Robert Lawrence Kuhn and Closer To Truth, thanks for providing a platform to learn, express myself, and enhance my personal truth. Kathy 💙🌛🌝

@CloserToTruthTV

4 ай бұрын

Thank you so much, Kathy! 💫

@dongshengdi773

3 ай бұрын

​@@CloserToTruthTVSCIENCE is wrong about Religion/Spirituality. Science has not answered most of the Big questions in nature because Science has limitations to what it can do. Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, mathematician, broadcaster and author Marcus du Sautoy in his book, . He took over this position from atheist Richard Dawkins in 2008. What are some things we can't know? 1. Could we ever know if we hit the bottom, or will we find out that it's infinitely divisible? 2. What is infinitely large? Is the universe infinite or finite? 3. What if I took a spaceship out, would I hit a wall? What's on the other side of the wall? Is there a dome we'd ultimately hit? Do we live in a simulation? (Marcus du Sautoy believes so) 4. What is consciousness? Will the machines we are currently making some day become conscious? There are still a lot of things we do not know. It’s important that people realize there are limitations to science. “Perhaps we need to think about more positive dialogue perhaps with science and society and issues of religion, for example, and we look for ways can share the different ways we look at the world rather than polarizing it,” du Sautoy said. "I wonder, whether as I come to the end of my exploration at the limits of knowledge, I have changed my mind about declaring myself an atheist. With my definition of a God as the existence of things we cannot know, to declare myself an atheist would mean that I believe there is nothing that we cannot know. I don’t believe that anymore. In some sense I think I have proved that this God does exist. It’s now about exploring what quality this God has." From atheist to agnostic believer after more than a decade of holding the position as Professor of Public Understanding of Science. …

What I like about Dawkins the most is he thinks carefully about every position he takes. Of all the mind floating above the Earth, his deserves another century of thinking.

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

4 ай бұрын

The problem is there is simply zero evidence for his so called theory of evolution

@JUSTIN-bn6fn

4 ай бұрын

​​​@@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce Your Name itself says Why you are Lying?. My Friend. Are you a Homo-Sapien. Then tell why your DNA is 99% identical to a Chimpanzee. Can you Give any Explanation?

@facefact3737

2 ай бұрын

I wish James Tour would also be invited to discuss..

@laza6141

14 күн бұрын

​@@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce It's all a massive global conspiracy in which 99% of all scientists are involved in for almost 200 years now huh ? Get help.

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

12 күн бұрын

@@laza6141 Yes you should be showing respect for the brave 1% that refused to be bought off.

This Richard Dawkins is simply amazing. I could listen to him and learn all day.

@aychinger

4 ай бұрын

Same. 😃👋

@Buzz_Kill71

4 ай бұрын

Yeah, "this" Richard Dawkins. There are several other smug, pretentious, maybe even mean spirited RDs I sometimes can't stand. 😂😂😂

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

4 ай бұрын

The problem is there is simply zero evidence for his so called theory of evolution

@Buzz_Kill71

4 ай бұрын

​@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce I actually listened again and can confirm, he does not cask this a "theory". He was specifically asked to speculate. He even detracted from existing theories with his logical speculations in a way that clearly shows he is guessing.... not hypothesizing and certainly not theorizing 😮.

This was excellent for such a short discussion.

It's been a while since the last days that I was dedicated to following these interviews. Faces have changed a bit. I wish you all the best. Your team and most of your guests including Mr Dawkins have taught me a lot. 🙏🌹

@WayneLynch69

4 ай бұрын

Dawkins is a marvel of sophistry: Chapter 4 of The God Delusion he confronts physicist/atheist Fred Hoyle's observation that, "life occurring naturally on earth is as likely as a hurricane assembling a fully functioning Boeing 747 going through a junkyard". Dawkins corrects Hoyle's failure to understand the magnificence of natural selection. How 'bout the irrefutability of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?!? Inanimate objects NEVER congere "disorder to order"....EVER NEVER NEVER. Dawkins says he has formulated an hypothesis which NO ONE has EVER been able to challenge: "infinite regress". EVERYTHING informs the fact that Dawkins literally has no idea from whence his ir derives. It is of course the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: "heat never derives from cold"...ergo there can only be regresses. BUUTTT...in the 1st Chapter of TGD he stipulates that he will be referencing ONLY supernatural gods in his book. Supernatural gods are BY DEFINITION NOT subject to natural law--THERMODYNAMICS IS NATURAL LAW!! I've got a million of them. He and "science atheism" are platforms for self-declared "superiors" to priss their fantasy. Demented.

Even though there is more than a sufficient abundance of intriguing questions to ponder about the diversity and complexity of life here on Earth, I still find it fascinating to wonder how extraterrestrial life would compare and contrast with all the wondrous variety of life forms we have here, which would include that of the past, present, and futuristic. This video helps feed my curiosity about the possibility of detectable life elsewhere. It's a fascinating talking point.

"Intelligence" is such a hard concept to quantify. Are dolphins intelligent even though they lack technological development? Squids? Why couldn't there be some planet with some biomass that has achieved self awareness but has no need or ability to develop technologies.

@markb3786

4 ай бұрын

give them time. give them time.

@browngreen933

4 ай бұрын

Exactly! Self-conscious intelligent life doesn't necessarily mean complex technology. Once again we humans are too full of ourselves.

@madnaaaaas

4 ай бұрын

well, that why there is transition "intelligence" -> "technology", because not all intelligence may achieve technology for some reason, as not all live may achieve intelligence

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

4 ай бұрын

​@@browngreen933 *"Exactly! Self-conscious intelligent life doesn't necessarily mean complex technology. Once again we humans are too full of ourselves."* ... Being able to manipulate your environment into weapons, fuel, housing, and personal protection is a byproduct of intelligence. Any species operating on the same intelligence level as humans will absolutely gravitate toward technology. When we're firmly planted at the top of the intellectual food chain, ... there's really no choice but to be "full of ourselves." And until a "squid" figures out how to build a spacecraft that can breach the gravitational pull of planet Earth, traverse the 200 million miles of empty space to land a rover on Mars that sends back digital images of the planet's surface ... then the most intelligent squid I know of is humorously depicted in a Spongebob cartoon ... _that intelligent humans drew!_

@Hola-ro6yv

4 ай бұрын

Glenn Curry is known child predator and card carrying NAMBLA member

Illusion of design... We can recognize human design, art, technology and language, but not the superior design, art, technology and information found in nature.

