moral system without group selection. He should read the 'God Delusion' and see what Richard has to say about group selection.
When Howard started talking about quarks as if they had human cognition or as if Darwinian natural selection applied to them he lost me.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
Im very confused by all the comments. If people are made from protons electrons and nuetrons, and there alive. Can it really be said that protons, and electrons are not alive? IM not a scientist so if some one could explain that to me it'd be nice. Secondly with out actually reading his books. I would not personally judge some body's theory. Because in an interview like this you may simply not be able to communicate ur point enough.
fearthepib 1 year ago
simply put TAA did not challenge him on one point. I very much wounder what he would have said. If half the comments were questions asked in the video. I like how this guy thinks out side the box. How ever if you do that people need to challenge all of your ideas all the time. even in basic interviews. I know of a lot of very intelligent people who come across as dumb. Because they do not communicate there points well.
fearthepib 1 year ago
I would say the point he makes in video one, about birds flying being insane. Strikes me as odd too. As evolution is incremental. Unless i really dont get the theory. It kinda seems like in the point he makes. that birds ever intended to fly. Didn't they start out with shit wings that could not even do that? flight took millions of years to develop, and i dont think getting to the sky was ever the goal. I'm pretty sure it was to kill shit and to avoid getting killed.
fearthepib 1 year ago
Also if im a animal wanting to fly in the emptiness of space is not absurd. T Rex did not have wings. if i only weigh 30 pound damn thats more then enough motivation. Yes im aware flight did not develope in tandem with Rexes, but insert any predator and theres your motive.
fearthepib 1 year ago
Next time TJ please scrutinize your guests more. I would love to have scene you tear him a new ass hole if he wrong. Or have a better understanding of wtf he means if hes right.
fearthepib 1 year ago
@fearthepib it's an Interview, not a discussion.
vortical911 1 year ago
@fearthepib Protons and Electrons cant reproduce tough
SlaytanicMayhem 1 year ago
@SlaytanicMayhem I feel kinda dumb now. I remember thinking yesterday that the point of life seems to be only to reproduce more of it self. I guess it makes sense that some thing that cant reproduce would not be life. /thx for the explanation.
fearthepib 1 year ago
@fearthepib; Well protons and neutrons and electrons do not go through cell respiration. They don't show any signs of being a living thing. It's argued that all living things must contain carbon..but what do we know? Haha when you get into things that small, it becomes the grey area of science. You may not be a scientist, but you have good observations and ask good questions. It's up to you to figure things out and find your own truth =)
InFlam3sW3Trust 1 year ago
@fearthepib Who said Protons, electrons, and neutrons are not alive? They have energy and that makes them alive.
fraudster111 1 year ago
@fraudster111 a stone has energy: it doesnt make it alive...
Unless your definition of alive is "having energy": this is a bad definition since everything has energy in this universe. So this definition of "alive" does not discriminate between things.
Check out the definition of life in a diccionary...
TristanTheSaint 1 year ago
@TristanTheSaint Do you know how many definitions of life are there? A lot. The real question is. If you believe protons, neutrons, and electrons are not alive. How come we "living" things are made up of them? How and non living things make up living things?
fraudster111 1 year ago
@fraudster111 I do know there are many definitions of life or life forms. Elementary particles are the building blocks of matter, and matter is the building block of life.
Saying matter is alive is a point of view, but, the various definitions of "life" discriminate between various types, yours simply states everything is alive.
TristanTheSaint 1 year ago
@fearthepib Maybe he couldn't communicate his point fully. However, his argument was that since sub-atomic particles "work together" group selection must be true.
Protons,neutrons and electrons are not living things. They do not fulfil the characteristic of life. One can't use convenient analogies to support one's theories.
The behaviour of sub-atomic particles has NOTHING to do with how natural selection occurs.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago 4
About fucking time!
