Big fan of yours Richard, you look great for 83. Lets hope you are around for many more decades, we need more people of reason and fact.

@CobraQuotes1

17 күн бұрын

Richard Dawkins is one of my favorite person in the world.

@josmith9662

17 күн бұрын

get all your book content on youtube shorts Richard. in 50 years few will read books, bequeath us your knowledge in snappy format so we grow more stupid less quickly

@ALavin-en1kr

17 күн бұрын

Reason and fact is limited as is belief and disbelief. The only thing that is valid is knowing.

@mariospanna8389

17 күн бұрын

@@ALavin-en1kr Facts are what is true, reasons are the proofs given for a fact. If you think this is limited then you are limited in body and mind, have a nice day.

@ankyspon1701

16 күн бұрын

​@@mariospanna8389Well it's a fact that evolution is impossible, so what do you do now? It's a fact that water, rocks, minerals, proteins, lipids and all chemical elements are dead! No matter how you combine dead things, you cannot give them life! It's a fact that evolution is supposed to be progressive! But you and Dawkins etc ignore a more important fact, that the fossil record shows 11 distinct sudden explosions of life, the Avalon Devonian and Cambrian etc, where fully formed insects fish reptiles birds and mammals etc etc spontaneously appear in the fossil record without any transitional forms or common ancestors! Why ignore this and spend decades bemoaning religion instead! Research irreducible complexity, explain how a simple cell somehow developed the ability to create the most complex coding system known to man, using biological components! Or explain how a simple cell developed the ability to carry out the incredibly complex series of chemical reactions we call the Krebs cycle, which will not run, unless all chemicals and enzymes are available. It's taken scientists 100 years to get even close in a lab. It's Impossible! You talk about facts but ignore them if they don't agree with your theory. Sad really

RIP Daniel Dennett❤

@frilansspion

17 күн бұрын

What! I didnt know that. Nooo....😢

@seanjosephhayes

16 күн бұрын

How sad. I had no idea also along with @frilansspion. RIP Daniel. Inspirational and a great, articulate rationalist. ❤️

@will6724

16 күн бұрын

How tragic 😢

@jamesmaybrick2001

14 күн бұрын

@@will6724 He was 82 and had lived an amazing life. Not a tragedy, just sad.

@Samael5783

13 күн бұрын

Rip

How LUCKY are we to be alive to hear these two giants in conversation 👏👏🙏🙏

Morality is nothing more than the rules we make to govern our societies. To a large extent they have universal application because societies are founded on similar basic fundamentals. Morality, whether it be objective or subjective, is independent of god for the simple reason that there is no god.

I find it strange that an atheist or "cultural christian" can say we can't get morality from reason, when every religious text is written by people not gods; and in other words all the morality in the books are from people, even if those people claim it's in the name of some god. And as Richard Dawkins says; today religious people choose what verse to follow based on modern, secular reasons.

@tcroncero

15 күн бұрын

Because they use the word ‘reason’ to refer a cold rationale calculation of ultimate gain.

@jaromsmiss

15 күн бұрын

Objective morals aren’t from religious books. Objective morals are universals, something innate to all humans. Example: hurting innocent people is not morally good.- there are higher morals, which are subjective…such as how relationships should be.

@deadbishop9317

14 күн бұрын

@@jaromsmiss Exactly. And even the subjective "morals" in religious books are from humans, not gods (obviously). All moral is human, and objective morals are innate in humans. Which is why I found Martin Rees statements so strange (and sad).

@deadbishop9317

14 күн бұрын

@@tcroncero Perhaps, but I think that applies to very few people since we have evolved as a group that depends on others to survive, and are able to appreciate the intellectual contribution of those around us even in spite of physical challenges, and also see simply "being human" as something to be protected and reason enough to be cared for. Of course this depends on how far back in history we are talking about.

@tcroncero

14 күн бұрын

@@deadbishop9317 That's an extremely modern and christian view of humanity that doesn't at all reflect the history of humans. The most common reaction among any tribes that met each other was war or raiding. Within their own civilizations, how they treated someone had a lot more to do with their sex, class, and skin colour. So no, humans don't naturally treat other humans good just because they are human, instead it's far more tribal in that certain humans are seen as worth listening to whereas others can be ignored. It's for this reason that the christian teachings of loving your neighbour and treating others as you would be treated were actually seen as radical ideas!!! Hence, why Dawkins and Rees are calling themselves cultural christians - they recognize they have morals views that are cultural.

34:54 The way that Dawkins asks a question is inspiring, his wording is so concise and his question is so defined, it's like poetry.

Thank you for hosting such a living legend. Much love

Why can't morality be based on reason and sense just like traffic rules? Even the most devout zealots must admit that we didn't need any deity to make the traffic rules! They make perfect sense.