@johnnuaxon3

4 ай бұрын

Someone has designed parasites? Carnivores ? All kinds of diseases? Streptococcus or staphylococcus in your organism can harm you. Your own immune system can end you

Thanks Robert for helping us to understand through these fabulous discussions

Great interview with Richard Dawkins.

At 6:39 Richard Dawkins expects intelligent life will still be pretty common, despite only a tiny fraction of 1% being intelligent life. I'm confident that intelligent life will evolve anywhere & everywhere where the conditions are right. My rationale revolves around entropy & the persistence of complexity across time: Creation of complexity (life, matter) cannot be disengaged from the persistence of complexity across time. Furthermore, the predispositions that exist over here, with life, must exist over there, stars & galaxies away. If intelligent life is as ubiquitous as my rationale suggests, then where are they? ROI. Return On Investment. No alien will invest in expensive projects where ROI takes longer than a lifetime. The 1974 Arecibo transmission to M13, a measly quarter of a galaxy away, will take 500 centuries and a great many lifetimes to receive a reply. That's a looong time to wait for ROI or research results. The question regarding the pervasiveness of intelligent life, whether ubiquitous or rare, can never be answered conclusively. Absent of evidence, any claim to the contrary is unfalsifiable. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

@facefact3737

2 ай бұрын

Ask James Tour in the discussion...

It’s really nice to see Dawkins in his element talking about science. He clearly loves it, and he’s so much more engaging here than when he dons his atheist activist persona (impatient, uncharitable) or is on one of his political soap boxes (shrill).

The High Priest of Atheism

@stechriswillgil3686

4 ай бұрын

He's an Evolutionary Biologist and Prof of Public Understanding Of Science at Oxford. Circumstances have forced his hand into defending the rationale of science and wrongly cast him as a 'God botherer '. Personally, I think he'd have been wiser to shun TV debates with religious nuts and ignorant bigots. He doesn't define himself as an Atheist . He's a scientist with an incredible disciplined mind and you are probably unfit to lick his boots.

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

4 ай бұрын

High priest of gaytheism more like

The distance between stars in our own galaxy, not to mention the distance between ours and other galaxies, is the main reason that we don't get signals from other intelligent life. The distance to the nearest star to us in our galaxy is about 4(four) light years. A radio signal from a distance of just 1(one) light year away would be nearly invisible in the cosmic background noise. The transmission of electromagnetic radiation from a source to a receiver of that signal, like cell phone signals, is subject to the inverse-square law, which states - The radiation inverse square law specifies that: the intensity of the radiation goes down by the square of the distance from the source. For instance if you move twice as far from the source the intensity of the radiation will decrease by a factor of 4 - which is why the further you get from a cell tower, the worse the reception is. Now imagine that, not in miles, but in light years from the source. Do the math. I knew before the JWST was launched, that when it looked into the deep field, it would see large galaxies as far back as it could see. The whole argument of fine-tuned/not-fine-tuned/multiple-universes, is ridiculous! As demonstrated by the JWST, the universe is infinite and the "Big Bang" never happened. Super-large galaxies exist all the way up to and beyond the edge our observable universe. If you could move the JWST, in any direction, halfway from here to the edge of our observable universe, it would show you the same view that we see from here, and our Milky Way galaxy would appear to be at the far-edge of that observable universe. We exist in a place where we CAN exist and that's all there is to it!

@HyzersGR

4 ай бұрын

I agree largely with what you said, but that doesn’t exclude the possibility of a multiverse. The Big Bang happened

@martello44

4 ай бұрын

You were doing so well through most of your comment but you lost me when you said the universe is infinite and the Big Bang never happened. The fact is nobody really knows those two things and probably will never know

@michaelbartlett6864

4 ай бұрын

@@martello44 New images from JWST are casting more and more doubt on the "Big Bang Theory" every day now, and can you really imagine that there is an edge to the universe?

@martello44

4 ай бұрын

@@michaelbartlett6864 The universe is truly a deep mystery. Why is the speed of light that particular number and not some other number? And what crazy things happen when you get close to that number? We will get closer and closer to understanding but I don’t think we will ever truly understand the origin or the expansion

@michaelbartlett6864

4 ай бұрын

@@martello44 There is nothing magic about the speed of light and there is no reason that the speed of light cannot be exceeded, in fact there is a great deal of evidence that it has been exceeded.

I was hoping for a video with Dawkins

@CloserToTruthTV

4 ай бұрын

More to come 💫

@francesco5581

4 ай бұрын

@@CloserToTruthTV what about someone a bit more open minded like Edward Frenkel ? Neil Turok ? Bernardo Kastrup ? Are also all much more "into science" than Dawkins ...

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

@@francesco5581 Kastrup is "into science" more than Dawkins? Check their Wikipedia pages, the Awards section for Dawkins is about three times as long as the whole page on Kastrup.

@francesco5581

4 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 No , Kastrup is a top end computer engineer who woked at CERN and other top level industries ... Dawkins is a professor and ? Because writing books is not "science" to me.

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

@@francesco5581 The guy's been a working research and teaching scientist almost his whole life. He originated the idea of the gene as the unit of evolutionary development, and also originated the idea of memes. Kastrup is an engineer, not a research scientist.