Just kidding, thank you TJ for interviewing Howard, and thank you Mr. Bloom for agreeing to the interview. :D
DicksOrGTFO1 1 year ago
Part 1?
pwiattitto 1 year ago
Beware China!!!
JMS444444 1 year ago
@JMS444444 Fuck China lol, they aint got shit on america. Soon as they send people over America has already nuked em.
ThreeAwkwardNinjas 1 year ago
@ThreeAwkwardNinjas
ummm...they got nukes too lol.
lerkerofthenight 1 year ago
solid interview
tmudd24 1 year ago
Well I thought it was interesting but his analysis on Dawkins' theory was way off key - nepotism on the subatomic level? No lol, just no. Quarks might as well work together spontaneously - why do they NEED to work togther to build a "search engine"?
Truth consfused me as well, read some damn Hofstaader or something before you even begin talkng about that and think your intelligent.
TehSmellulare 1 year ago
@TehSmellulare
*Hofstadter, lo siento
TehSmellulare 1 year ago
doubt im gunna take a theory of evolution from someone who has no expertise in the area. same way i wouldnt take it from a creationist
8tripsaweek 1 year ago
I can't remember the name of the movie it's from but I love the quote: "Don't believe, have a good idea."
52questionmarks 1 year ago
@52questionmarks
I believe the movie your thinking of is "Dogma," by Kevin Smith.
silverwings21 1 year ago
Catal Huyuk was probably a religious sanctuary, not a city.
The first "city" would probably be Lagash. But it is not convenient today to give a Mesopotamian city, with a culture that disproves the very concepts of modern Capitalism, that honor.
KeyNesew 1 year ago
@FireWhisp because you do right? /facepalm.
HollowNyne 1 year ago
The truth is out there... Not in this video.
blinkku 1 year ago
Inappropriate anthropomorphism has led to one long Argument by Metaphor from Bloom. Particularly around the Selfish-Gene + Quark segment, his comprehension of both was pretty cringe-worthy.
This is pretty entertaining philosophy, but I wouldn't use him to back any arguments I might make for protecting, fixing, or improving on various aspects of Capitalism.
sciencemile 1 year ago
@sciencemile The selfish gene is also an anthropomorphism but it is a useful explanatory tool as is Bloom's anthropomorphism of quarks. His tying quarks in with human survival patterns was obviously for amusement's sake.
KCB132 1 year ago
Isn't Howard Bloom a Tea-partier? Fuck knows...its all dumb. However, I can assure you theamazing atheist hasn't read: fydor, hemingway, falkner, vonnegut, shake, myshnkenff, or rand. that given, what most of society once swayed, he did not read, and is still ignorant, and is still dumb. but if he has, bless his heart, its been 'cause his dear high school teachers told him so.
CoffeePatron 1 year ago
Goddamn he's ugly.
CoffeePatron 1 year ago
Poor Howard has to go to TAA to be heard. Hes too much of a looney toon for someone credible. TJ, your a fat goof who thinks hes intelligent. gtfo lol
ImStillBlind 1 year ago
@ImStillBlind Even Bill Oreilly wouldnt touch this guy hahaha
ImStillBlind 1 year ago
So these ducks would obey their own wild natural instinct, to want to mate with humans and follow humans? Hm
Deathclok 1 year ago
This was a very interesting interview TJ. Something I might have to get to reading soon. It's funny that everyone says that people are selfish. But they aren't built that way genetically. Hmmm.... So interesting... makes me think.
geckopaws2 1 year ago
he mistakes matter for living beings, either he is trying to make an analogy or he is not as smart as TJ claims he is, after all protons and eletrons and neutrons are tied together by the weak and strong nuclear forces, they have no choice. Living beings are self replicating things that desire to live, that is why while a virus lacks a nucleus and metabolism of its own (i might not be 100% sure here) it still fills these 2 requirements and its considered a living being, Dawkins is right!!!!!!!