@user-hr8dx9qw4n

10 күн бұрын

I think it is. We life in a subjective perceived world with subjective man-made morals, based on KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCES and AGREEMENTS. Over several generations we figured out that e.g. mu rder causes a lot disadvantages: you k ill someone from another familiy, they will k ill someone of your family, both families are weaker after. Both families KNOW, based on that EXPERIENCE, that its better to not mu rder, they AGREE about that and develop a subjective moral and a juristic law agaisnt it. Agreements like this lift the personal subjective moral on a common level, till the nevel of a nation, etc. Based on KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCES and AGREEMENTS, we all agree that murder is by moral a no go and by law a crime. The only way that murder can become accepted is claiming that its a demand from a "higher will" and by that an objective moral (which doesnt exist, but they claim it anyway). With that trick the Hebrews justifyed the gen oz ide they did on the Ammonites, and the Nazis justifyed they gen oz ide they did, etc. Objective morals are not only not existing, they are also dangerous.

Why is this video titled "Sam Harris is wrong about morality"? It looks like a clickbait such as those videoes with titles "person1 destroys person2". It's not in Richard's class, at all!

@hundredfireify

15 күн бұрын

Agreed. It's not very tasteful, although I guess they have to play the game if they want to perform on the platform..

@pseudonymousbeing987

15 күн бұрын

I expect this sort of thing is up to someone else. It did get me to click

@mugsofmirth8101

15 күн бұрын

Apparently it is "in Richard's class". This is, after all Richard's channel.

@mugsofmirth8101

15 күн бұрын

@@hundredfireify his ideas should stand on their own merits without having to resort to clickbait. That's what one must do when their ideas aren't up to par.

@mohammadtajabadi

14 күн бұрын

@@mugsofmirth8101 Well, the surprise and the fact that we are talking about this means that this doesn't look like Richard's way, especially since Sam and Richard are good friends and on the same team most of the time. I wouldn't have commented if it was Ben Shapiro's or Dave Rubin's channel.

Fascinating talk. Keep going Richard!

that point he made about how the next breakthrough frontiers of science will be a "new kind of knowledge" that only complex AI will ever fully understand and humans will just have to accept never being able to wrap their heads around it is actually a really interesting thought and probably true

Love to see a talk with Richard and Ray Kurzweil, concerning the Singularity and Epoch 6.

A wonderful talk. Professor Rees is able to convey his ideas very succinctly.

For people running this channel, make a separate clip with the part talking about the title and give this professor due respect and stick his name in this full interview. I’m not in the mood to find the meat for the bait I clicked on. Maybe I’ll come back and watch the full interview some time.

@thomabow8949

14 күн бұрын

no one gives a shit dude

@ccampbell02yt

7 күн бұрын

Agreed, it's 25:30 and his disagreement with Harris is pretty standard is/ought sort of objection.

What a treat.!! Thanks so much 😊

I'm gonna go out on a limb and answer the thumbnail's question BEFORE watching the video: No chance he's wrong.

@omp199

16 күн бұрын

Have you watched the video now?

@timsullivan4566

16 күн бұрын

@@omp199 Soooo embarrassed - I always mix up Sam Harris and Ben Stiller. My bad.

@taongatakaro8411

15 күн бұрын

😂😢😅

This conversation is at a register I am unable to comprehend!

Of course, anyone who lands the Templeton Prize, will ONLY say good things about religion. Richard, you are NOT wrong about religion in society. Thanks for being the voice of Logic and Reason!!! Much Love and Respect ❤ Eternal Memory of Daniel Dennett!!!⚘❤

I adore Lord Rees! Great to see him here. He is always so interesting and inspiring

Such a delight to listen to these two bright minds

1 word review -- marvelous!

Thanks again for an interesting discussion 👍

This channel keeps me sane in an crazy world 🖖

I came away unconvinced that Harris is wrong. Nice chat though. Thx.

8:10 almost miraculous😂

I've watched many videos of Dawkins and Rees kn KZread and others such as Penrose and Pinker, this vid has got me particularly excited, going to enjoy with a nice cup of tea on the sofa. 🛋️☕

@joshyman221

16 күн бұрын

Likewise! Cheers!

The music at the beginning reminds of Dr Venkman’s paranormal cable TV show

I love you Richard Dawkins!

It really is getting tiring having to respond to assertions that people need a god or religion to be “more” moral. I’m glad Richard pushed back against the claim, but it is tiresome to hear it still parroted even by non-religious thinkers.

@JamesDidato

10 күн бұрын

Just goes to show you that even intelligent people who are true professionals in their field should probably stay within what Warren Buffett calls, "Circle of Competence". Because most who venture outside that circle, and look to bestow their opinion on matters, are unfortunately stating opinions based on surface knowledge rather than deep understanding. Don't be surprised if humans are still stating such things 25 years from now....those "memes" are very often spread from parent to child or other 'authority figures' and once those memes lock on, it's very difficult to pry them from ones brain.

2 titans of British science. ❤

It's very wholesome seeing Richard share his fascination of science with a topic that is so alien to him.

Great admirer of R’s intellect and the disentanglement of the vastitudes inherent in religions , the conversation with Reese highlights ,to me, their shared avoidance of the very nature and existence of consciousness which does all this ........