Continuity is one of the main ingredients needed for technological civilizations to come about. As horrible as some of our planet's mass extinctions have been, life was able to continue and evolve. As old as our universe is, it's young compared to how old it's going to be. Ecological niches are going to come about anywhere they are able to, and, given enough time might develop intelligent life, capable of technology and more able to control their own destiny. Our species might even bear witness to such a thing someday. Maybe not though.

lamarckian evolution might have some role to play on earth, in terms of the hormones and such things during pregnancy, just in terms of switching on or off statistically certain dormant genes. small effects which themselves do not change the genome but that changes the expression the is involved in selection, which could add a layer of complexity epigenetically, but would still be i think under the same umbrella.

Diana cooper talks of the intergalactic council who jesus is a member of the twelve members I wonder what your thoughts are Richard Dawkins and everyone? Lots of universal love colin ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

Such a great discussion. Thank you

What if the emitter and receptor devices to make contact with any life at all, anywhere…was inside ourselves and we have to discover it, to realize it is there. The millenary path of yoga, in its full meaning, is what is truly about.

Just think about the concept of time in the the size of the universe. Maybe theres intelligent life blipping in and out of existence. Or maybe the universe is expanding and collapsing all the time and were the only example in this instance ?

He already knows about The Fine-tuned Nature of Things. He knows that the mathematical odds for randomness being an explanation for how things happen be are way beyond infinitesimal. Something like 10 x10 to the 124. Hence the haunted demeanor he presents these days. He is struggling. Trying to maintain an even keel. He knows he might have to disavow all his selfish gene/blind watch maker analogies. It's a daunting prospect. But. He would be in good company. Many who have gone before have realized they were not standing on shoulders of giants. Rather they were looking at things from the wrong perspective. Standing in an ideological silo. No shame in that. Ptolemy was wrong. But that is OK. That is the story of what happens when we are trying to figure out what is happening.

1 in 100 possibility of technological intelligence I find to optimistic.

Aliens???? Anything but God eh.

@Alexx481

4 ай бұрын

What God mean ? There are many different types of gods( I wish you didn't mean your nonsense that you have from your mother and father) There are many galaxies, so it is very possible there are other life and is is possible they are intelligent.

@HyzersGR

4 ай бұрын

Which god? What created god?

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

4 ай бұрын

​@@Alexx481The Christian God

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

4 ай бұрын

​@@HyzersGRThe Christian God and he is eternal therefore did not need a creator, hope that clears things up for you

@HyzersGR

4 ай бұрын

@@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce LOL did he tell you that?

Remember the time Dawkins few into a psychotic rage because someone asked him what if he was wrong, i heard from sources at that event that backstage he kept slapping everyone that worked for him for allowing the question to be asked of him

@laza6141

14 күн бұрын

He never went into a rage , he calmly answered and destroyed the argument of a woman who was asking.

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

12 күн бұрын

@@laza6141 He destroyed nothing except his own credibility he was shaking with anger and nearly crying.

Is this the first time Richard Dawkins on CTT??

@johnnuaxon3

4 ай бұрын

OMG

@user-dc4bl1cu2k

4 ай бұрын

Yes. I was mistaken to think he's already been interviewed. One of my earliest memories of this profile was a mistaken interview of Dawkins.

Boltzmann brains might be there, too.😮

would intelligent life develop in universe about as uniformly as the universe has expanded?

Phenomenal video as always Dr. Lawrence Kuhn, Dawkins is a personal hero of mine and he was instrumental in helping me discover that I was an atheist, and instilling in me a childlike wonder in the entire scientific enterprise; a sense of awe in discovering our own evolution, the evolution of all life, and the development of cosmology as one of the most powerful tools ever devised by humanity to learn about the fundamental nature and laws that govern existence. Only Carl Sagan is on a similar level to me as Dawkins, in terms of being the most effective science communicators to the public and instilling a deep curiosity about our world, and a resounding sense of gratitude, joy and purpose derived from the fact that we're privileged enough to even be alive and conscious in the first place, and to pursue an understanding about how and why we got here, and reside in a universe at all. "For myself, I find it elevating, and exhilarating that our universe permits the evolution of molecular machines as intricate and subtle as we." -Carl Sagan.

@leonardgibney2997

4 ай бұрын

You can't prove a negative they say.

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

4 ай бұрын

The problem is there is simply zero evidence for his so called theory of evolution

@facefact3737

2 ай бұрын

James Tour should be addressing somethings to this discussion. These people are very smart but seem to be also very naive and determined in their worldview...

Is it a barrier because the evolved intelligence is beyond our own?

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Intelligence is at its peak on this planet.

@missh1774

4 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 I dunno it could be way better

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

@@missh1774 it’s also the only intelligence we know. If some other intelligent species is found it may be ahead of us or behind us. But it will not be so advanced we could never master it, let alone it having sone role in the creation of all that is. Also, I didn’t mean our intelligence won’t increase over time. I’m hoping it certainly would. You almost have to bank on it if you care for the success of the species.

Dr. Dawkins is just like Sir Darwin; "Looking at [Aliens], as a Naturalist would at any other Mammiferous mammal" except that life is more basically like black holes where distance determines geometry

@francesco5581

4 ай бұрын

and except that Darwin was a deist/agnostic ...

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

4 ай бұрын

The problem is there is simply zero evidence for his so called theory of evolution

@gettaasteroid4650

4 ай бұрын

@@francesco5581 Mmm... except that is more of a lemma

@gettaasteroid4650

4 ай бұрын

@@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce If I agree with you it is only because Eternity gives back nothing of what one leaves out of the minutes

👍

I LOVE THIS VIDEO

Imagine if we found a life form that evolves rapidly, like the anime Attack On Titan, where the development of bones & flesh is as easy to them as taking 30 seconds to grow a taller body.

The muscles, the more we use the bigger it gets and simultaneously it can be the other way around, the bigger it is the more efficiently we can use it! Like wise the eyes, the more we use the better/sharper it can send signals to the brain because the eyes normally require a lot of visual experiences/training in one's lifetime to absorb and understand what it sees, which varies from one individual to another! Well, if you guys are talking about the stars/space that are just the same no matter how far or, near as they can be then life remains the same, except there will be difference in intellect and so will be technologically as well!

