Potato cam and a huge part cut out at around 23:40. Doesnt make much sense how they arrived at this point in the discussion because of the cut. I was waiting for this discussion and almost wet my pants as I saw it online, but now I am somewhat dissapointed. Pangburn Pangburn, whats up with you guys, such high value discussions and the overal management is just aweful.
@@fullblowngaming Really? Well, sad but hopefully someone will come forth and pick up where he left and turn such a great movement into something even greater.
Is Bret's argument simply that people don't have ideas, ideas have people and that ideas use evolution as it's tool to create a more diverse and ever more complex future?
When Richard Dawkins explains, there is so much sense through the simplification of a complex idea that makes it a joy to learn. This is one of the most insightful and enlightening discussions on UA-cam!
That loser hates to learn. He runs away from science. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
One can't believe in God/Jesus and not believe in his word (the bible). They are one. Jesus is the living word. That's how everything came into being, by his word. When one truly believes in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus (the living word) then they worship God/Jesus in spirit and truth. Jesus is the King of Glory. No one will see the truth, know the truth or know life (spiritual life) except through faith in Christ Jesus and the work he did on the cross. Jesus died to pardon us of our guilty sinful condition. One must see that, believe that in order to be saved (given eternal life). The only other option is unbelief. Jesus the Christ (our creator) says those who do not believe are condemned already "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
@@paulgemme6056 Do you listen to true academics speak and then decide that what people are missing is some comment on an unprovable belief based on documents written by peasants? What if the bible is the Scientology of 2,000 years ago? Have you thought about that?
@@dsc7914 Just sharing the good news so others can also come to know the peace and joy one receives when they come to know God/Jesus Christ. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
Dawkins is such a great communicator, not just in his ability to simplify complex ideas, but in his constant attention to making sure he is being clear. His natural instinct is to educate.
No, his natural instinct is to defend his leftism, even against his own theories, and so evolution conveniently ends at the neck when it suits him. If he were younger, instead of nationalism he'd be blaming the hetero normative patriarchy. The man has exposed his limits, happened quite a long while ago when it became clear he didn't understand the dangerous "mind virus" he kept mentioning was of his own making, the fertility rates are simply undeniable. That he pushed it into "orange man bad" shows that age does not always bring with it wisdom. The immune system of the west was deliberately and recklessly weakened by his ilks utopian notions, his ilk deliberately stagnated understanding of these ideas as they applied to humans so they could push their agenda, and now its beginning to collapse on them, and now they panic, still unable to see past their own blinders.
@@elontusk610 Dawkins was a bit defensive and denigrating. I got the impression most reluctance came from fear of political implications that lineage selection would entail.
Eric was trying his best to suggest expanding on prevailing theories but Dawkins hardly budged. New ideas will always meet resistance from the orthodoxy I guess.
Controversy or not, admit we're ALL happy these videos are still released. I am very grateful for that. So much pure gold here :) Rate the content, not the controversy: THUMBS UP!
@@IAmJeroenKlomp looked it up found nothing specific or of note...what's the business shizzle? is it simply the fact that he's hosting events and people don't know where he came from?
@@collinsmugodo380 The controversy is, allegedly, that there are previous Pangburn events where speakers have not been paid causing a variety of responses from speakers. My understanding is Sam Harris has ceased involvement with Pangburn due to others not being paid for work done, whereas Bret Weinstein has continued in an effort to generate income for Pangburn to pay past debts. Both guys seem to be doing what they think is right. Also I think there was a recent Pangburn event cancelled with ticketholders not getting refunds. Not 100% on the last bit, everyone please correct me if I'm wrong.
You hit the issue on the head. Controversy that challenges the Neo-Darwinist hypotheses must be avoided or shut down. That is why evolutionary biology has stagnated - it is stuck within a straight-jacket of what is becoming more like scientism than science as more recent findings do not fit within its boundaries.
I fail to see why the camera matters that much. They are sitting in chairs talking. But maybe it would be less frustrating not even having video and just doing audio... The cut out parts and crap audio are much bigger issues
@CrossBorderFire K I do get it but I still don't see why complaining about the video is worth it when there is so much more that's wrong with it. For all we know Brett set it up beforehand.
@Jayson Genicici Cockington Janitor Crew "uhhhhh" you talk about the camera man like you know one even existed. The camera did not move once the entire time. "far more likely" - based on what? You sound ignorant. FYI
From the podcast, I got the impression Dawkins was disrespectful, but I don't think that was the case. Dawkins seemed more respectful than I've ever seen him before, and for good reason, because Bret was making the best points. I think Dawkins handled that pretty well. It is not easy being an old God who is challenged by someone young and fit.
Yes, tnis is frustrating. I find the problem of senescence quite interesting. My problem with it is that I cannot understand the mathematical workings of the idea. I get the concept that genes that give advantages in youth will be favoured, whereas genes that give advantages or disadvantages later in life will filter through without any selection pressure, although it is certainly possible that a person who knows they are likely to pass on genes for cancer or some other illness might choose not to mate. And I get the idea that these later life genes accumulate over timee. But why is it that the genes that give disadvantages later in life seem to outnumber those that give advantages? Surely this should be a totally random process, with both types of genes tagging along for the ride, as there is no selection pressure. Surely for every gene that gives us dementia or osteoarthritis there should be one that gives us fit healthy brains and bones late in life. I really don't get this explanation.
@@ptolemyauletesxii8642 well in theory a gene that kills me when im 60 in most of human history is unlikely to even be Relervent as in most cases I will be dead by then for instance kangaroos lose there frount teeth they fall out as they wear down then the rest of the teeth move forward to take up the place once they reach about I think 40ish years old they will have lost all there teeth and starve but this is not an issue as most w ill have been killed by something else by then and they will long since have finished spreading there genes
@@munch15a no, I understand that. My issue is with why genes with negative long term consequences should accumulate more than genes with positive long term consequences. With short term consequences it is obvious that natural selection takes care of this but there is no selection process on genes that have long term consequences, positive or negative. Perhaps it is as simple as genes with long term negative consequences are much more common mutations, as there are probably far more ways for a gene to be negative than positive.
Anyone else impressed by the sheer brass balls that Brett has to go up there and not only be completely calm, but disagree with and challenge one of his own intellectual idols? Not many people are capable of that.
its only a major fault in basically all drug testing being exposed... nothing to see here. #1 the mice they tested on were all extra resistant #2 cancer was inevitable #3 the link with the telemeters. Interesting stuff, but expensive consequences.
Yeah, I was thinking along those lines too. He was confused as to why female birds would want nice tails as though he expects animals to act logically and intelligently. When the only thing they follow are the traits and instincts that happen to lead to more offspring.
@@starwarfan8342 I would say that in those specific instances maybe the drive to avoid danger is much lower than the drive to select the most fit mate. Maybe the predators of those bird species are so low of a threat to the actual population that the selection for suitable/fit mate has just continued on without consequence and that would be enough to explain it. It may be that the cost of having the elaborate feathers is so low that it hasn't reached the ESS yet.
I understand the quality of the video is meager but let's not forget the content of the video is vital. Let's focus on that please. Additionally anyone know where an unedited version is? A edit was made in around 23:40, was this travis doing?
@@kartikpepakayala8389 Yep, he's a real loser. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
They are both best known for being entangled in contemporary political / social controversies, but here they are having a conversation on very technical details on how to conceptualize ideas in evolutionary biology.
@@guyincognito8440 Yeah Weinstein is a joke. It's like he heard the stamp collecting quote, got embarrassed and now thinks doing actual biology is beneath him.
¡Suscríbete a nuestro nuevo canal en español! Our new Spanish channel will feature professionally translated voice acting & dubbing for all Pangburn Live Discussions. Please subscribe & share with your Spanish-speaking friends! ¡Esperamos que disfrutes! ua-cam.com/video/dwiAsHi0Nj4/v-deo.html
Cutting cable TV has been a good thing since it lead me to watching stuff like this on Sunday mornings. I'm now finished with breakfast / coffee and headed out for a walk to ponder on the local beaver pond. Brett W is rapidly moving to the top of my most admired list.
Am i able to pach vdeo from my phone like Brett Weinstein, joe rogan,etc into my Sony big screen. I WAS TOLD WITH A T.V. CODE ITS POSSIBLE .PLEASE SOMEONE HELP. Bob W.
I must disagree with the thumbnail advertising this as a duel. I very much appreciate that this is more of a discussion of differing ideas rather than various attacks to tear down and insult ideas.
I love how indulging in listening to and pondering over intellectual convos like this, help me understand how little I know, and its humbling, which I feel is a positive or a Win
Bret is correct that memes are extended phenotypes of genes and shouldn't be thought of as replicators in an independent 'memesphere'. Richard shot himself in the foot when he said "the reason [memes] spread is because they appeal to people's psychology". 'Psychology' is controlled by genes.
He comprehensively covers psychological predisposition for religious beliefs, and how it fits in with meme theory and natural selection, in The God Delusion. I recommend you read it.