Love your tie! :)

Richard, couid you please, regularly, just talknabout how wonderful Russel's Teapot theory is, it us so fantastic.

Martin Rees tied himself in to a few knots when he talked about using religion to guide morality.

@Notalloldpeople

16 күн бұрын

Yes, he ended up trapped when Richard pointed out that judging which aspects of religion are moral requires moral judgement founded outside religion. A good chat nevertheless. Laurance Krauss also had a good long chat with Martin

@frilansspion

16 күн бұрын

Yes…but theres something to be said for using moral principles thatve been holding true for thousands of years, rather than asking people to try their best to reason it out or trying it out. Most people are pretty lost frankly. I think there should be more of a middleground really here

@Paine137

16 күн бұрын

Rees was purchased by the Templeton Foundation.

@majnuni

16 күн бұрын

@@Notalloldpeople Morality flows from our DNA as does all behavior of all mammals and all creatures as does social order as well. A harmony in all aspects of life that we see and sustain or offend and where and how, dare I ask is this possible? call it by whatever name suits you science, God , all only names for something more than remarkable ( God forbid we use the G name) He only affirms the same shortcomings he critcizes in religions, not those of the real teachings but his and all our shortcomings, those of men

@johncarter1150

16 күн бұрын

Yes, and limited this conversation.

Wow, not come across Prof Rees, but what a clear explanation he gives, of the technique of identifying if a star has a planet. If only all scientists explained things this logically.

Sam Harris premises his rational moral system on the concept of "sentient well-being " . The idea of good and bad across history and culture map on to the idea of well being, and you can use a rational appraisal of well being to give you guidance in actions. There is nothing about euthanasia that excludes it from evaluation on the moral landscape.

@MasoudJohnAzizi

16 күн бұрын

It is possible that people who suffer from "his sort of dark-triad-personality (sociopathic #narcissism)" engage in destruction of "sentient well-being" of others (by way of employing polemics and gaslighting that achieves manufacturing of justification for vaccine mandates, racism, islamophobia, and war) as a means to promote nothing but that of their own narcissistic interests. The works of Prof. Sam Vaknin, Dr. Les Carter, and Dr. Iain McGilchrist explore this phenomenon of narcissism (right-brain impotence) in an evidence-based manner.

@Censeo

15 күн бұрын

Well said. Sam Harris brings clarity to the confused ideas about morality. The narrow study of morality in different ways where only outcome matters in an action, or arguments that it can't be objective because societies and individuals have different views misses the point. To the outcome being the same makes intent not a factor. If I kick a puppy cause I believe it will be run over by a car otherwise is different from if I saved the puppy from being run over by accident because I just wanted to kick the puppy. Yes, I saved the puppy in both instances, but the difference in mindset makes predictions about future actions from me. So intent is of course important because we don't do only one thing in our lives. About the diverse opinions about what is moral, or conflicting moral examples where we can't immediately or ever give our answer to what is the right action does not mean anything in dismantling Harris point. Just because we are conflicted doesn't take away from the fact that certain behaviors on mass most probably could improve well being for humans. And we can investigate these things and learn more. I feel the moral discussions today are in the dark ages still.

I love that Richard dressed for the occasion.

The more time I spend working with computers the less I consider a future inhabited by them and not us "inspiring."

Its almost conceivable that words spoken by hominids as inspiring and intelligent as these two could be as profound as a Rembrandt late self portrait but they are only words and not the deep answer to the 'hard' question of consciousness that Rembrandt gives us. Arguably 🤔

All the best doctor.

the development of AI is secular intelligent design." What a great observation.

Limited. It’s like they’re gluing random pieces together in a bid to paint a picture that has no solid canvas under it. I get it, they’re intelligent sound bites that map onto complex shapes but nonetheless, it adds up to nothing more than the obvious. The revealing note was is in the notion that science can save us. No doubt science can help us but it can’t save us. To save is a feeling of connection. It is an a’ priori connection with the whole ecology of being. It is a conceptual framework that tries to wrap itself around something broader than each of us as individuals. To save is spiritually grounded. It is transcendental and only through this lens can we come to terms with the full scope and scale of what we are. Illumination will come when the mind fully calibrates around the correct ontology of being. Science can’t draw a line to measure this. Science is just a tool; a method. Part of the conceptual eye that seeks to understand the world it is of.

Why that video title? Sam Harris was mentioned here? I must have blinked.

Fascinating discussion, so much to say in response. On the issue of religion and morality, it is perfectly true that, as is often said, "you don't need God to be good". That is, you don't need a personal, explicit, conscious belief in God to be a moral person. We don't have to be believers - or for that matter non-believers - to be moral, we just need to be human. The much more difficult issue is the philosophical one. In the absence of God (the absolute transcendent Good which is the source of all things) what can we base morality on, what is our explanation of it? Non-theistic/scientific views, being reductive, have the effect not of explaining morality but of explaining it away. It is an evolved Darwinian survival mechanism, or it is conditioning arising from an invented socio-cultural construct, or part of a Freud-style psychological mechanism, or simply neuroscience, the neurons firing in this or that part of the brain. Morality is seen as an illusion (a powerful one, admittedly) which is a cog in some entirely non-moral mechanism. In contrast, the idea of God is not of a celestial police officer watching our every move. Rather, on the religious view, God as the Good is what gives meaning and ultimation to that moral sense which is central to what we are as human persons.