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Sometimes the eyes need a rest. More is not always better.

@samuelodyuo2566

4 ай бұрын

Ha ha ha. .. . I meant normally, not strenuously, but like I said which varies from person to person!

I like and love the way Sir Richard Dawkins describes and explains.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Wow! A normal sounding post. Dig it.

@berniv7375

4 ай бұрын

It is Richard Dawkins to you sir.🌱

Life, like plasma, is in all directions. If it were linear, we would be bored to tears. Flat earth, or round ball with squares on it?

This looks like the Oxford Natural History Museum.

@johnnuaxon3

4 ай бұрын

No. It is Richard's living room

@tedgrant2

4 ай бұрын

@@johnnuaxon3 I don't see his TV and couch

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

4 ай бұрын

​@@johnnuaxon3 he prefers to be known as Dick not Richard

The dinos would be impressed to hear this.

If They think and act like Humans,we are in trouble.

is that it only 7 minute interview???

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

Most of the posts on this channel are clips on a specific topic taken from longer interviews,

@2:47 if there were no transcriptional errors or cosmic rays etc we wouldn't need sex 😌

Always interesting to hear Professor Dawkins. What a national treasure. I think any estimate of intelligent life always arrives at that fateful step in the Drake equation; “fraction of life-supporting planets that develop life” and that number can be anywhere between zero and all of them…which may be accurate but is essentially meaningless. Which leaves us pretty much where we started--“your guess is as good as mine”.

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

4 ай бұрын

The problem is there is simply zero evidence for his so called theory of evolution

Einstein's 3 + 1 space-time: 0D = not-necessary, not-fundamental and not locally real (or, "less real"). 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D = necessary, fundamental and locally real (or, "more real"). This is interesting because a year ago quantum physics proved the universe (1D, 2D, 3D and 4D) is not locally real (or, "less real"). Just like Leibniz said well over 300 years ago.

His religion is science.

@jimliu2560

3 ай бұрын

Religion is not science….

Richard is very logical

While there probably are other lifeforms made of protein, ET isn't always. I'm sceptical about protein-based forms coming to visit us as many ET chaps patently have. Just as I'm sceptical about man in space, he's too puny.

Wonder when good all Richard would get some DTM or Ayahuasca? .....Would love to hear what he reckons afterwards.

@johnnuaxon3

4 ай бұрын

Once he did it. All night throwing

= R. Dawkins appears very calm, after so many embarrassments he has suffered in his fights with people in cassocks at meetings, famous for everyone because they celebrate him as a fanatic of atheism, and for others for such embarrassments before the cassocks. = R. Dawkins, aparece muy tranquilo, después de tantas vergüenzas que ha pasado en sus pleitos con gente de sotana en encuentros, célebres pata todos pues lo festejan como un fanático del ateísmo, y para otros por tales vergüenzas ante los sotanudos.

They look like twins😊 I started watching and I see and I think wtf? How someone found twins like them and where? They look much alike only clothes different

no.

I've always had a soft spot for Lamarckism, Darwinian evolution seems too slow though it is a beautiful idea

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

The problem with Lamarckism is that it only amplifies existing traits. It doesn’t provide an account of how new traits get generated. Also we don’t see it occurring n nature and haven’t been able to simulate it, while we do see Darwinian evolution occurring and have theoretical and practical models for it. We even use Darwinian evolution in engineering these days.

"As a biologist, there are only 2 sexes." - Richard Dawkins

@glenncurry3041

4 ай бұрын

"You can talk about gender if you wish and that's subjective." - Richard Dawkins And this distinction confuses tiny hateful minds?

@xstatic-ow5mz

4 ай бұрын

@@glenncurry3041 so Dawkins is hateful now? And his mind is tiny? Wow how quickly you change your tune.

@ItsEverythingElse

4 ай бұрын

Did he say that in this video?

@elgatofelix8917

4 ай бұрын

@@glenncurry3041 "Sex is one of the few genuine binaries of biology" - Richard Dawkins

@thomasridley8675

4 ай бұрын

Biologically yes. But we are human not machines. Trying to put us into convenient boxes doesn't work. None of these so called nonconforming ideas on sexuality are new. They have existed since day one.

Prove abiogenesis

I have advanced degrees in Ecology and Philosophy. I teach Philosophy in a part of the country in which there are a surprising number of my adult students who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Please help me. Please. SOS.

@laza6141

14 күн бұрын

Show them the evidence , show them retro virus fossils that we share with chimps in the same locations in our genomes , that is only possible if we share a common ancestor , of course show them all the other genetic and fossil evidence too.

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

12 күн бұрын

@@laza6141 Go on then show me the evidence, i'm waiting...

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

12 күн бұрын

@@laza6141 Taking the cowards way out i see, after all your talk about how much evidence you have when i ask to see your supposed evidence you cannot provide any. You were able to talk the talk but unable to walk the walk.

@laza6141

12 күн бұрын

@@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce We share retro viruses in the same places in our genomes as chimps , those viruses could have inserted themselves in about 10 million different places , we have more than 200 in our genome and chimps have more than 200 , we share 95% of those in the exact same places in our genomes , that can only be explained if we share a common ancestor , of course fossils back everything up.

Richard Dawkins, man who changed my thiest view point and forever changed how i vague my logical thinking was.

When Dawkins dies, he is going to say, "Crap! I was wrong!"

@anarmemmedli7136

4 ай бұрын

How many times have you been died 😂

@johnnuaxon3

4 ай бұрын

"I was wrong! Evolution is much more sophisticated than I thought"

@publiozinj4882

4 ай бұрын

You have not a shred of evidence to prove that.

"Creation" is to "evolution" as "created" is to "made": What is the difference between created and made? The difference between something being created and something being made is that when something is created it is brought into existence out of nothing. But, when something is made it has been formed out of something else that already exists.