I've read all his books - he and Daniel Dennett subscribe to the 'mind virus' explanation for the prevalence of religion. Bret's explanation is more realistic - memes that don't act in the service of genes we shouldn't expect to survive for such a long period.
Well, their theory made perfect sense to me. Memes themselves are but the top layer of the superstructure of genes, psychological disposition, etc., and are largely arbitrary and incidental. I don't think you could say any gene works to the advantage of any particular meme--no one gene or series of genes codes specifically for "believe a man lived inside a fish," or "Muhammed flew a horse to heaven". @@paulbrown7872
It’s intuitive to think of ideas propagating like genes, but I think the analogy’s wrong. There isn’t an independent replicator representing “The Ice-Bucket Challenge” (for example) which propagates from brain to brain and alters behaviour making us want to pour ice on our head. Beliefs are more analogous to fluid ‘games’ which become habits through positive reinforcement. Our emotions involving fair play, approval and disapproval etc. occur relative to those games. Many people viewing the “Ice-Bucket Challenge” will each form their own meaningful subjective ‘game’ based on the experience which may or may not become influential depending on some criteria of the games which already form their habits. The new game is itself constructed by complex interaction with the old games. There is no ‘survival of the fittest’ of independent memes happening, just brains reacting to new information.@@billscannell93
I feel like Dawkins did not expect to be so challenged by Weinstein and that's why he's the first to call time and suggest questions from the audience as an alternative to continuing the conversation.
Weinstein's ideas re evolution and society-level phenomena remind me of Asimov's Foundation series and Psycho-Historians predicting different crises.. that was clearly science fiction, but I do believe we should lend some credence to Weinstein's ideas.. Dawkins doesn't "prefer" or "find it helpful" to discuss these ideas in terms of evolution.. I think this is typical with him to prefer practical science as it relates to genetic evolution, while preferring to avoid the very real, less tangible interplay of psychology, sociology and their implications for evolution of a society.. or any evolution or change at a higher level than genetic expression.. Weinstein's ideas are bigger and the only ones capable of possibly explaining real phenomena that Dawkins' purely mechanical worldview intentionally avoids.. Dawkins rightly concedes that there is more at play than strict biological evolution, but dismisses any importance there may be to finding out exactly what the relationship is between these phenomena with respect to biology/sociology/psychology.. Weinstein ambitiously seeks to find an explanation for these phenomena and honestly does a better job at driving the discussion than any moderator would have done.. he has the level of brilliance you need to ensure communication is as precise as possible and minimize misunderstanding while accentuating exactly where any difference in ideas lie
I agree with a lot of what you said. I was frustrated that Dawkins repeatedly shared how he was worried, didnt think it was a good idea, or helpful, and that they needed to be cautious and careful, instead of actually engaging with the core of Brett's point. If you arent one of the people that you think should discuss this, Dawkins, then who the hell should?
Wow, I thought the same exact thing. Exponding on that I would like to highlight one thing I found interesting when making the comparison. Brett's resistance to mathematical models. In the foundation trilogy Asimov refers to mathmatical models , but any time they were invoked in the story telling they were depicted as triggers. Just a funny thought.
Excellent and enlightning analysis! Actually, Weinstein's question was asked by anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss (and probably others previously) just how much of culture can be explained by biology (his example how do we go from "raw" foods to "cooked" foods). Levi Strauss felt just biology (this would mean Darwinism) is insufficient. Dawkins, as you say, sticks to Darwin but he would probably agree that we really lack any geometry to accurately bridge biology to human culture. Furthermore, he has always abhored social Darwinism in any shape or firm, which I gather is the reason he's somewhat uncomfortable here with Weinstein's speculations. Furthermore, just how far can genetics explain human culture (based on high cognitive abilities and levels of abstraction) as opposed to chimpanzes (different cognition - obviously - and where instinct is much more decisive, as it is in the animal kingdom)? Are there genes that could account for any forms of genius? Is it a genotype/phenotype combination? Weinstein is bringing up excellent points, but as both are evolutionary biologists (well rounded, certainly), this is a discussion that requires a 3d culture (science + humanities, etc.) or a more interdisciplinary approach. The issues broached (throw in religion to this stew) are far more complex than Dawkin's reverence for Darwin or Weinstein's expansion of genetic knowledge would allow. This is, of course, just my impression or tentative opinion since my core area of study is elsewhere. But two question: why do humans tell stories to make sense of the world? Is that kind of cultural information somehow encoded in the genes or are these just the basic driving forces?
@@robertoalexandre4250 telling stories and human memory are directly linked. Humans can remember massive strings of data by tieing it together with narrative. Each piece of the story contains clues and patters that tie it to the next piece of information. You may easily recall every piece of dialog of you favorite tv show or book in a single reading, but will struggled to remember the 14th digit of pi even after hours of practice.
@@marlondowney4033 Thank you for your comment. Undoubtedly what you say is true as the elements of narrative are space and time (and these depend on memory) and even Kant way back then considered them the essential wiring of human perception (that there is a link to evolutionary biology). But stories depend on language and language is an artificial abstract and a symbolical construct: our vocal apparatus permits speech and our vocal apparatus appears to have evolved to permit speaking. Language depends on memory and we have it (memory in animals also exists). My question is how (or if) cultural information could be encoded genetically? Obviously many features (bipedal movement, prehensile grip, brain vs body size, etc.) of the human body favor more complex functions (tool making) which in turn go into constructing culture. But how would something like art be accounted for by biology or genetics? Weinstein seems to be saying that these cultural accretions could be seen from an adaptive point of view as extended phenotypes (just how is unclear) while Dawkins would consider that a fallacy and deems them psychological replicating memes. Both answers are unsubstantiated. And that would bring up the question of how evolutionary biology and genetics could account for such adaptations. I know they say religion was deemed useful because it bonds communities, but I'm not aware of a precise scientific translation or a "geometry" capable of spaning biology and culture the same way it does for other human behaviors such as reproduction, nurturing the young, etc. Evolutionary biology sums us up, at the same time it doesn't. Which makes me wonder if the new theories on quantum biology may be on to something, although this is a very recent idea and seems to be discredited by mainstream science.
16:53 Bret is running afoul of Feynman on magnets. (I used to post links, but then I learned more about UA-cam, so you'll have to search it yourself. The middle bit talks about why ice melts.) Magnets are described mathematically (as part of electromagnetism and QED) because there _is_ no other explanation available. _(Freud on Photons_ was not a best seller.) As an evolutionary biologist, Bret is further up the scientific food chain, and rarely runs into the Dirac desert himself, where words simple fail to move the comprehension rock. (Dirac was notoriously taciturn, and had some other quirks. _Which leads us to the anecdote about Heisenberg and Dirac. The two were on a trip to Japan for a conference. The social Heisenberg used to dance with the young girls on the ship before dinners while Dirac used to sit watching. Once Dirac asked him, "Heisenberg, why do you dance?" Heisenberg replied that when there were nice girls he felt like dancing with them. Dirac fell into deep thought and after about fifteen minutes, asked Heisenberg again, "Heisenberg, how do you know beforehand that the girls are nice?")_ Math can be prematurely descriptive, managing to encode observation, but without managing to illuminate much. But Galileo was quite right when he insisted that much of the beauty of math is escaping from teleological recursion. For decades, people used to think that chess ought to somehow be amenable to a program of logical inference, over some kind of more sophisticated logical primitives than standard logic. The intuition was the chess encodes reason, and this is how great chess players reason (though neither of these suppositions bears out). Surely we could do better than the 100 million move brute force of the Deep Blue computer system. Eventually, we did. Now we have a matrix of tens of million of numbers (completely outside verbal articulation) which guides a very narrow and powerful search, in the range of just a few thousand nodes explored per move. Leela already plays well above any human standard, on a narrow search guided by a powerful pattern recognizer. In some ways, Leela's chess wisdom is even less comprehensible than Deep Blue. It just bugs us less, because it seems less alien at a primitive level. Turns out, commonality of inarticulateness breeds familiarity. Whereas the unsatisfying Deep Blue was alien inarticulate. Bret is circling around a very deep hole here. I sure hope he pulls himself back out.