@karagi101

12 күн бұрын

It’s not a difficult issue. One is true and the other isn’t. As much as you’d like a god to be the basis of morality the fact is that there is zero evidence for any god yet there is overwhelming evidence that we derive our morals from human experience.

@niemand7811

12 күн бұрын

Philosophy is much made up words put together to explain something beyond its practical application. Made up like gods as we preach them. Morality is always based on the rules of society which is based on the form of that society. In islamic societies it is immoral to be gay. In a western society, say like Sweden or Switzerland, it is morally alright to be gay.

@a.gwhiteley1855

11 күн бұрын

@@karagi101 I don't think human experience can be seen as the basis of morality. Moral values and principles are things we apply to experience, not derive from it. Nor, surely, can we see morality as a sort of majority vote or consensus which society conditions us (via parents, education, law, etc.) to accept. As I say, the problem with non-theistic accounts of morality is that they inevitably have to find a non-moral explanation of why we are moral, so that they end up not explaining morality but explaining it away.

@karagi101

11 күн бұрын

@@a.gwhiteley1855 We’ve learned morality from human experience just as we learn everything else from human experience. We knew murder and stealing were immoral before any religion codified these as immoral. Humans had to behave in certain ways to be able to cooperate, live and function together to survive. Actions that we found were detrimental to the wellbeing of human groups were deemed immoral. Morality evolved with experience and knowledge.

@a.gwhiteley1855

10 күн бұрын

You're absolutely right - we don't need religion to give us moral principles and values, we have them because we are rational human beings. Religions themselves, in fact, say the same thing. The problem, however, with an explanation of morality in terms of society is that morality is seen as conditioning: society conditions us to adhere to certain behaviours because they are advantageous to it. The traditional view, on the other hand, held by just about every thinker, including religious ones, from Plato to Kant, is that morality is, like mathematics, perceived by reason. It is reason which tells us, for example, that we should look for the good of society, even to the point of sacrificing our own interests. It's a bit ironical that it is only with the Enlightenment - the "Age of Reason" - that we have relinquished this approach and opted instead for evolutionary and social explanations. I suppose this may be because the view from reason implies that there is a level of reality beyond the purely material cosmos.

So it would be sad if all life forms were not able to feel sad? I got it right? :p well I agree. Wonderful discussion/video, thanks !

Waw my 2 favourite intellectuals disagree on something, I'll report back after watching to confirm which side I take on this topic. ❤

How can we be in the 21st century and still be discussing this issue?

We life in a subjective perceived world with subjective man-made morals, based on KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCES and AGREEMENTS. Over several generations we figured out that e.g. mu rder causes a lot disadvantages: you k ill someone from another familiy, they will k ill someone of your family, both families are weaker after. Both families KNOW, based on that EXPERIENCE, that its better to not mu rder, they AGREE about that and develop a subjective moral and a juristic law agaisnt it. Agreements like this lift the personal subjective moral on a common level, till the nevel of a nation, etc. Based on KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCES and AGREEMENTS, we all agree that murder is by moral a no go and by law a crime. The only way that murder can become accepted is claiming that its a demand from a "higher will" and by that an objective moral (which doesnt exist, but they claim it anyway). With that trick the Hebrews justifyed the gen oz ide they did on the Ammonites, and the Nazis justifyed they gen oz ide they did, etc. Objective morals are not only not existing, they are also dangerous.

At around 23:00 is a fair criticism of Dawkins, which I have made to his twitter account. The guest says "I'm not with you in attacking religion" I think the reasons Rees gives for that shows an understanding of economic tradeoff that still eludes Dawkins. Dawkins benefits more than he suffers from the existence of a certain amount of people who "really do believe that stuff' (to a certain extent). Dawkins benefits from being in an economy, which requires people who have different emotional and intellectual needs. 24:00 Richard, it's not "patronizing" to accept that the average IQ (and EQ) is 100. Snap out of it.

I think most wisdom and morality can only be learnt by the group over many years, generations, obstacles, rising and falling, different ideas, most often wrong until one works and the people thrive. The culture see's this, values the idea and passes it to the next generation, often by metaphors, song , story (most in history were uneducated and couldn't read and write). I don't think on an individual level we as humans are anywhere near smart enough to work out morality. They can converse and have a number of ideas that within reason are good ideas. Add them to the social system to be tested by time. It's taken a very long time to reach this point, with many a thinker talking about this and we still have a ways to go. The realm of the individual mind working in large groups is mind bogglingly complicated.