@mandelbot5318

4 ай бұрын

‘Creation’ is to ‘evolution’ as ‘created’ is to ‘evolved’. 🤨

Dick Dawkins,... finally.

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

4 ай бұрын

Dick Fraudkins the leading gaytheist

2 Thessalonians 2:11 KJV - And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

@laza6141

14 күн бұрын

So God deludes people , what a guy huh.

Robert kicks this one off strong! Putting Metaphysics in the same sentence with 'science fiction', completely disregarding it. The fact is, Robert's books are sh!t, and so are 99% of the interviews on CTT. Did you study these books below - anybody? Critical thinking, Reason, Logic, Dialectic, Retroduction, via Negativa is now.... today, nonsense. Periphyseon, by Eriugena, translation by O'Meara. Plotinus Enneads, select works translated by Thomas Taylor and complete translation by Lyyod. Plato complete works. Proclus books. Iamblichus books. Syrianus books. Bhagavad Gita Upanishads translated by Nikhilananda 4 vol. set, and the 18 principal Upanishads translated by Radhakrisnan. Upadesa sahashria by sankara, translated by jagadananda. Vivekacudamani by sankara, translated by Madhavananda. Philosophy as a rite of Rebirth by Algis U. Meister Eckhart complete works. The Unknown God, by D. Carabine. Mystical languages of unsaying, by M. Sells. Plotinus: Road to Reality, by JM Rist. Bible - KJV translation only. archaic is very important here with mysticism. Jacob Bohme books - a German mystics Emmanuel Swedenborg books - a scientist turned mystic and metaphysics. Coomaraswamy books. The presocratic Philosopher's - book. Sweet touches of harmony - book; Pythagorean influence. Lore and science in ancient pythagoreanism - book. The Universal One, by Walter Russel. The gods of field theory: Henri Poincare Tesla Steinmetz Maxwell Heaviside Dollard

@vinm300

4 ай бұрын

LOL well said

@ArtieTurner

4 ай бұрын

Thanks for the cut-and-paste pedantry.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

You’re being pouty.

"I've always *paid lip service* to the view that scientists should change their mind when evidence is forthcoming." - Richard Dawkins admitting his "willingness" to follow where the evidence leads is merely a facade.

@defenestratedalien1448

4 ай бұрын

He is simply admitting he is human and sometimes ego gets in the way

@glenncurry3041

4 ай бұрын

Forthcoming - planned for or about to happen in the near future. So he waits until it actually exists. and this is wrong to you?

@mugsofmirth8101

4 ай бұрын

@@defenestratedalien1448 so his ego gets in the way... Not very professional or scientific.

@mugsofmirth8101

4 ай бұрын

@@glenncurry3041 the key words here are "paid lip service". Do you understand what that phrase means?

@defenestratedalien1448

4 ай бұрын

@@mugsofmirth8101 like I said, human

The guest name really built my excitement and expectations. The production quality, chemistry, setting, and content did not disappoint. Right off the bat, suggesting universal Darwinian evolution. Seems reasonable. Two extraordinary minds. What a treat!

@francesco5581

4 ай бұрын

the time of the 4 great atheists is passed... They are getting old (well, 3 at least) and no one will take their place ... time to be more open minded , like science itself suggest.

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

4 ай бұрын

The problem is there is simply zero evidence for his so called theory of evolution

In as much as genetic algorithms emulate darwinian evolution, they are fascinating to play with. Helps one appreciate how complexity can evolve quite quickly.

Its so sad to see this amazing show now scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

The one question I would have is, is the analogue-digital opposition just a matter of our evolutionary brains? The way we see the world and think?

I am astonished that someone who profess himself a materialist/atheist talks about "natural selection" and "evolution". They don't exist in a materialistic/mechanistic universe because given an initial stage, and due to determinism, there can only ever be one result.

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

Determinism means determined by pre-existing causes, which according to quantum theory include stochastic random distributions of outcomes. However even without that, given random initial conditions, as we see were the case in the early universe, even deterministic generative processes can produce energetic diversity. So technically yes there can be only one end result in a truly deterministic universe, but the distribution, replication and structure of those results can be as diverse and rich as we observe in the actual universe. This can be proved mathematically.

@robertlevy2420

4 ай бұрын

Complete misunderstanding of determinism! Outcomes can be highly contingent on initial conditions and still be fully determined!

@francesco5581

4 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 each trail you follow couldnt have another result with the same starting condition. The proof is that you can go back and retrace what determined every passage. Even adding the theoretical randomness of quantum mechanic is to me wrong since we dont know if the results could have been different (they dont), especially talking of one universe.. Arent you trying to slip in multiverses right ?

@uapuat

4 ай бұрын

Random events still happen, even in a purely materialistic universe.

@francesco5581

4 ай бұрын

@@robertlevy2420 no... without any kind of agent with free will, the cascade of events will always lead to just one outcome

Thank y'all for the enlightenment open honest conversations and all the intellectual discussions come from it. May y'all's Journey Only Be Better Blessed... B🌞 B.R.A.T.😇 Bryan Robert August Thul👻 ONELOVE (The TRINITY) SOURCE.

Crop circles are the proof for extra terrestrials.

(0:30) *RD: **_" think there's no other way in which you can get the sort of complexity of organization and the illusion of design that life has"_* ... I am a huge fan of Dawkins and agree with him on 98% of his arguments, but I disagree with his _"illusion of design"_ conclusion. My argument is that "Existence" carries with it a *minimum amount of intelligence* that is only able to facilitate its own evolution. If there is a minimal amount of intelligence attached to "Existence," then we wouldn't be able to distinguish it from the appearance of orchestrated design or total randomness. It would naturally reside somewhere in that _"in between state of perception"_ with some seeing design and others seeing randomness ... ... just like iwe do right now!