I would have enjoyed the discussion a great deal more had Pangburn not, in what I believe to be all likelihood, shamelessly censored Bret Weinstein by cutting his two most important contributions to the discussion from the video. Since Pangburn has, in my view, failed in its duty to uphold freedom of speech, I have tried to summarise what I assume were Bret's contributions that were cut (I didn't attend the event so I can only offer my best guess) for anyone who is unfamiliar: 1. That the breeding protocol used by the central supplier of US laboratory mice, wherein only young mice are retained in the breeding pool to maximise reproduction efficiency, would create a selective pressure for highly elongated telomeres in those mice and thereby obligate them to radical tissue-repair capacity, and therefore toxin-resistance, at the cost of greatly increased cancer incidence later in life, and that therefore the vast body of science predicated on results from the testing of exogenous substances on such mice, most importantly *HUMAN DRUG TRIALS* , would be severely compromised in the way of *GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATING TOXICITY* and grossly overestimating carcinogenicity, thereby predisposing the release of "safe" drugs capable of causing tissue and organ damage to market, and possibly the cessation of development of otherwise useful drugs on the basis of apparent severe cancer-risk. [See podcast "Bret Weinstein on "The Portal" (w/ host Eric Weinstein), Ep. #019 - The Prediction and the DISC"] 2. That religions are not collections of empty superstitions but are instead highly sophisticated, adaptive systems of accumulated ancient wisdom that are built by selection, meaning that those mythologies that are the most successful and therefore longstanding are those which have maximally contributed to the fitness of their practitioners by way of encouragement of advantageous behaviours and discouragement of disadvantageous behaviours mediated through belief, and that even a religious tenet that is literally false, but that provides an unquestioning believer a direct or indirect benefit by following it, will be favoured by this selection, and therefore be "metaphorically true".
Robert Sapolsky's "Behave: The Biology of Humans at our Best and Worst" is brilliant and addresses many of these questions in a accessible, well researched way.
And he supports what Bret is saying more than what Dawkins is saying.. still waiting fir the David Sloan Wilson and Bret Weinstein discussion to happen.. ua-cam.com/video/RsOIiW_Ec4c/v-deo.htmlsi=WFyy0hhHhCrPCc19
@@arsenymakarov6961 Besides the fact that most of these videos are over 2h long, and this one is barely over an hour? Besides the very obvious cuts right as they get into the most important topics? How about the fact that they were apparently at time to jump to Q&A at only like 20 something minutes in? Usually questions are at most half the time, not more than 2/3rds of it. How about the fact that Bretts issues are numbered, and there are huge jumps in the sequence, indicating many entire topics are outright missing from the video. The cuts also don't look very short. In at least one cut they suddenly have entirely different sitting positions and postures that indicate large changes in emotional tone or state, especially on Dawkins side.
I mean, Brett seems to be confusing different scientific fields. He wants to make some sort of „all encompasing” theory or science, and thus he links sociology, psychology and whatnot with evolution, which…doesn’t make much sense
Reidosarous Rex. I've pirated better quality videos with a camcorder from inside a cupboard watching Betamax tapes of live action remakes of the original clips with dogs substituted for the human characters.
53:50 Much to people's misunderstanding, when Richard Dawkins says "virus," he is not making a value statement. He's not saying viruses are a good or bad thing. A virus is a technical term that describes a specific kind of replication. The fundamental difference between the two replicators in which we call genes and the one in which we call viruses is that the method of transmission to the future for genes is via sperm/eggs (and therefore have the common interest to preserve the body in which they share; they need to come together e.g. male & female), and the method of transmission to the future for viruses is in the absence of a mutual other. Some memes function as the latter. And that is why some of them can be called "mind viruses." Remember, a meme (and a mind virus) are neither valued in science as good nor bad. It is merely a description. We non-scientists are too conditioned to think of terminology with good and bad value judgements. But in science, you do not bring that into the equation. Any time you do, it is no longer science, but applied science. The two are different things.
Fair point. But as a rather vocal militant atheist, we know he is actually making a value statement. Bret knew this, so to add to the entertainment value of the conversation he gave Dawkins the 'assist' so to say. In a public conversation, in front of an audience, you very much bring things like that into the equation.
he was wrong. Brett is absolutely right. civilisation can only advance by tackling precisely the difficult ,unpleasant questions. Dawkins is a coward in this case and part of the problem
strawbal e if you want to deal with problem of this sort, go to morality. Biology won’t help you to resolve any of this, or might even lead some people to faulty conclusions. The funniest thing, that Brett talks about it in general terms but can’t propose any ideas, as to why we had that issue and what can be done about it? He just says that we must confront that idea and fight it; okay..
I don't think Dawkins was ducking the subject, i think he saw a double edged sword in talking about it in Darwinian terms, and that it was more dangerous to talk about it in this forum without having research done first.
@@pauls6530 How many years has civilization lasted? 5000?? 10,000?? We're talking about biological evolution, why are we applying our understanding of biological evolution to modern phenomenons? ridiculous
it's why god invtended youtube downloading sites, I pretty much download 50% of all content that I see now on youtube because I know that it's either from someone who stole it or it will get blocked for any number of reasons.
@Jayson Genicici Cockington Janitor Crew Uhhh doubtful. Far more likely they talked and discussed something in a respectful manner something that someone found "dangerous" or "hate speech" and youtube took it down. And to be honest that's probably the answer to Brett's question on why there hasn't been more progress. People can't handle the truth.
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-portal/id1469999563?i=1000462975502 @monkey the timing of the cuts, especially the first one, are precisely at the time Weinstein begins talking about this particular topic and his expertise regarding it. Combine that with pangburn's known dishonesty and greed, and we have a probable explanation.
I suspect the reason is a financial one. Creating an incentive to either visit the events or watch the complete footage on their own website maybe. Well, Pangburn Philosophy sucks ass in many ways and it's good they went down after all.
I don’t know; we don’t know… beautiful words. Accepting ignorance and being open to challenges and ideas from peers is the base science is based upon. Magnificent discussion and clashing of ideas.
I love where my brain goes around 51:00 when they start talking about catholic memes. Paraphrasing: "The priests are holy devoted to spreading catholic memes."
It was great cos it exposes the limitations of dogmatic thinking by the likes of Dawkins. They believe in some fixed model when it suits them, when it doesn't they say science updates. Also apes protect their resources, this all the evidence one needs to understand that it's not about truth. Same reason wealth keeps pooling back to the top.
Hearing Bret's (ignoring for the moment Dawkins seeming somewhat ignorance on kin selection, dual selection theory and the like) views on modelling are quite shocking to me as a theoretician myself, when I first watched this as an undergrad I didn't realise how extreme and strange his views were. For instance, the example of a sphere on knife edge is a pretty odd one because stability analysis is almost universally applied in evolutionary modelling, accounting for these unlikely equilibria. Mathematical models and empirical studies complement each other beautifully, you generate a hypothesis, you model it to understand the implications of the assumptions inherent to the hypothesis, and then you compare the results to empirical data. You then find the model that best explains the data and you have yourself a reliable causal explanation for how the world works. As for Dawkins, very odd reluctance to consider inclusive inheritance hypotheses. Developments in cultural evolutionary theory seem to be passing him by without notice.
Cathy: So you're saying the peacock's tail is responsible for global warming and that WoMeN should play with their Barbie dolls and stay in the kitchen?
so what you're saying is, JBP is "anti-establishment", yet the "establishment" keeps inviting him on TV to destroy the same pathetic feminist talking points over and over in front of an audience of millions of people?
Clavers Odhiambo Yet you are not asking there was nothing wrong with women liking barbies or liking to cook. Yet feminist made feminist wrong. For me it's about choice. So a women who loves barbies shouldn't be denigrated by a woman who is a navy seal. Both choices are okay.
When Bret started asking about genetic reasons for celibacy and homosexuality the woo woo meter went off the chart. This guy is a nutcase right wing consipracy theorist using his PhD in Biology. Really shows the difference between an actual scientist and a charlatan. I'm so glad I quit watching this after 40 minutes and wish I'd gotten that time back.
Do you enjoy having discussions on topics that "you shouldn't talk about" ?... Try joining our discord server! We have daily voice chats about life, philosophy, science and art. It's free! discord.gg/XSSGDcdB5f
Be sure to make an account on the Callin app. We have exciting shows booked for every day of the week. The daily host and I will start with a brief discussion about the topic, then we start taking callers. Eventually, we will have multiple callers active at a time and turn it into more of a group discussion. One of the main reasons for moving to the Callin app is their **100% FREE SPEECH** policy. If it's legal to say, we can say it. I think it's important for us to support platforms that make freedom of speech a priority. So JOIN US ! Make sure you subscribe to **The Pangburn Hangout** and give me a follow! If you're interested in hosting your own discussion, dm me. www.callin.com/show/the-pangburn-hangout-ytIdqseMzM
@@Tantive I know that we almost always need to calibrate parameters of the models (like we have universal constants in simple physical models). That is part of model building and doesn't prevent the model to make predictions after that.
He's referring to a specific sub-discipline of evolutionary biology, not mathematical models in general. It is a bit like the saltwater vs freshwater schools in economics, if you're familiar with that. Bret's not wrong about the problems (though he does a terrible job explaining them) or the extra skepticism, but Dawkins isn't wrong that "better models" is the answer.
I don't understand why Dawkins is pushing so much on prudence when trying to explain modern social issues with evolutionary theories but he has always been so explicit against religion.
@Carla Delastella Yet he obviously does accept one explanation for social phenomena, namely a cobstructivist one. Yet there's no more evidence for those ideas than for biological causes, in general. Or are you telling me Dawkins _doesn't_ believe social, cultural, or political interventions can be fruitful? If not, he does accept a theory implicitely.