I love you so much Prof.Richard, you gave me inspiration and motivation. You are a person loyal to your cause, and humanity always loves and supports you ❤

I've admired your work for a long time, Richard. I appreciate your true skepticism which led you to oppose the new age woke left. I'd be really interested in you weighing the pros and cons of our early 2000s domesticated christianity (which is ultimately quite wholesome) against the government influenced 'woke' religion.

@ihatespam2

12 күн бұрын

Now we’re throwing in “New Age” in that strawman bigotry about wokeism? It’s slur not a movement. Just make up a word and have it represent everything you hate, then you can focus your frustration there.

@thisisbrotherhood769

12 күн бұрын

@@ihatespam2 I'm using Woke in the way Dawkins does in other videos. It's your choice to make it a strawman or a steelman. Also, excuse me for hurting your feelings. Again, thank you Richard for challenging the new age liberal mindset (Which i agree is a betrayal of our old fashioned liberal values that we need to stand by) They never should have taken your humanist award away.

@ihatespam2

11 күн бұрын

@@thisisbrotherhood769 this has nothing to do with liberal or mindsets, that’s you hiding from the topic. And, steelmanning is when we try to agree on what something means, so no, it’s not an individual choice, another dodge. And the whole point is, Dawkins sloppy use of the word woke, leading to problematic issues of people taking past each other. (See every comment you made.) So, Im feeling you’re not even trying here. I’ll let someone else try to clarify all this for you some other time.

@thisisbrotherhood769

11 күн бұрын

@ihatespam2 respectfully disagree. Woke encapsulates trans to kids ideology, censorship of people that disagree with it, etc. And it happens to be a fringe part of the left. I threw in "new age" to show that it is not standard liberal belief, but it is newfound which has brought me from liberal to moderate-light conservative. You simply don't have enough anti-bias to recognize that it is under the liberal platform that took Dawkins humanist award away. I couldn't care less about your idea of strawman or steel man in this circumstance. I dislike the notion you are so easily offended. Good luck to you.

The use of the terms "but true gods are..." is rather unfortunate. What I think he means is "but the idea we have of what a true god should be is...."

There are two perspectives to reality and objectivity, i,e. 1. realism [philosophical] and anti-realism [Kantian], thus scientific realism and anti-realism [where morality can be objective scientifically]. If one approach morality from the philosophical realist position, i.e. a mind independent reality, e.g. moral emotivism, then morality cannot be objective because the common understanding is moral elements are subjective and not a matter of fact not truth apt. While the idea of a mind-independent reality is useful for basic common sense survival, it is grounded on an ASSUMPTION that there is something out out we can never realized but merely mirror or correspond with. Philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion. Theism is also fundamentally philosophical realism, i.e. believing in a mind-independent God. There is no denial that scientific facts are objective [as contingent upon the human-based scientific method], either from a realist or antirealist pov. There is no denial the majority accept the existence of morality, believe it, response to it and act upon it. As such, there are regular patterns of relations and activities within the human brain that is represent moral beliefs and behaviors. It is the business of science to discover these patterns as scientific facts which then is scientifically objective. We can infer these scientific moral related patterns are there, it is a matter of science advancing to confirm them. I believe Harris is also optimistic that morality is objective in this sense. Take inbreeding avoidance which is a evolutionary biology and psychological fact [scientific]. it is also a moral element. This inbreeding avoidance algorithm in the brain must be represent by a specific physical neural network When this is scientific fact is inputted into a a moral framework, it is then an objective moral fact grounded on the consensus of a collective. As such morality is objective [as qualified to this specific moral element]. That morality is objective cannot be claimed in-general but rather must be qualified to a specific set of moral elements which is justified scientifically [scientific antirealism] as objective.

Small time Bertrand Russel!! Sam got burned! LOL

@karagi101

12 күн бұрын

The truth is the truth. Sam isn’t going to invent a new truth when Russel already elucidated it.

If premisis is not a word, then neither is premiseez!

You are the real one love

Can you say if a mathematical equation is more rational than other? 26:00

Yeah, I read On The Future. It wasn't that exciting. But then, I'm a biology guy.

Your financial handlers should get a refund on that associates degree they showed you. It's worthless.

Thank you for this interview. I like your skepticism of what we can measure at such great,distances. It is remarkable what we (as a species) have been able to create to augment our senses, whether it’s different wavelengths (e.g., x-rays) or the composition of distant stars through the spectrum of light we receive. I understand it up to a point, but when we reach a certain point, it seems we might add a little humility since as good as our instruments have become, it is not inconceivable that our present knowledge is very flawed, much as Copernicus advanced our understanding our place, but was wrong at the same time. Also, regarding morality, I agree with you that a moral philosophy can be derived from our experience, without the need to defer to a higher power. When bringing up the issue of birth defects or euthanasia, I think rational people can disagree as to the morality of a particular action, but that doesn’t mean there is an objective morality that could provide a correct solution. I think the golden rule works as well as any form of most questions, but even then, we wouldn’t want masochists to torture others! I suppose that is the conundrum of beings that can act rationally, but are also inherently irrational. Thanks again.