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

>"If there is a minimal amount of intelligence attached to "Existence," then we wouldn't be able to distinguish it from the appearance of orchestrated design or total randomness. It would naturally reside somewhere in that "in between state of perception" with some seeing design and others seeing randomness ..." What matters isn't what people think they see when they look at the results though. It's too easy for bias to come in. When we conduct experiments using mathematically verifiably random variations we still see dramatic evolutionary effects. A non random 'intelligent' input would have to be so mathematically insignificant, lost in the noise, that there's no way the observed generation of sophisticated structures and functions can be explained that way. It's environmental fitness selection that is the game changer. By itself total random change will just stay random, you'll never get emergent structure unless you wait near infinite time. However environmental fitness, that is the destruction by the environment of random variations that are unfit, picks out functional traits from the sea of randomness, and so structure and effective function emerge naturally. It's really quite beautiful.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

4 ай бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887 *"What matters isn't what people think they see when they look at the results though."* ... That applies to those who see randomness just as much those who see orchestration. *"When we conduct experiments using mathematically verifiably random variations we still see dramatic evolutionary effects"* ... I know of no mathematical predictions, experiments or formulas that can quantifiably reduce the complexity of a self-aware human down to random variations. I would argue that a similar mathematical experiment that factors in a potential intelligence could just as easily produce the opposite results. With the amount of intelligence involved being "minimal," your mathematical experiment would need to be executed based on both sides of the coin. *"A non random 'intelligent' input would have to be so mathematically insignificant, lost in the noise, that there's no way the observed generation of sophisticated structures and functions can be explained that way."* ... It would only require a level of significance that allows for an evolution from simplicity to complexity and also allows for a determination on which data is more valuable / reliable than other data. You and others see this as "random," and rightfully so. I and others see it as a non-god-like "minimal intelligence," and rightfully so. However, only *one side* of this debate can explain why intelligence is present in a universe that is purportedly _"void of any and all intelligence."_ My side can easily explain it with intelligence evolving from a far-less-complex state ... just like everything else does. Your side must explain how intelligence can "emerge" let alone "evolve" from a totally nonintelligent framework. *"It's environmental fitness selection that is the game changer."* ... Humans invented NFL Football where "environmental fitness" is tested between two opposing teams who are both "trying to survive." You see the two teams battling it out as the only element of "environmental fitness" on display and the game being played as irrelevant. In actuality, the game was *pre-programmed* to allow the two teams a neutral arena to demonstrate and establish their fitness. *"However environmental fitness, that is the destruction by the environment of random variations that are unfit, picks out functional traits from the sea of randomness, and so structure and effective function emerge naturally. It's really quite beautiful."* ... _"picks out functional traits from the sea of randomness."_ What you just wrote could just as easily be stated by someone who sees an intelligence operating behind "Existence." If you have something _"picking something out"_ per se, then it takes a far more complex argument to claim there is no intelligence involved than to simply accept that there is.

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >".. It would only require a level of significance that allows for an evolution from simplicity to complexity and also allows for a determination on which data is more valuable / reliable than other data." That level of significant is survival. >"If you have something "picking something out" per se, then it takes a far more complex argument to claim there is no intelligence involved than to simply accept that there is." But we can see exactly what is doing the picking out. It's survival. Random variations that by chance happen to confer a survival advantage come to dominate. It's the dangers and opportunities offered by the environment that provide the criteria for survival and therefore evolution. So all it takes is an environment that contains useful resources and dangers, and evolutionary selection is inevitable.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

4 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 *"But we can see exactly what is doing the picking out. It's survival. Random variations that by chance happen to confer a survival advantage come to dominate."* ... I understand your point, but "survival" is just a word we use to describe the *end result* of a prior process, and that prior process can be observed as intelligence-driven just as much as random. You're taking what the process achieves and claiming that the achievement, itself, is the process. ... _Cart before the horse!_ "Existence" can facilitate X-number of random variations all the while knowing that there's a specific degree of probability that one of these random variations will demonstrate success in the form of "survival" for the lifeform in question. "Existence" doesn't directly orchestrate the survival of the lifeform. Instead, it initiates a *global process* (an evolutionary template) that deals with random variables in a intelligent way so that evolution can keep pushing forward. This process represents survival for "Existence" just as much as it does for the lifeforms held within it! *Example:* I can take X-number of seeds and randomly toss them out into a field. I know in advance that a specific degree of success will arise from my efforts even though there was no orchestration to where the seeds were tossed. My only involvement is knowing how many seeds were necessary to achieve a high probability of success ... and throwing them out there. I represent the "minimum amount of intelligence" in this seed-tossing scenario. If my process is successful, then X-number of plants will emerge and survive despite heavy losses. And if the plants survive, I can eat them and equally survive.

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC The sowing seeds example is a case of intentional distribution of the seeds towards a pre-conceived, intended outcome. That can lead to evolutionary outcomes because plants that respond well to that strategy will prosper, and that is how both plants and animals become domesticated. They adapt to the environment we create for them, however it doesn’t take intentionality to create environments. They can arise randomly. I think the issue is that looking at your book and posts here you just flat out don’t accept that this is possible, in the sense that you attribute even the existence of mathematically random distributions to some intentional cause. So it doesn’t matter how random, or deterministic, or otherwise mechanical the processes of the universe seem to be, or even provably are, you assume the existence of an intelligent intentionality behind it. Thats basically a minimalist form of theism, it’s just that it’s a rather underwhelmingly simple sort of ‘creator’. I don’t mean any of that pejoratively, just a statement as I see it. As a view that’s fine, if the universe had a cause we can certainly speculate what it might have been. However some minimally intelligent cause of creation is a separate issue from some minimally intelligent force guiding the progress of the development of the universe in detail. The one in no way necessarily entails or implies the other.

how can randomly scattered molecules, in asteroids like Bennu, find a way to self-assemble 🤔

@caricue

4 ай бұрын

There's no liquid water on Bennu. That plus an atmosphere seems like a minimum to even begin.