Weinstein thinks that nature of memes is symbiotic, Dawkins thinks that nature of memes is parasitic. So, You think that nature and memes is symbiotic and parasitic at the same time?
im glad Bret took that poll from the audience..i wish that would happen more often...in addition, i wish there was an organization that would just let these people speak until one of them taps out..lol the future of combat sports
I'm really interested in Bret's Evolutionary Suicide bit. It prompted me to wonder if me never wanting children may somehow be a less extreme version of this. Maybe instead of feeling worthless because I won't reproduce and then killing myself, I instead decided to still be a productive person and simply stamp out my lineage all the same. Even weirder is that the reasons I have for doing so are suspiciously in line with Bret's argument.
Though one can see the selfish memes going completely bonkers with the way the system divides everyone into cubicles and feeds a constant stream of narrow focus of selfish, indulgent, materialistic memes that end in extinction. It's easy to see if you read 48 laws of power how certain types would use this knowledge to control people easier for their own gains. Some do this instinctually like Nietchze observstion re blonde beast of prey. Others use the knowledge to collect more wealth and weild power.
On the sphere sitting on a razor... mathematics tells us that a sphere can sit on a razor without falling, yes. BUT, such a systems is also mathematically shown to be unstable. Any deviation in the forces present or the position of the sphere will cause it to fall. Such precision is not realistically possible for a host of reasons, and the mathematical models account for that. Stability analysis of systems is only about a century old, so I'm not surprised if he is unaware of it.
Yes. I was yelling at the screen too. Dawkins responded saying that all we need is better models, not to throw out models. What he should have said is closer to what you said. Bret should be knowledgeable of stability analysis, it's a undergraduate-level concept.
Accounting for stability isn't helpful when all you care about is in which way the sphere will fall. The number of variables at play in an evolutionary model is virtually infinite, and the number of variables that can significantly impact the way the model behaves is incalculable, or in proportion to the complexity of the model, futile. TLDR: Stability analysis can only show you *how wrong you can be* if you didn't account for something, but it doesn't tell *if* you didn't account for something.
The other thing that can come to mind is the fact that a good model would use brownian motion of air around the sphere and that's something he should know, since stochastic dynamics is used A LOT in mathematical biology.
I was also taken aback by his remarks on mathematics. Point out the limitations, by all means, but to dismiss mathematical models in such a general sense shows a lack of understanding. And if a mathematical model cannot capture the complexity of a system, how on earth is a narrative representation supposed to be better? All you end up doing is making a nice story that fits the data. Poor science.
49:00 The whole event's purpose was for the conversation starting at this point. Also, I get the sense that Mr. Weinstein was bouncing a theory of his on Mr. Dawkins. And as far as I am concerned his arguments were so clearly articulated and well thought that I honestly expected Mr. Dawkins to go "Hah, I haven't thought of this from this angle!" SPOILER ALERT: This isn't what happened. Mr. Dawkins seemed to either not understand Bret's argument or NOT WANTING to understand Mr. Weinstein's argument. So in conclusion: Awesome video!
Dawkins is stubborn and opinionated and would never admit to being wrong about anything. I used to be a fan but when he got into the new atheist movement he started to show his arrogance and his haughty personality. Bret,on the hand, is a pleasure to listen to and he comes across as much more humble and rational.
@@squarerootof2 I had the same thought after seeing him interviewed by joe rogan. I think it's his "oxford" pedigree. He has some brilliant ideas but others do too..
Did everyone watch until the end? Dawkins agrees that the propagation of meme's is in part due to the extended phenotype, but that it's only part of the reason they propagate. I see no problems with this response. Weinstein seemed to be claiming that this was the only (or at least main) reason they propagate (because they are better for the lineage of that species), which pretty much goes against why Dawkins coined the term, meme, to differentiate it from what natural selection controls in biological evolution (phenotypes and extended phenotypes). I can't blame Dawkins for being a bit firm on the definition of a term he coined.
Richard Dawkins was the master Bret Weinstein was the prig apprentice who tried to take control of the debate. It must have been a struggle for Richard Dawkins to keep his composure. Kudos to Richard Dawkins.
And you're serious? Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
zachery zachery despite Dawkins' popularity being about 10% of its 2006 peak, he's still about twice as popular as Bret; so it makes sense to wager that people will seek out Dawkins' videos at a much higher rate than Weinstein's - and that the latter needs more promotional help than the former. that's just an educated guess, though.
@@RochesFan As evidenced in this video, Dawkins is old news, and I say this as a huge admirer of the man. In UA-cam land, Bret has surpassed him when its comes to provoking thought. Obviously whoever put this video up agrees.
what Brett describes at roughly 15:30 is also a description of a fundamental problem with String Theory in Physics, you can get String theories (there are more than one) to satisfy almost any outcome because the parameters can be adjusted to fit almost , if not any out come. Random tangent but an important one (if you can't work out why that would be a problem, its because theories should give definite predictions, otherwise they cannot be veryfied)
@@nuthakantirohan4685 All mental models of reality are incomplete. One would have thought that all these peoples commenting on this stuff are aware of the incompleteness theorum.
@@Quiintus7 well I think both quantum mechanics and general relativity are complete and predict almost everything after big bang and they fail at big bang and at beyond the horizon of black fail so it's intuitive to assume that both the macro and micro interact with each other therefore we need a new theory that combines both of these. For rest of the universe either macro or micro explanation satisfy the outcome
That's exactly what I thought of! Take a theory that you can make fame or money off of, then apply pattern matching and retrofit it to meet any observations. This talk was rubbish and I have far less respect for both of them then I had when I started.
I never realized that memes are the subject of this type of intellectual discourse and debate. I always figured they were just a silly way to communicate on the internet. I will pay more attention to meme selection and be extra conscious of the memes I select to post from now on.
You are missing the fact that "meme" as a word is originally created by Dawkins and basically means "idea"... the current usage of this word has gone very far from the original meaning, which they are using here.
Don't you know what evolution psychology is? That is built entirely upon the concept of memes. The hypothesis is essentially our morality, and in fact "morality" of any social species, is built upon behavior that is most likely to lead to reproduction and survival.
@@Fatlinek memes aren't really just ideas but behaviors that spread via none genetic means. A simple one I think i remember Richard mentioning was, hearing a stranger whistling a song, that puts that song in your head and you may put it in someone else's by now listening to it or humming it and etc
For those who were there, what was the actual length of the discussion? And does anyone have a recording or filming of the discussion as opposed to these extracts?
My guess is it should be at least 2 hours, likely a bit more, meaning we are probably missing 50min to an hour of footage during the very obvious cuts that happen at the most critical parts of the discussion.
the full discussion was 4 hours and 45 minutes, with a 15 minute intermission around the 3 hour mark. not sure if I was allowed, but I filmed the entire thing on my cell phone, the audio is surprisingly clear and very enjoyable to listen to: ua-cam.com/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/v-deo.html
Bret argument essentially is - all organisms have capacities and all capacities are generated by evolution, ergo the capacity for the manufacture of memes is an evolutionarily generated capacity
I'm not surprised he's not big on discussing it and repeats over and over again to be careful with this topic. The last time this topic became fashionable, we ended up with state enforced eugenics and ideologies of "racial purity", "sub-humans" etc. It doesn't mean such topic shouldn't be ever discussed, but it's just wise to work out the kinks in a non-mass-public setting beforehand as it's very easy to misrepresent / misunderstand the topic and history shows it plays right into human biases and negative tendencies. To put it short, the effects of broad-audience discussions of this can, and did in the past, become very toxic very quickly.
@@Tagnar Finally someone in the comments section who can think like how scientists ought to think. I dislike how people think that just because Richard Dawkins chooses not to discuss something that it means he is wrong, which some people have made this fallacy here in the comments section.
@@GrubKiller436 This is an elitist view. Important topics need to be discussed in the open, even, and especially if they are going to provoke misinterpretation. They need to be worked rigorously to a satisfactory conclusion in order to achieve social integration. Any suppression of that simply leads to perpetual misunderstanding.
@@michaeledwards7967 First time I've ever heard humility be called elitist. This is an elitist view and Dawkins is suprressing a discussion? Do you even understand what you're saying? When was the last time making sure there are no misinterpretations meant that you're an elitist suppressing discussions? If a person has the arrogance to misinterpret something when its context has yet to be established, that is entirely a mistake on their own part. That's like saying it's your fault I have an opinion because you didn't say anything.
How so many could view this video and NOT come away with the feeling that it's mostly Dawkins cringing at Weinstein's theoretical musings (such as how nationalism can be linked to natural seiction). The way Weinstein smugly looks at the audience instead of Dawkins when the latter is speaking is such a tipoff to this man's burgeoning ego.
![SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? [OFFICIAL] Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss [HD] 02-04-12](/img/n.gif)
Watch Sam Harris & Brian Greene on stage FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER ua-cam.com/video/5pbHsRz8A7w/v-deo.html
The Cosmic Microwave Background really tied this conversation together.