S2000fred 1 year ago
@S2000fred To make such a statement and end it with "Dawkins is right!" is paradoxical. In order to make a true distinction between matter and living beings, you have to figure out how life originated. I'm SURE Dawkins doesn't think it just popped into existence.
AcidLady85 1 year ago
@AcidLady85 Ok Dawkins. lol.
restlesspride666 1 year ago
@AcidLady85 first nobody is claiming they poped into existence, i was stating that he apparently doesn't know the difference of simple matter and what we define as a living being, it is 2 completely different things, yeah perhaps i overdid with the dawkins win, it was me just putting a cherry on top showing how poor his understanding of those 2 things was if and i say if he wasn't using these 2 as an analogy.
Anyways thanks for the comment.
S2000fred 1 year ago
@S2000fred Perhaps my English isn't perfect, but I just assumed he was making a simplified analogy. It's easier for people to understand the nature of things when anthropomorphized.
AcidLady85 1 year ago
@S2000fred That all depends on how you look at it. Anything could be a living thing or just simple matter depending on how you define what life is. You define life as something that self-replicates and desires to live. A more scientific mind would say that that is the definition of life as we can practically understand and refer to it, and that "life" is really a more abstract thing. Don't say he is unintelligent because he is delving into the more abstract aspect of it, because it's not.
Nathan54AB 1 year ago
@Nathan54AB are you claiming that definitions can be relative?? aren't you confusing it with opinions?? you know the implications of definitions being relative?
if there were no common ground for definitions then much of our society would be chaotic, think: Judge-"so you plead guilty to child molestation?" pedophile-" o no your honor, i believe your definition for molestation is wrong, i simply hugged the kid from behind" Judge-" i'm sorry your free to go" lol ok maybe this was a bad example
S2000fred 1 year ago
@S2000fred so yeah as you see definitions need to have a common ground, otherwise i don't think we would have all sorts of different standards for human rights etc.
yeah i guess i was a douche calling him an unintelligent person, he just ticked me off when he started making claims about life when he isn't even a biologist, i mean for example i'm a Physics student but i wouldn't be making claims that Hawking's theories of black holes are wrong and come up with my own definition without evidence
S2000fred 1 year ago
@S2000fred You missed a key word in my statement. Let me quote myself.
I said, "That is the definition of life (your definition) as we can PRACTICALLY understand and refer to it."
"Practically" is a key word there. Having pointed that out, your example of child molestation is irrelevant.
I think you're viewing this video in a scientifically literal manner, when it's actually philosophical in nature. I mean, philosophically, nuclear forces that hold atoms together ARE a lot like social forces.
Nathan54AB 1 year ago
Interesting.
AlexanderArts 1 year ago
Did Howard ever find out what was in that bag?
xIegionx 1 year ago
16:00
could be what is more pointed to, economic freedom and productivity correlates incredibly with peace
21:37
ok? rules that govern subatoms really have nothing to do with social communities in humans
24:20
getting a little new-agey...
aweiss 1 year ago
i think truth is like a sack of balls either its a BIG lie or its a SMALL lie
clerler 1 year ago
@clerler ::: So how does the truth compare when you add lance armstrong into your equation there? :)
qwerty42 1 year ago
Quarks, protons, electrons and neutrons are all living things, so that analogy fails. In living things, of course the genes all work together, because otherwise, how else would a creature be as successful? As amazing as you are, Howard Bloom, Dawkins is right about the "selfish gene". I believe by "selfish gene" Richard Dawkins is referring to the individual self-interest of genes as a whole in an organism or species, as opposing to keeping in regard the self-interest of other species.
PiEqualsAwesome 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PiEqualsAwesome "Quarks, protons, electrons and neutrons are all living things"
crack much?
keggerous 1 year ago
I think I had to agree with everything Howard Bloom said until he talked about "The Selfish Gene". Dawkins is a well-studied biologist and ethologist and as smart as the Bloom is, he wasn't the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science! "Survival of the fittest" is clearly how evolution works. If you aren't a successful being, you don't get to pass along your genes, which is how successful traits are passed along. At least Bloom gave Dawkins credit for his brilliance.