@karagi101

12 күн бұрын

Masochists want to be tortured. Sadists want to torture others. 😂

Thank you both so much.

If there is more than one Universe, why not more than one God (if they exist) ? If a Universe existed before this one, why not a God that existed before the One we have now ?

Very nice. Thank you. I find it strange that he feels religion should not be attacked. Partly it must have to do with how weak it became, otherwise we would be stoning a lot of people right now.

Master.

Next time someone ask me about my beleiving in god I will just read a chapter of the Antichrist.

Hamas and ISIS members believe a God is watching them (and us). Can't believe how intelligent people struggle to grasp deeply philosophical concepts that Sam and Richard peddle so beautifully.

Another wonderful talk. One thing I take exception to is Prof. Rees' denigrating remark about monkeys: in my opinions, monkeys understand the postulates of quantum mechanics every bit as well as humans do.

@xnoreq

15 күн бұрын

Please show me the monkeys that can calculate how a wavefunction evolves in time using the Schrödinger equation.

@karlyohe6379

15 күн бұрын

@@xnoreq I see you have specified time dependence; are you suggesting that monkeys might understand the math of Schroedinger's time-independent equation of (hbar^2/2m)(Psi)sub-xx+U*Psi=E*Psi? Of course, the real point--as has been pointed out by minds superior to mine--that anyone who thinks they understand QM, doesn't. :)

@xnoreq

14 күн бұрын

@@karlyohe6379 That applies only to the philosophical interpretations of QM.

I like his approach to religion and have always hoped that Dawkins would take a more live and let live approach.

Morality bifurcates across obligations and prohibitions, so it's always going to feel schizophrenic to try to rationalize it. People keep trying to rationalize morality, and this is not so difficult to understand. There's a kind of anxiety in not knowing what's really on one's neighbor's mind.

rees is more conservative whereas richard is more left wing

I work in the field of artificial intelligence and neuroscience. I disagree that machine consciousness is coming, yes there are improvements in models of language and vision in deep learning field, but even the intelligence of a honey bee is more then these models. We are long way from true autonomous intelligence and even millennia away from real understanding of what is consciousness.

@commentarytalk1446

16 күн бұрын

Yes. The AI and linking them AI + Agents will no doubt be intelligent the way a machine is and it will be recombinatorial in intelligence thus disruptive technology penetrating many industries so potent. However I doubt that will be the same as consciousness in humans. What I think it might eventually gain once sufficient AI + Agent linking of high enough quality are created is linking all these then there may well be a self-regulatory center that in a sense has a kind of super intelligence parallel to consciousness but in a very different form to that of humans. I think there's a lot of confusion concerning what consciousness is in humans and what AI will derive in time with sufficient development. Though for now that's a little while off with the current suite of LLM/NN/ML/GPT technologies combined. First the combination of agents and then refinement of specialized models then finally linking of all these together and eventual self-regulatory development which should be designed according to our biosphere as foundation reality system and basis for integration of this super-system with human civilization and planet Earth. That seems a while off both technologically and in human organizational coordination.

@frilansspion

16 күн бұрын

we re not milennia away

@frilansspion

16 күн бұрын

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf thats silly dude

@Soliloquy-gy6zf

16 күн бұрын

@@frilansspion to you, an Ape. Yes

@Soliloquy-gy6zf

16 күн бұрын

@@frilansspion to you, an Ape. Yes

We simply do not know, and can not know our origins, meaning/purpose, and that includes morality and ethics. They always have been there, and until we get excess beyond the 3 dimensional 5 senses restriction of our existence that will remain so. Simple acceptance of the unknown is just too difficult for most, sadly.

@karagi101

12 күн бұрын

That’s such a definitive statement. How do you know what we can and can’t know? We certainly know our origins from when evolution began. We are working on discovering how life began and I expect we will find that answer eventually too.

@Robert-xs2mv

12 күн бұрын

@@karagi101 we definitely do not know our origins are from evolution. That is only an adapted narrative. There is no ultimate evidence that is indeed the reality. The answer will only come to us when we learn have excess to the fourth dimension and beyond.

@dinmavric5504

7 күн бұрын

@@Robert-xs2mv I think you need to go sit under a tree. Evolution is proved, and we do know our origins are from evolution. Anyone can go and use some mystical bullshit as the answer for everything, that's easy.

i think i disagree with dawkins in one point and i realize this over and over again. and at that point im also with martin rees. The belief in God as the cause of everything is "extremely helpful and useful, perhaps it is even the greatest trick that has come about in the course of evolution - even if it is based on a deep error" as Randolf Menzel said. Thats one point i deeply disagree with dawkins and which i think hes wrong about.

The title of this interview is the type of click-bait I wouldn't expect to see. Martin Rees disagrees with Sam, but at no point do we establish that Sam is wrong. Furthermore, it doesn't actually seem as though Rees even understands Sam's position.