Gives perspective on the whole conversation
That’s a proper science nerd joke but I found it really funny
@@Tommyggs5432 If you're not a "proper science nerd" you probably didn't make it very far through this video.
I love nerd jokes ! good one ! :)
What??
Potato cam and a huge part cut out at around 23:40. Doesnt make much sense how they arrived at this point in the discussion because of the cut. I was waiting for this discussion and almost wet my pants as I saw it online, but now I am somewhat dissapointed. Pangburn Pangburn, whats up with you guys, such high value discussions and the overal management is just aweful.
he's now bankrupt
Stephan Sockel not to mention the awful static noise in the background
@@fullblowngaming Really? Well, sad but hopefully someone will come forth and pick up where he left and turn such a great movement into something even greater.
I can't believe that a significant part of the recording is missing. They literally had one job!
think they are neglecting this on purpose so you have incentive to go to the live events
It's unfortunate that you've zoomed in so close. I can't see the moon.
win
Sarcasm level 99
I actually laughed out loud at this, congrats.
Is Bret's argument simply that people don't have ideas, ideas have people and that ideas use evolution as it's tool to create a more diverse and ever more complex future?
Sure, because how these two guys look is the most important take away from this discussion. Maybe you should rethink (as in "think") your priorities.
When Richard Dawkins explains, there is so much sense through the simplification of a complex idea that makes it a joy to learn. This is one of the most insightful and enlightening discussions on UA-cam!
That loser hates to learn. He runs away from science.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
One can't believe in God/Jesus and not believe in his word (the bible). They are one. Jesus is the living word. That's how everything came into being, by his word. When one truly believes in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus (the living word) then they worship God/Jesus in spirit and truth. Jesus is the King of Glory. No one will see the truth, know the truth or know life (spiritual life) except through faith in Christ Jesus and the work he did on the cross. Jesus died to pardon us of our guilty sinful condition. One must see that, believe that in order to be saved (given eternal life). The only other option is unbelief. Jesus the Christ (our creator) says those who do not believe are condemned already "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
@@paulgemme6056 you’ve caught a brain worm bud, should get it checked out
@@paulgemme6056 Do you listen to true academics speak and then decide that what people are missing is some comment on an unprovable belief based on documents written by peasants? What if the bible is the Scientology of 2,000 years ago? Have you thought about that?
@@dsc7914 Just sharing the good news so others can also come to know the peace and joy one receives when they come to know God/Jesus Christ. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
Dawkins is such a great communicator, not just in his ability to simplify complex ideas, but in his constant attention to making sure he is being clear. His natural instinct is to educate.
McCarron - Seriously, you don't look like a guy who enjoys a big bag of leaf now and then... apparently looks can be deceiving!
@@shadowdawg04 you figured me out :)
I'm glad he did in this one. Brett needed it.
@@GarryMcCarron 😀 just messin' with you... appreciate that your a good sport about it.
No, his natural instinct is to defend his leftism, even against his own theories, and so evolution conveniently ends at the neck when it suits him. If he were younger, instead of nationalism he'd be blaming the hetero normative patriarchy. The man has exposed his limits, happened quite a long while ago when it became clear he didn't understand the dangerous "mind virus" he kept mentioning was of his own making, the fertility rates are simply undeniable. That he pushed it into "orange man bad" shows that age does not always bring with it wisdom. The immune system of the west was deliberately and recklessly weakened by his ilks utopian notions, his ilk deliberately stagnated understanding of these ideas as they applied to humans so they could push their agenda, and now its beginning to collapse on them, and now they panic, still unable to see past their own blinders.
Edits are really grinding my gears. We need to hear this as it occurred.
I think the Hissing in the background made a lot of interesting points.
Sir Hissing.
Jimmy Page must have recorded it.
It adds that old news channel vibe
... the sound of air leaking out of the tire of Western Civilization ...
@@guntherhochleitner3177 whitty, cultured and ... 🤔 no swinery detected ... master class in wordplay oldman
Whoever decided to choose this camera didn’t get the best genes passed and belongs in the gulag.
Bruh don't make me laugh this hard
Lol
Haha, Warzone fan ey? Too funny bro👍🏻
👍
I bet they have the best peacock feathers though.
Who’s here from the Weinstein squared Portal podcast?
That's me. Did Weinstein and Dawkins have any other interactions?
@@elontusk610 Dawkins was a bit defensive and denigrating.
I got the impression most reluctance came from fear of political implications that lineage selection would entail.
Is it weird that the video cuts ahead right after Bret mentioned he worked on the telomere problem in grad school? Does anyone know how much he said?
I didn't want to Watch Dawkins..he's such an ASS but after the Portal squared...I JUST HAD TO SEE what Eric was talking about.
Eric was trying his best to suggest expanding on prevailing theories but Dawkins hardly budged. New ideas will always meet resistance from the orthodoxy I guess.
Controversy or not, admit we're ALL happy these videos are still released. I am very grateful for that. So much pure gold here :) Rate the content, not the controversy: THUMBS UP!
There is a huge chunk missing....
@Luke Apparently Pangburn got into some bad business shizzle. Look it up :)
@@IAmJeroenKlomp looked it up found nothing specific or of note...what's the business shizzle? is it simply the fact that he's hosting events and people don't know where he came from?
@@collinsmugodo380 The controversy is, allegedly, that there are previous Pangburn events where speakers have not been paid causing a variety of responses from speakers. My understanding is Sam Harris has ceased involvement with Pangburn due to others not being paid for work done, whereas Bret Weinstein has continued in an effort to generate income for Pangburn to pay past debts. Both guys seem to be doing what they think is right.
Also I think there was a recent Pangburn event cancelled with ticketholders not getting refunds. Not 100% on the last bit, everyone please correct me if I'm wrong.
You hit the issue on the head. Controversy that challenges the Neo-Darwinist hypotheses must be avoided or shut down. That is why evolutionary biology has stagnated - it is stuck within a straight-jacket of what is becoming more like scientism than science as more recent findings do not fit within its boundaries.
I’d pan the camera further out. Need more black background for sure....
I fail to see why the camera matters that much. They are sitting in chairs talking. But maybe it would be less frustrating not even having video and just doing audio... The cut out parts and crap audio are much bigger issues
@@Mark-ms4ze this is not the work of a professional cameraman. Get it? That's where the source of the criticism lies.
@CrossBorderFire
K I do get it but I still don't see why complaining about the video is worth it when there is so much more that's wrong with it. For all we know Brett set it up beforehand.
@@Mark-ms4ze uhhh far more likely that the camera person was an idiot than Brett set it up
@Jayson Genicici Cockington Janitor Crew
"uhhhhh" you talk about the camera man like you know one even existed. The camera did not move once the entire time. "far more likely" - based on what? You sound ignorant. FYI
After Eric sort of had a pep talk with his bro Bret in the portal, I came straight here.
Me too
Check!
Ditto
From the podcast, I got the impression Dawkins was disrespectful, but I don't think that was the case. Dawkins seemed more respectful than I've ever seen him before, and for good reason, because Bret was making the best points. I think Dawkins handled that pretty well. It is not easy being an old God who is challenged by someone young and fit.
I left that podcast not even 25 minute in, just like the older brother said it wasn't going going anywhere, it's like beating water in butter churn
Please hire new audio and video people.
Hire new audio and video.
Higher audio and video.
A Google Hangout would have been higher quality.
Danz McAbra i felt the quality was sufficient
with the camera at that distance, with that quality, Dawkins looked like George Soros and Brett looked like Prince...
freaky
Ha
"I'm going to introduce 2 of the most intellectual men of our time... I think I'll wear my best superman shirt and stained jeans.... yea"
hehe yea my thought exactly
hahahahaha
LOL, 2 of the most intellectual men of our time...yeah...and you're including Dawkins?
I like his outfit.
@@mattm7798 He is able to clearly think about what is real versus what is fantasy. Something you seem to not to be able to do.
jesus, pangburn must do all their audio recordings through a beehive
I found this hilariously accurate save for the mention of Jesus.
So what happens at 23:43? Where's the rest of this? The chunk, of whatever size, but clearly large, that is missing?
Yes bret reads from a list and goes to 6. What about 1 to 5? I hope the footage is not lost...
There was an earlier cut as well. Pangburn does it again. He just can't get it right...
Yes, tnis is frustrating. I find the problem of senescence quite interesting. My problem with it is that I cannot understand the mathematical workings of the idea. I get the concept that genes that give advantages in youth will be favoured, whereas genes that give advantages or disadvantages later in life will filter through without any selection pressure, although it is certainly possible that a person who knows they are likely to pass on genes for cancer or some other illness might choose not to mate. And I get the idea that these later life genes accumulate over timee. But why is it that the genes that give disadvantages later in life seem to outnumber those that give advantages? Surely this should be a totally random process, with both types of genes tagging along for the ride, as there is no selection pressure. Surely for every gene that gives us dementia or osteoarthritis there should be one that gives us fit healthy brains and bones late in life. I really don't get this explanation.