@r2c3

4 ай бұрын

@@caricue just take a look at the preliminary results... acordind to which, the samples contain both carbon and water...

@r2c3

4 ай бұрын

@@user-eq2dc4ny8v this "magic" show holds the key to life :)

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

Randomly scattered molecules will assemble, they'll just do so randomly. It takes two other factors for that assembly to become functional. A reproduction mechanism whereby such molecules copy themselves, such as with autocatalytic molecular cycles, and environmental selection. If the chemical environment is rich enough and stable enough, then evolution can get started. The problem is the environment there probably isn't chemically rich, stable and energetic enough for that to happen.

@r2c3

4 ай бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887that doesn't explain how structure and complex behavior is formed from random events... how do you jump from randomnes to a group of molecules capable of self-assembly...

Can we get Richard Dawkins and any other scientists engaged in the subject matter to describe the origin of life from sterile planet to the first living metabolizing reproducing cell?

@fullyawakened

4 ай бұрын

He has been asked this question thousands of times already and his answer is that he deals with Darwinian evolution, not abiogenesis. Evolution only describes the process of change once you have a replicator in place, but it says nothing about how that replicator comes to be in the first place. The answer you are looking for is found in the journals of chemical evolution, which describe the simplest and most likely self-replicating polymers that would naturally occur on an early earth.

@sentientflower7891

4 ай бұрын

@@fullyawakened if the answer is known Richard Dawkins can provide it, but if Richard Dawkins won't provide it the answer is not known.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

There is a whole body of literature on that probably over a hundred thousand publications strong in the peer review literature. So instead, maybe get those people to talk about it.

@sentientflower7891

4 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 if you are aware of this literature Richard Dawkins must also be aware of it as well. Given that he is famously intelligent and eloquent he could easily answer the question, and if it so happens that there are multiple pathways to life he could list those pathways easily enough, and if he prefers one pathway over the alternatives he could mention that as well.

@redacted428

4 ай бұрын

@@fullyawakened instead of "Darwinian Evolution" why not just save yourself the time and write Darwinism... or better yet... BS ?

i think the argument is nice for proteins. but i think it is wrong for one simple reason, the banks hate this reason btw, jk. the simple reason is developing a system for regulating evolutionary novelty through redundancy, i think that is the complex life crux, random mutations have to be corrected and controlled in terms of rate in some way or life just falls into some crevasse in the wast landscape of complexity. proteins just have too many options and no obvious small system of redundancy in terms of its combinatorics. that is based on codons for amino acid chains you can have many codons that give the same resulting sequences, and they can be copied such that important genes can have many variants in their recipes in the genome and so on, for protein expression the combinatorics are just too wast for simple organisms to develop redundancy and a slow enough rate of novelty to stabilize species, just a thought. proteins as a basis is more or less too complicated to develop error correction by means of proteins, but genetic code or rna code is not. i think you need combinatorically simple systems of reference or you just get lost in novelty. difficult to prove, but it makes some sense, because essentially proteins do not form a very simple complex of codons that can be error corrected. the time necessary to produce a protein based system that is redundant enough to stabilize within a corridor of variation under random mutations is to me too wast to be realistic, maybe it is by some miracle, but it seems unlikely. :) look at junk dna is simple organisms, why is it there?

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

4 ай бұрын

The problem is there is simply zero evidence for his so called theory of evolution

"The illusion of design" What truth, if any, is obscured by that illusion? Would like to hear RLK press Dawkins on Intelligent Design and Thomas Nagel's statement that Dawkins' materialist origin of life assertion is "almost certainly false." Dawkins in other forums has acknowledged that panspermia is as likely a possibility as earthly abiotic genesis. Given the importance of the observer in quantum theory I would think the biological origin and nature of the observer and his "illusion of consciousness" would be a hard question that begs an answer. Persistent illusions are as valuable as speculative laws. Thanks RLK and CTT for a another thought provoking session.

Dawkins forced God out from the gaps and into the craps.

@Loading....99.99

4 ай бұрын

What about your time of the gaps?

Richard has a lot of faith in magical matter and magical morphing monkeys.

@johnnuaxon3

4 ай бұрын

That's how I call humans "magical morphing monkeys"

@JungleJargon

4 ай бұрын

@@johnnuaxon3 All humans are very much alike since we have all descended from the six survivors of the global flood resulting in the very well known sixteen ancient civilizations that are from the sixteen grandsons of Noah. This is basic knowledge of known human history.

@HyzersGR

4 ай бұрын

@@JungleJargonlol absolutely delusional. Maybe consider what Jack and the Magic beanstalk says about history. Let me guess, you think people used to live to 700 years back then too? And you call science magical?!

@JungleJargon

4 ай бұрын

@@HyzersGR How many of original ancient civilizations can you name?

@HyzersGR

4 ай бұрын

@@JungleJargon you’ll find the answer in Ezekiel 23:20

How embarrassing

Not Impressed!! 1/4 knowledge on multiple subjects with s British accent is not Intelligence. Just hime talking..

@bkorodi1797

4 ай бұрын

I don't think a world renoved biologist wants to impress a random idiot on the internet who probably couldn't pass an 8th grade maths test.

Extraterrestrial life? So what? Like we got terrestrial life all nailed down? Really? Roger Penrose has formulated Three Worlds as the the basic framework of existence. The Platonic. The Physical. The Mental. And, according to him, how they interact and connect is a Mystery. So Roger is humble and amazed while Richard is confused and stumped. Richie does not know how to handle his own public profile. Maybe he should have a chat with Roger.

once you have creatures; as simple as a squirrel; you are easily on the road to Intelligence. Just add time.

@caricue

4 ай бұрын

Tell that to the dinos. They had 3 times as long and were perfectly happy with tooth and claw.

@stellarwind1946

4 ай бұрын

Squirrels-level intelligence?

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

@@caricue Mammals evolved from Dinosaurs. We're an extension of the same evolutionary sequence. All that dino evolution was also our evolution.