PiEqualsAwesome 1 year ago
FUCK THIS MAKES ME LOL!!!
procrastinator99 1 year ago
This guy is bat shit insane.
Xeonveridan 1 year ago
sooo,....i imprinted on Cheech and Chong. what does that say about me?
h8red42 1 year ago
@h8red42 Ur a badass :)
MeggChan 1 year ago
Dawkins would destroy this moron
Tazwegian 1 year ago 2
This guy talk a lot but say little.
atronix 1 year ago 2
0:34
yea the authorities are gaining control over the economy and means of production more and more
aweiss 1 year ago
12:00 in the video, Bloom states that these guys were kicking something that may have been a human. He never told us if it was or not, now I'm fucking curious.
LoveLostInMyHead 1 year ago
This Howard Bloom guys sounds like Jeff Goldblum.
RivieraKid34 1 year ago
is there going to be a part 3? it ended rather abruptly.
MrTastyBeef 1 year ago
really liked the end about evolution, very interesting
wonworld 1 year ago
lol, social rules for neutrons and quarks? Sorry, that's a little out there. They worked together. We don't know why exactly, but saying that they have some kind of social contract seems very odd. It sounds like the same pseudo science that was in that movie "the secret". The movie starts out ok, but then they make a big leap. The saying that inanimate things work together as though they are thinking about it or because "the cosmos" just works that way seems kind of far fetched to me.
CraniumOnEmpty 1 year ago 6
suuuuuure, he only ACCIDENTALLY stumbled on to youporn ;)
psyjax 1 year ago
That guy is really great =) i might read his book
fadetoGTR 1 year ago
2:20 you cant fucking censor music lol
SystematicChaos08 1 year ago
@SystematicChaos08 Did you never hear of the PMRC? It was a big thing in the 80s where Tipper Gore was trying to censor music. that is really the only example I can think of
MinorSnag 1 year ago
So there will be part 3?
Mecha82 1 year ago
He misread richard dawkins so badly.
Then applied it so badly.
Soulbreakergx 1 year ago 3
@Soulbreakergx what do you mean?
darthvaderyoda 1 year ago
I really liked "the giant search engine" theory of the universe he asserted. Very interesting. Thanks for the upload, TJ.
dantedraco 1 year ago
Aetheist have already won, the only thing you have to be afraid of is that the religious people throw the checkerboard at the wall...
Aetrion 1 year ago
I think whatever he thinks he's disagreeing with Dawkins on, he's confused. He's misinterpreting Dawkins as saying he doesn't believe in cooperation somehow.
longslidenyc 1 year ago
He is an intelligent man but why the hell does he connect the theory of evolution and natural selection with physics? This is simply retarded.
And Dawkins wasn't the first to suggest the gene oriented way of thinking about evolution.
Still, a very enjoyable interview. Thanks TJ.
S0chan 1 year ago
Mmm, porn.
Spitfirebird 1 year ago
Hey TJ,
Just finished watching this and something came to thought.
I was just wondering if you have read Platon?
I know the gouverment isn't too fond of us people knowing about, what that book tells us.
I am not saying I agree with it I haven't even read it myself, but it would be interesting to hear what you think about it?
Is the space people, creating us as a super breed to collect gold, utter nonsense or is there anything in that book that makes you think twice?
Keep it up man. :3
KaiSuki 1 year ago
@KaiSuki i wouldnt reply to someone who calls government "gouverment"
Shabrak94 1 year ago
@Shabrak94 Lucky I didn't ask you then.
KaiSuki 1 year ago
TJ, you look thinner in the first pic. Good job losing weight!
protossenslaver 1 year ago
Fantastic interview. Enjoyed listening.
davidproper 1 year ago