@@ptolemyauletesxii8642 well in theory a gene that kills me when im 60 in most of human history is unlikely to even be Relervent
as in most cases I will be dead by then
for instance kangaroos lose there frount teeth they fall out as they wear down then the rest of the teeth move forward to take up the place
once they reach about I think 40ish years old they will have lost all there teeth and starve but this is not an issue as most w ill have been killed by something else by then and they will long since have finished spreading there genes
@@munch15a no, I understand that. My issue is with why genes with negative long term consequences should accumulate more than genes with positive long term consequences. With short term consequences it is obvious that natural selection takes care of this but there is no selection process on genes that have long term consequences, positive or negative. Perhaps it is as simple as genes with long term negative consequences are much more common mutations, as there are probably far more ways for a gene to be negative than positive.
I can't watch this with all the chunks missing. It's unfair to the speakers and everyone clamoring for intelligent conversation.
why was there a huge cut at 23:40 is? Seemed to cut out a very interesting part of the discussion.
Anyone else impressed by the sheer brass balls that Brett has to go up there and not only be completely calm, but disagree with and challenge one of his own intellectual idols? Not many people are capable of that.
Not only challenge him, but at times seeming to stump him.
@@willt3728 I like Brett but he babbled a lot of nonsense here.
He tried to attack with no facts. Just his personal doubt of maths. Silly.
@@emailacct3657agreed.
odd how video is clipped right when Bret explains his theory that drug companies can't let get out. Around 24:30
Chris Ericksen The DISC at work. Also a cut at 53:40
jesus you're right
bump
its only a major fault in basically all drug testing being exposed... nothing to see here. #1 the mice they tested on were all extra resistant #2 cancer was inevitable #3 the link with the telemeters. Interesting stuff, but expensive consequences.
You guys just don't give up, do you?
Weinstein seems to want to find purpose in evolution rather than accepting the blind natural selection theory.
Yeah, I was thinking along those lines too. He was confused as to why female birds would want nice tails as though he expects animals to act logically and intelligently. When the only thing they follow are the traits and instincts that happen to lead to more offspring.
@@starwarfan8342 who put the potential for the instinct in the first place and where the cosmic dist came from?
@@starwarfan8342 I would say that in those specific instances maybe the drive to avoid danger is much lower than the drive to select the most fit mate. Maybe the predators of those bird species are so low of a threat to the actual population that the selection for suitable/fit mate has just continued on without consequence and that would be enough to explain it. It may be that the cost of having the elaborate feathers is so low that it hasn't reached the ESS yet.
I don't think so.
@@rv706 elaborate please.
Somehow the most interesting long debates have a way to find me just as I am about to sleep
I understand the quality of the video is meager but let's not forget the content of the video is vital. Let's focus on that please. Additionally anyone know where an unedited version is? A edit was made in around 23:40, was this travis doing?
Looking for a response to Hal MK-9001’s question about the seeming jump around minute 23?
Yes it seems like a lot of time was lost around 23:40. Did a full video/podcast ever turn up?
Another jump @53:40
It's the DISC at work
Let's not tell people to not comment about the video quality. Negative feedback is a path to improvement in future repetitions.
This is how I enjoy Dawkins the most when he is talking about Biology.
@@kartikpepakayala8389 Yep, he's a real loser.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
They are both best known for being entangled in contemporary political / social controversies, but here they are having a conversation on very technical details on how to conceptualize ideas in evolutionary biology.
@@guyincognito8440 Yeah Weinstein is a joke. It's like he heard the stamp collecting quote, got embarrassed and now thinks doing actual biology is beneath him.
Are you kidding me? Why are there huge chunks missing from this?
Thank Atheismo that this talk was produced by competent people.
Stop your bitching.
I saw the original upload and Pangburn cut out Bret's best arguments to make Dawkins look better. And Bret still came out on top.
@@yourfairyGodgod
I' always jealous of people who can read other people's minds. How do you do it?
@michael polites
What was the topic? Did it trigger some snowflakes and youtube took it down?
¡Suscríbete a nuestro nuevo canal en español! Our new Spanish channel will feature professionally translated voice acting & dubbing for all Pangburn Live Discussions. Please subscribe & share with your Spanish-speaking friends! ¡Esperamos que disfrutes! ua-cam.com/video/dwiAsHi0Nj4/v-deo.html
Cutting cable TV has been a good thing since it lead me to watching stuff like this on Sunday mornings. I'm now finished with breakfast / coffee and headed out for a walk to ponder on the local beaver pond. Brett W is rapidly moving to the top of my most admired list.
Am i able to pach vdeo from my phone like Brett Weinstein, joe rogan,etc into my Sony big screen. I WAS TOLD WITH A T.V. CODE ITS POSSIBLE .PLEASE SOMEONE HELP.
Bob W.
@bobwilson9491 yes. But your TV and your phone must be both connected to the same WiFi network. Then click chrome cast in the top right.
I’m going to have to watch the whole thing again. I spent the whole time reading comments instead of listening
I do the same thing.
No explanation for the cuts around 23:00 and 53:00?
Pangburn sucks
battery probably died, or the memory card ran out of space. it happens.
@@eveandnot The memory card ran out of space during this conversation *twice* ? Seems rather unlikely.
I knew Stewie would grow up to be a distinguished academic.
Hilarious 😂 👏
Yeah but probably killed his mom though
And is still planning world domination
I must disagree with the thumbnail advertising this as a duel. I very much appreciate that this is more of a discussion of differing ideas rather than various attacks to tear down and insult ideas.
I love how indulging in listening to and pondering over intellectual convos like this, help me understand how little I know, and its humbling, which I feel is a positive or a Win
Bret is correct that memes are extended phenotypes of genes and shouldn't be thought of as replicators in an independent 'memesphere'. Richard shot himself in the foot when he said "the reason [memes] spread is because they appeal to people's psychology". 'Psychology' is controlled by genes.
Arguably psychology is environmentally devoloped
He comprehensively covers psychological predisposition for religious beliefs, and how it fits in with meme theory and natural selection, in The God Delusion. I recommend you read it.
I've read all his books - he and Daniel Dennett subscribe to the 'mind virus' explanation for the prevalence of religion. Bret's explanation is more realistic - memes that don't act in the service of genes we shouldn't expect to survive for such a long period.
Well, their theory made perfect sense to me. Memes themselves are but the top layer of the superstructure of genes, psychological disposition, etc., and are largely arbitrary and incidental. I don't think you could say any gene works to the advantage of any particular meme--no one gene or series of genes codes specifically for "believe a man lived inside a fish," or "Muhammed flew a horse to heaven". @@paulbrown7872
It’s intuitive to think of ideas propagating like genes, but I think the analogy’s wrong. There isn’t an independent replicator representing “The Ice-Bucket Challenge” (for example) which propagates from brain to brain and alters behaviour making us want to pour ice on our head. Beliefs are more analogous to fluid ‘games’ which become habits through positive reinforcement. Our emotions involving fair play, approval and disapproval etc. occur relative to those games. Many people viewing the “Ice-Bucket Challenge” will each form their own meaningful subjective ‘game’ based on the experience which may or may not become influential depending on some criteria of the games which already form their habits. The new game is itself constructed by complex interaction with the old games. There is no ‘survival of the fittest’ of independent memes happening, just brains reacting to new information.@@billscannell93
I feel like Dawkins did not expect to be so challenged by Weinstein and that's why he's the first to call time and suggest questions from the audience as an alternative to continuing the conversation.
Weinstein's ideas re evolution and society-level phenomena remind me of Asimov's Foundation series and Psycho-Historians predicting different crises.. that was clearly science fiction, but I do believe we should lend some credence to Weinstein's ideas.. Dawkins doesn't "prefer" or "find it helpful" to discuss these ideas in terms of evolution.. I think this is typical with him to prefer practical science as it relates to genetic evolution, while preferring to avoid the very real, less tangible interplay of psychology, sociology and their implications for evolution of a society.. or any evolution or change at a higher level than genetic expression.. Weinstein's ideas are bigger and the only ones capable of possibly explaining real phenomena that Dawkins' purely mechanical worldview intentionally avoids.. Dawkins rightly concedes that there is more at play than strict biological evolution, but dismisses any importance there may be to finding out exactly what the relationship is between these phenomena with respect to biology/sociology/psychology.. Weinstein ambitiously seeks to find an explanation for these phenomena and honestly does a better job at driving the discussion than any moderator would have done.. he has the level of brilliance you need to ensure communication is as precise as possible and minimize misunderstanding while accentuating exactly where any difference in ideas lie
I agree with a lot of what you said. I was frustrated that Dawkins repeatedly shared how he was worried, didnt think it was a good idea, or helpful, and that they needed to be cautious and careful, instead of actually engaging with the core of Brett's point. If you arent one of the people that you think should discuss this, Dawkins, then who the hell should?