📍28:33 2📍 14:46

Hilarious 😂

It's simply insulting that this professor thinks that when humans struggle with moral questions looking for advice from religion. What does that mean? Ask a preacher? An ancient holy book? Guess what, people have a morality mostly aligned with the law (at least in the West) and NOT with an ancient preacher.

Didn’t Richard seem to agree with Sam? At least his position seems closer to Harris than Rees. The clickbait title seems a bit beneath the discussion. Still fascinating.

33:50- The Big Bang Theory is way more incredible and inspiring than any Creation myth we can imagine.

@samdg1234

16 күн бұрын

And…? Is there more to that than you informing us as to what you find inspiring?

23:29- all the more reason for Atheists to develop their own forms of “devotional” art, music and architecture where nonbelievers can feel welcomed and part of a wider community - something which makes religion so alluring.

One can argue that objective morality exists as a product of evolution and the facts of life and the world we live in. But let's face the first fact - no one cares, no one wants to know. People only want to revel in bible thumping control or anarchistic relativism and shy away from any actual discussion on the effects of our choices and actions, and the goals we hold both individually and collectively. People only look for affirmation in media, not to be challenged, sadly.

You cannot presuppose the level at which meaning can be gained from information. It may be that knowing the theory of everything does in fact inform our understanding of biology, we cannot know until we know (or don't). My second point is that the lesson to gain from AI isn't that we can create consciousness which is a special quality, but that consciousness is an illusion. Complexity creates illusions of intelligence and life. Our understanding is how we are like the machines not the other way around.

@swaydam

15 күн бұрын

"My second point is that the lesson to gain from AI isn't that we can create consciousness which is a special quality, but that consciousness is an illusion." Can AI falsely believe itself to be conscious? Thats what you hold to be the case for humans right?

@nineteenninetyfive

15 күн бұрын

@@swaydam I think you are begging the question because the idea of belief is a quality of only conscious beings.

@swaydam

14 күн бұрын

@@nineteenninetyfive Maybe I missed something. I thought you were implying there is no consciousness, for humans or AI. In which case, my belief that I am conscious is false. But if only conscious beings can hold beliefs, I must be conscious.

@nineteenninetyfive

14 күн бұрын

@@swaydam if you want to get into this further we are going to have to define terms, but essentially I am saying that our perception of consciousness is an illusion, as are our beliefs.

@swaydam

14 күн бұрын

@@nineteenninetyfive I would like to get into this further. I have no idea how to define consciousness or perception without using synonyms. Belief means to hold something as true. Illusion is a mistaken belief caused in part by an incomplete/limited perception. You said our perception of consciousness is an illusion as well as our beliefs. I don't see how there can be perception without consciousness. I don't see how there can be illusion without consciousness. Can an AI have an illusory perception of consciousness? Can an AI have an illusory perception of having beliefs?

Morality came long before it was ever written down or codified into a religion. I make my own morality, as I've never read the bible or know much about it. I'd also question just how much of Christian teaching actually affected Britain or British societal values and laws. Thou shall not kill, tolerance, forgiveness, etc.. are all values that predate Christianity.

The question is - Why would one behave better if a God was watching them? For me it just highlights dishonesty and an underlying moral inauthenticity then we should be fixing within ourselves regardless of God.

@ihatespam2

12 күн бұрын

It’s very immature and I’m sure he’s lying about being BETTER if he was religious. He’d be worse. Each subject he brought up about assisted suicide and abortion, religion is on the immoral side, trying to push their beliefs on others.

Needing religion to be moral is a supremely immoral position. And that's even assuming that you actually behave in a moral way based on your religion, which is a dubious proposition in practice.

@ihatespam2

12 күн бұрын

Exactly. If you have empathy and grow up, you don’t need daddy telling you. If you’re a sociopath, you don’t listen to daddy anyway.

How is it hard to belive that ChatGBT has no consciousness? 😢 Are we crazy? It is a language model, it just learns to say things. Does he really not think that consciousness is more than that? I sometimes think Dawkins is afraid to say things because of how he could be malinterpreted, but doesn't see that this makes him seem theatral or even fake.

Richard "won" the moral philosophy debate about as strongly as one could expect. There was a lot of backing down stopping just short of saying.. well of course if you put it rationally then of course morality can come from rationality.

21:53 I completely disagree with Rees on morality. Rees seems to argue that for some people morality depends on religion, a position that contradicts modern insights. Research shows that morality arises from biological, cultural, and rational sources. Statistics on prison populations and crime levels suggest no positive correlation between religiosity and moral behavior (rather a negative correlation). Moreover, the threat of punishment or reward within religious contexts does not lead to genuine internalization of moral norms, but rather hinders such internalization. Religious texts are unreliable guides for morality, also given their many contradictions and lack of consistency with modern moral standards. The idea that religious rituals need to be maintained by sustaining religion seems like putting the cart before the horse. The rituals now become the goal, and religion the means. Additionally, his plea that people like him do not need to believe, but 'others' do, appears to me elitist, parasitic, unethical, and unsustainable.