@caricue

4 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 The current consensus is that birds evolved from one line of small dinos, but early mammals already existed during the reign of dinosaurs. Imagine if we were evolved from dinos. Maybe we'd have three chambered hearts or lay eggs. It could get really weird.

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

@@caricue Warm bloodedness evolved in dinosaurs first, and birds and mammals inherited it in turn from their dinosaur ancestors. The dinosaur ancestors of placental mammals did lay eggs, and live birth came during mammal evolution. In fact there is one mammal that never gave up laying eggs. The duck billed platypus.

It's good to see that Closer to Truth is finally getting past its bizarre anti-evolution bias. Dozens of interviews with dim-witted theologians over the past two decades, but only only now getting to Richard Dawkins 😂

@Hola-ro6yv

4 ай бұрын

Featuring people from both sides of the argument only looks “biased” to those with the most irrational biases (like yourself)

This man talks himself in circles. Total fraud.

Delusional he is.

Darwin said his single cell life was dependent upon overcoming astronomical odds for this one random event to then follow a linear deterministic path. We have more one than genetic code and nature doesn't follow 3 degrees of motion or on smallest scales Infinite degree of Freedom yet uniformity timelessness without liner direction. In every line of evidence that every generation has explored nature has given the same results that just won't hold this evolutionary mythology. Even when we lean into newton human dashboard equation bias useing knowledge of good and evil to prescribe higherachy of value on objects with a premium on carbon based life following the evidence contradicts it every time. We cant even change the evidence to fit evolutionary mythology trying as hard as we can with the most funding in all of human history, with the highest technology ever created ,100 millions of minds trying to do it can't. Its time to wake up , your generation structuralism is now this generational scientists jail !

@dadsonworldwide3238

4 ай бұрын

1900s left enough death and despair that every nation has been guilty of now trying to make this work. All different cultures,beliefs and at independent points in time all ended in the same results

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Scientists are telling us single cell life was relatively easy and early. It was the step into multicellular life that was hard. The first took hundreds of thousands of years, the next, billions.

@dadsonworldwide3238

4 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 wait no thats what they're trying to say" now "thats not what darwin was saying. As a matter of fact darwin and lyle are specifically against any code ,phenotype or 90% of our current explanatory details about biology. Darwin and the entire naturalism movement is based on us prescribing hierarchy of deterministic value on physical objects & mass with a premium on carbon based life ( anthropologic pagan model useing the ancient chaldean method) Even though newtons human dashboard equations identify these biases they want to lean into. Assume absolute time on space as our ruler etc. Even though Einstein is like nah its a vertical gradiant clock ( time dilation) Darwin only wants to be given enough time and trys on planets to over come one( random )single primordial soup mythology with a linear deterministic out come. To much randomness destroyed all that notion . First We discover more than one genetic code ending that notion where now its panspermia everywhere again just like in the ancient Assyrian era. We been here done this game before

@dadsonworldwide3238

4 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 all 5 points darwin laid out have all been proven wrong completely or just reduced into irrelevancy. Even darwin himself playerized the past with platos spiritual essence and reduced it to a more specific ( natural selection) coined phrase and tool of mechanism. Now at best Bio evolution is reduced to just one of many processes next to regeneration ,mutation and countless others. The philosophical excersize itself is still a great tool when we put scientific box around systems. Its a 1st choice opposition when trying to categorize but only humans can actually manipulate systems this way. With our own hands but nature itself and the universe is refusing to follow this linear narrative . In all feilds of study natural is contradicting this practice outside of our physical control

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

@@dadsonworldwide3238 No one cares if Darwin didn’t get everything right. He had two great ideas: biological natural selection and sexual selection. He got the ball rolling, that’s all. Scientists don’t think of the past greats as infallible prophets, just those who pointed a way. Science is always most concerned with the science it’s doing now. And in biology that’s a theory of evolution that’s soared way past Darwin.

Can somebody here hand me a coin with only the heads side, precluding the tales? Can somebody here show me illumination without Light? Can anybody here show me how a field is something by itself of itself and in itself - because a field isn't a thing, it's what something does. Luc of paris? Simon hibbs? Tony atkinson? Matt woodling? Grawwolfe? Kos mos clown? Andrea plosky? B.G ? George Grubbs? You're all of bunch of cowards! None of you know anything, and it's why you form a consensus so you can "believe" that you do.

@ArtieTurner

4 ай бұрын

The tale is in the telling.

The appearance of design is not obviously an illusion just because he says so.

@markb3786

4 ай бұрын

the appearance of design in nature is only a delusion to those that have never worked in engineering or manufacturing. The more simple design the better the design. And nature is obviously bottom-up evolution and not top-down design. The cell is a ridiculous mess and obviously not designed.

@LeoLove19

4 ай бұрын

Indeed, the appearance of design in nature isn't an illusion just because it's stated as such. Dawkins' point is about understanding the role of evolution and natural selection. Over millions of years, these processes have shaped organisms to seem perfectly designed for their functions, like wings for flight or eyes for seeing. This appearance of design is a result of evolutionary adaptations, not evidence of a deliberate designer. It's the accumulation of small, advantageous changes over generations that leads to this complexity, not a conscious design process.

@mrshankerbillletmein491

4 ай бұрын

Consious design is a better explanation as I see it it seems obvious. When we see functional systems we assume intelligence behind it.

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

Of course not. It's because we have hundreds of years of painstaking research and experimentation supporting the theory of evolution.

@mrshankerbillletmein491

4 ай бұрын

Thats what they say but still not demonstrated by scientific method@@simonhibbs887

Delusion.

Richard Dawkin's expressions are very disturbing and damaging. Although I am not religious, nor is it important for me if one believes in God or not, it is very destructive to talk about things that he knows anything about. Most scientists are out of order, so many philosophers and many more psychologists in the theories. This man's mind and perhaps spirit are dark, coming from dark elements. Metaphysician philosopher