Wow, I thought the same exact thing. Exponding on that I would like to highlight one thing I found interesting when making the comparison. Brett's resistance to mathematical models. In the foundation trilogy Asimov refers to mathmatical models , but any time they were invoked in the story telling they were depicted as triggers. Just a funny thought.
Excellent and enlightning analysis! Actually, Weinstein's question was asked by anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss (and probably others previously) just how much of culture can be explained by biology (his example how do we go from "raw" foods to "cooked" foods). Levi Strauss felt just biology (this would mean Darwinism) is insufficient. Dawkins, as you say, sticks to Darwin but he would probably agree that we really lack any geometry to accurately bridge biology to human culture. Furthermore, he has always abhored social Darwinism in any shape or firm, which I gather is the reason he's somewhat uncomfortable here with Weinstein's speculations. Furthermore, just how far can genetics explain human culture (based on high cognitive abilities and levels of abstraction) as opposed to chimpanzes (different cognition - obviously - and where instinct is much more decisive, as it is in the animal kingdom)? Are there genes that could account for any forms of genius? Is it a genotype/phenotype combination? Weinstein is bringing up excellent points, but as both are evolutionary biologists (well rounded, certainly), this is a discussion that requires a 3d culture (science + humanities, etc.) or a more interdisciplinary approach. The issues broached (throw in religion to this stew) are far more complex than Dawkin's reverence for Darwin or Weinstein's expansion of genetic knowledge would allow. This is, of course, just my impression or tentative opinion since my core area of study is elsewhere. But two question: why do humans tell stories to make sense of the world? Is that kind of cultural information somehow encoded in the genes or are these just the basic driving forces?
@@robertoalexandre4250 telling stories and human memory are directly linked. Humans can remember massive strings of data by tieing it together with narrative. Each piece of the story contains clues and patters that tie it to the next piece of information. You may easily recall every piece of dialog of you favorite tv show or book in a single reading, but will struggled to remember the 14th digit of pi even after hours of practice.
@@marlondowney4033 Thank you for your comment. Undoubtedly what you say is true as the elements of narrative are space and time (and these depend on memory) and even Kant way back then considered them the essential wiring of human perception (that there is a link to evolutionary biology). But stories depend on language and language is an artificial abstract and a symbolical construct: our vocal apparatus permits speech and our vocal apparatus appears to have evolved to permit speaking. Language depends on memory and we have it (memory in animals also exists). My question is how (or if) cultural information could be encoded genetically? Obviously many features (bipedal movement, prehensile grip, brain vs body size, etc.) of the human body favor more complex functions (tool making) which in turn go into constructing culture. But how would something like art be accounted for by biology or genetics? Weinstein seems to be saying that these cultural accretions could be seen from an adaptive point of view as extended phenotypes (just how is unclear) while Dawkins would consider that a fallacy and deems them psychological replicating memes. Both answers are unsubstantiated. And that would bring up the question of how evolutionary biology and genetics could account for such adaptations. I know they say religion was deemed useful because it bonds communities, but I'm not aware of a precise scientific translation or a "geometry" capable of spaning biology and culture the same way it does for other human behaviors such as reproduction, nurturing the young, etc. Evolutionary biology sums us up, at the same time it doesn't. Which makes me wonder if the new theories on quantum biology may be on to something, although this is a very recent idea and seems to be discredited by mainstream science.
16:53 Bret is running afoul of Feynman on magnets. (I used to post links, but then I learned more about UA-cam, so you'll have to search it yourself. The middle bit talks about why ice melts.)
Magnets are described mathematically (as part of electromagnetism and QED) because there _is_ no other explanation available. _(Freud on Photons_ was not a best seller.) As an evolutionary biologist, Bret is further up the scientific food chain, and rarely runs into the Dirac desert himself, where words simple fail to move the comprehension rock.
(Dirac was notoriously taciturn, and had some other quirks. _Which leads us to the anecdote about Heisenberg and Dirac. The two were on a trip to Japan for a conference. The social Heisenberg used to dance with the young girls on the ship before dinners while Dirac used to sit watching. Once Dirac asked him, "Heisenberg, why do you dance?" Heisenberg replied that when there were nice girls he felt like dancing with them. Dirac fell into deep thought and after about fifteen minutes, asked Heisenberg again, "Heisenberg, how do you know beforehand that the girls are nice?")_
Math can be prematurely descriptive, managing to encode observation, but without managing to illuminate much. But Galileo was quite right when he insisted that much of the beauty of math is escaping from teleological recursion.
For decades, people used to think that chess ought to somehow be amenable to a program of logical inference, over some kind of more sophisticated logical primitives than standard logic. The intuition was the chess encodes reason, and this is how great chess players reason (though neither of these suppositions bears out). Surely we could do better than the 100 million move brute force of the Deep Blue computer system. Eventually, we did. Now we have a matrix of tens of million of numbers (completely outside verbal articulation) which guides a very narrow and powerful search, in the range of just a few thousand nodes explored per move. Leela already plays well above any human standard, on a narrow search guided by a powerful pattern recognizer. In some ways, Leela's chess wisdom is even less comprehensible than Deep Blue. It just bugs us less, because it seems less alien at a primitive level. Turns out, commonality of inarticulateness breeds familiarity. Whereas the unsatisfying Deep Blue was alien inarticulate.
Bret is circling around a very deep hole here. I sure hope he pulls himself back out.
WHY DONT U POST LINKS ANYMORE
If you enjoyed the discussion, please subscribe!
I would have enjoyed the discussion a great deal more had Pangburn not, in what I believe to be all likelihood, shamelessly censored Bret Weinstein by cutting his two most important contributions to the discussion from the video.
Since Pangburn has, in my view, failed in its duty to uphold freedom of speech, I have tried to summarise what I assume were Bret's contributions that were cut (I didn't attend the event so I can only offer my best guess) for anyone who is unfamiliar:
1. That the breeding protocol used by the central supplier of US laboratory mice, wherein only young mice are retained in the breeding pool to maximise reproduction efficiency, would create a selective pressure for highly elongated telomeres in those mice and thereby obligate them to radical tissue-repair capacity, and therefore toxin-resistance, at the cost of greatly increased cancer incidence later in life, and that therefore the vast body of science predicated on results from the testing of exogenous substances on such mice, most importantly *HUMAN DRUG TRIALS* , would be severely compromised in the way of *GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATING TOXICITY* and grossly overestimating carcinogenicity, thereby predisposing the release of "safe" drugs capable of causing tissue and organ damage to market, and possibly the cessation of development of otherwise useful drugs on the basis of apparent severe cancer-risk.
[See podcast "Bret Weinstein on "The Portal" (w/ host Eric Weinstein), Ep. #019 - The Prediction and the DISC"]
2. That religions are not collections of empty superstitions but are instead highly sophisticated, adaptive systems of accumulated ancient wisdom that are built by selection, meaning that those mythologies that are the most successful and therefore longstanding are those which have maximally contributed to the fitness of their practitioners by way of encouragement of advantageous behaviours and discouragement of disadvantageous behaviours mediated through belief, and that even a religious tenet that is literally false, but that provides an unquestioning believer a direct or indirect benefit by following it, will be favoured by this selection, and therefore be "metaphorically true".
I love the pacing of this debate - the moments they stop to quickly explain concepts
90% of teenage youtubers create much higher quality videos with their smartphones.
You don’t need to watch….. listen!
yeah shaking their buttocks to unfathomable beats...some people just want flaws in any high intellect discussions
Why are you recording that on a potato?
Nazrhael because he’s an atheist
My Galaxy S8 can record better video in the dark.
Robert Sapolsky's "Behave: The Biology of Humans at our Best and Worst" is brilliant and addresses many of these questions in a accessible, well researched way.
Agreed , and I love the way sapolsky dispences his knowledge with humour !
And he supports what Bret is saying more than what Dawkins is saying.. still waiting fir the David Sloan Wilson and Bret Weinstein discussion to happen..
ua-cam.com/video/RsOIiW_Ec4c/v-deo.htmlsi=WFyy0hhHhCrPCc19
Speculation.
20 mins to go, i think this is the best conversation i've ever heard. i watched it when it came out but haven't come back to it since
I didn't notice until just now that Dawkins sounds exactly like Stewie from Family Guy
Hahahaha
Orville9999 lol, he does. Love them both.
Close your eyes & just imagine, rofl.
Dawkins was probably the inspiration
Lol
Bret, wanna talk Nazis?
Rich: no
Bret, wanna talk gays?
Rich: in his head, damn I wanted audience questions.
He wanted a scientist on stage to talk to instead of a snake oil salesman
@@hugh1297 nice ad hominem
@@hugh1297 Well he got a scientist, and for some reason didn't seem too happy about it. Guess it was unusual for him not to basked with glory.
@@hugh1297
If snakes have all the oil, what's the US doing in the Middle East?