Yuval Noah Harari next Prof Dawkins

Our morality isn't based on abstract reasoning it's based on what we will do under pressure, and when scared.

@ck58npj72

14 күн бұрын

That's only one aspect...and very simple at that.

@jawhale833

14 күн бұрын

@@ck58npj72 If your moral beliefs fall apart under pressure it means they are not your real beliefs.

@ck58npj72

14 күн бұрын

@@jawhale833 More important is if ur in a position of power, or the things you do that nobody notices.

@ihatespam2

12 күн бұрын

Exactly backwards.

Maybe one day we will get human consciousness...

@Soliloquy-gy6zf

16 күн бұрын

Nothing exists but Consciousness

@tylercarter8011

16 күн бұрын

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf prove it.

@Soliloquy-gy6zf

16 күн бұрын

@@tylercarter8011 this is not how you ask. And I don't have to prove anything. I am in competition with nobody. I don't "debate". I share Knowledge. With the right person, only.

@Soliloquy-gy6zf

16 күн бұрын

@@tylercarter8011 I will be sharing higher knowledge with someone courteous. It isn't you

@tylercarter8011

16 күн бұрын

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf chicken

The title of this (Sam Harris Is Wrong About Morality), supposedly chosen by Dawkins, is ambiguous. Dawkins didn't seem to agree with Rees. So what is Dawkins's position on morality?

@dylanevartt3219

16 күн бұрын

They also barely got into it, for it being the title and all

@samdg1234

16 күн бұрын

@@dylanevartt3219 I’ve followed both Harris and Dawkins on this issue for about a decade. I think that Harris’s position is that science can tell us a great deal about objective morality. Dawkins famous quote, “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Would seem to indicate that there is no such thing as objective morality. I’m thinking specifically of the *no good, no evil* part from the quote. And yet, I think it was at Oxford, although I could be wrong, Harris and Dawkins were both on stage To discuss this. It’s my recollection that Dawkins never voiced an objection to Harris’s thesis.

@samdg1234

16 күн бұрын

@@dylanevartt3219 I just noticed that Sam Harris's latest is titled "Facts & Values: Clarifying the Moral Landscape" It was just posted 3 hours ago. I wonder if Dawkins gave him a heads up and needed to get something "Clariying" about it. I doubt that there will be much clarifying about it. Sam is one of the most articulate people I know, but far from using it (on this issue at least) he uses his ability to obfuscate. He just talked with Alex O'Connor for nearly 3 hours on the topic and one is no more clear what his exact views are on morality than before he began. That should be an embarrassment to both him and anyone who supports him. On the other hand, Premise A: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Premise B: Objective moral values do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. pretty much sums up what he is against.

@dylanevartt3219

16 күн бұрын

@samdg1234 yeah I was excited to see him on alexoconner, though it didn't clarify too much. I admit I'm mostly in it for what he's doing on the Waking Up app, I only stay loosely caught up on the moral and political stuff

@samdg1234

16 күн бұрын

@@dylanevartt3219 *"I admit I'm mostly in it for what he's doing on the Waking Up app,"* Ok. We are interested in totally different things. The Waking up thing holds no interest to me. Best regards.

14:39- maybe through AI we’ll eventually achieve immortality, (at least by proxy). In the meantime, AI is threatening to take away jobs and cause mass unemployment. The tool created to make our lives better has the potential to replace us altogether - especially if it’s capable of creative thinking. And should it become self aware, like Sky-net in “ The Terminator” it could perceive us an existential threat and do far worse. Perhaps we should heed the late Daniel Dennett’s warning of our reliance on AI and the importance of having restrictions on what it should & shouldn’t do.

Perhaps the reason we have no evidence of God, is that They haven’t been created yet…. What if the AI of today will become the god/gods of tomorrow, all seeing, all knowing and capable of building worlds.

You don't need God to see colours, so you don't need God to see value. Most people agree that cruelty is wrong, so once you see something as cruel, you have already seen it as wrong. Seeing moral value is a cognitive state. As constituting part of the narative structures of the world, It provides a reason to act. Religion may blind someone to certain moral aspects. Here's a thought, if you believe a computer will one day think, then you must accept that a computer could have a religion.

@ihatespam2

12 күн бұрын

If you are born with empathy. And if you aren’t, no religion can change you anyway.

Of course it can. Silly question.

Rees is wonderful, but Dawkins still makes more sense on religion than anyone else. I don't see how it's "attacking" religion to just think about it logically. And like Dawkins has said many times, there is something condescending about wanting others to keep on believing falsehoods just to keep a tradition alive. (Anyway, why does it require others believing in myths just to be festive, sing carols and put up a tree?) I don't really see what people get out of any of it beyond spending time with loved ones, being charitable, etc., and none of that requires supernatural belief.

I agree with Richard on religion. Christianity and most religions have been a disaster for humanity. They have inspired endless pogroms and wars. Obedience is not a good motivator for sound adult behavior.