@@orionsshoe2424 Fighting the tricksters war and being bred out in return how grateful the tricksters must be
Abysmal video and sound quality is, among other things, what killed Pangburn Philosophy, me thinks.
I'm more concerned about the 50min to an hour, roughly that seems to be missing from the most interesting parts of the conversation.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross wow, how do you know we're missing so much?
@@TheJeremyKentBGross ok, found your other comments
More of the lack of self awareness and accountability or responsibility to your audience, who justifiably expect transparency and communication.
@@arsenymakarov6961 Besides the fact that most of these videos are over 2h long, and this one is barely over an hour? Besides the very obvious cuts right as they get into the most important topics? How about the fact that they were apparently at time to jump to Q&A at only like 20 something minutes in? Usually questions are at most half the time, not more than 2/3rds of it. How about the fact that Bretts issues are numbered, and there are huge jumps in the sequence, indicating many entire topics are outright missing from the video. The cuts also don't look very short. In at least one cut they suddenly have entirely different sitting positions and postures that indicate large changes in emotional tone or state, especially on Dawkins side.
Made a drinking game. Everytime Dr. Dawkins says "I don't think it's helpful..."
Conclusion: Don't use tequila.
YEAH!
Its british for bs
I did it with a bong. It’s a bonging game.
Don't use tequila..? I think it's worth a shot
I'm completely with Dawkins on this one.
Agreed. This was early evidence of Bret’s insanity.
I mean, Brett seems to be confusing different scientific fields.
He wants to make some sort of „all encompasing” theory or science, and thus he links sociology, psychology and whatnot with evolution, which…doesn’t make much sense
@@guciowitomski3825 It's called being a galaxy brain.
Yeah I'm with Dawkins too, he explains clearly and concisely and I think Brett isn't all there tbh
I've pirated movies with better quality than this video. 0/10 gimme dat missing content.
Reidosarous Rex. I've pirated better quality videos with a camcorder from inside a cupboard watching Betamax tapes of live action remakes of the original clips with dogs substituted for the human characters.
You are getting it for fuck all so either stick on a better version yourself or haud yer wheesht.
Those videos will evolve. Just give Pangburn a couple million years - they are starting from a potato.
Wait. Y'all WATCH for an hour? I put these on as a podcast and put the phone in my pocket and get on with my day? Sound is adequate.
Don't let your memes, or genes, be dreams.
TheyLiveGlasses why is this amusing
@@aghadmtl tis but an applicable meme.
TheyLiveGlasses yesterday you said tomorrow
@@aghadmtl and maybe I was right, who can say?
You can't fight your genes, it's fate
Why did they get a painter/plasterer to do the intro?
53:50 Much to people's misunderstanding, when Richard Dawkins says "virus," he is not making a value statement. He's not saying viruses are a good or bad thing. A virus is a technical term that describes a specific kind of replication.
The fundamental difference between the two replicators in which we call genes and the one in which we call viruses is that the method of transmission to the future for genes is via sperm/eggs (and therefore have the common interest to preserve the body in which they share; they need to come together e.g. male & female), and the method of transmission to the future for viruses is in the absence of a mutual other. Some memes function as the latter. And that is why some of them can be called "mind viruses."
Remember, a meme (and a mind virus) are neither valued in science as good nor bad. It is merely a description. We non-scientists are too conditioned to think of terminology with good and bad value judgements. But in science, you do not bring that into the equation. Any time you do, it is no longer science, but applied science. The two are different things.
Fair point. But as a rather vocal militant atheist, we know he is actually making a value statement. Bret knew this, so to add to the entertainment value of the conversation he gave Dawkins the 'assist' so to say.
In a public conversation, in front of an audience, you very much bring things like that into the equation.
@@dandansen4261 But he was wrong ua-cam.com/video/RsOIiW_Ec4c/v-deo.html
Richard Dawkins not having an answer- "were out of time!" Audience " here's more time". Dawkins- "well lets let that one go" lol
he was right not to talk about that.
he was wrong. Brett is absolutely right. civilisation can only advance by tackling precisely the difficult ,unpleasant questions. Dawkins is a coward in this case and part of the problem
strawbal e if you want to deal with problem of this sort, go to morality. Biology won’t help you to resolve any of this, or might even lead some people to faulty conclusions. The funniest thing, that Brett talks about it in general terms but can’t propose any ideas, as to why we had that issue and what can be done about it? He just says that we must confront that idea and fight it; okay..
I don't think Dawkins was ducking the subject, i think he saw a double edged sword in talking about it in Darwinian terms, and that it was more dangerous to talk about it in this forum without having research done first.
@@pauls6530 How many years has civilization lasted? 5000?? 10,000?? We're talking about biological evolution, why are we applying our understanding of biological evolution to modern phenomenons? ridiculous
Saw this go up a day or two ago. Didn't finish it by the time it was taken down. Thanks for putting it up again.
it's why god invtended youtube downloading sites, I pretty much download 50% of all content that I see now on youtube because I know that it's either from someone who stole it or it will get blocked for any number of reasons.
Unfortunately 2 large chunks seem missing at very critical moments
@@TheJeremyKentBGross Yeah I did notice that...
@@TheJeremyKentBGross camera control was handed over to Travis
@Jayson Genicici Cockington Janitor Crew
Uhhh doubtful. Far more likely they talked and discussed something in a respectful manner something that someone found "dangerous" or "hate speech" and youtube took it down. And to be honest that's probably the answer to Brett's question on why there hasn't been more progress. People can't handle the truth.
It took me an extremely long time to understand Bret Weinstein's point, but finally I understand now.
Let us pray.
@Voice of Reason lol fuck off
@Voice of Reason That is the wrong Hitchens. Ha Ha
My 9-month-old was working the camera. I was wondering where she was that night.
Why did dawkins refuse to answer brets rebuttal? He sounded like he wanted to walk off stage. I believe it ended around 28:00
I believe he thought the train of thought was dangerous
Because he's not a social scientist?
Cling Wrap twhy did he write a book about God then !?
@@milkyway4623 because he's a scientist
Cling Wrap 😬 👏 👏
There seems to be 2 large chunks cut out of the video... its so annoying. Right on the juicy parts too
23:43 and 53:40. I noticed this the first time a watched, but didn't know why. Now I know. Pangburn, have you no shame?
Please, explain why he cut parts out? For the slow learners like me. I wish I could have heard the cut parts. Such things are frustrating to me.
Likely a battery switch or something.
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-portal/id1469999563?i=1000462975502 @monkey the timing of the cuts, especially the first one, are precisely at the time Weinstein begins talking about this particular topic and his expertise regarding it. Combine that with pangburn's known dishonesty and greed, and we have a probable explanation.
Gary Parker ua-cam.com/video/JLb5hZLw44s/v-deo.html
You think the omissions were deliberate and not just a product of Pangburn's endless incompetence?
Why is there footage missing? What was cut?
And why even publish this in 720p and 1080p if the quality is 480p at best? It's a waste :(
I estimate 50min to 1h missing and cut at the most critical points.
I suspect the reason is a financial one. Creating an incentive to either visit the events or watch the complete footage on their own website maybe. Well, Pangburn Philosophy sucks ass in many ways and it's good they went down after all.
I don’t know; we don’t know… beautiful words. Accepting ignorance and being open to challenges and ideas from peers is the base science is based upon. Magnificent discussion and clashing of ideas.
OMG! We need Part deux of this conversation!
I love where my brain goes around 51:00 when they start talking about catholic memes.
Paraphrasing: "The priests are holy devoted to spreading catholic memes."
Attending church. Can see meme hypothesis. Wow.
This talk should have been 30 minutes longer. Really great conversation!
are you sure that it was great?
@@mykhailohohol8708 I am.
It was great cos it exposes the limitations of dogmatic thinking by the likes of Dawkins. They believe in some fixed model when it suits them, when it doesn't they say science updates. Also apes protect their resources, this all the evidence one needs to understand that it's not about truth. Same reason wealth keeps pooling back to the top.
I feel like im watching this from Google earth
Hearing Bret's (ignoring for the moment Dawkins seeming somewhat ignorance on kin selection, dual selection theory and the like) views on modelling are quite shocking to me as a theoretician myself, when I first watched this as an undergrad I didn't realise how extreme and strange his views were. For instance, the example of a sphere on knife edge is a pretty odd one because stability analysis is almost universally applied in evolutionary modelling, accounting for these unlikely equilibria. Mathematical models and empirical studies complement each other beautifully, you generate a hypothesis, you model it to understand the implications of the assumptions inherent to the hypothesis, and then you compare the results to empirical data. You then find the model that best explains the data and you have yourself a reliable causal explanation for how the world works.
As for Dawkins, very odd reluctance to consider inclusive inheritance hypotheses. Developments in cultural evolutionary theory seem to be passing him by without notice.
23:40 why the cut?
Bret Weinstein goes HAM....love Dawkins, but nice to see someone challenge him a bit
Cathy: So you're saying the peacock's tail is responsible for global warming and that WoMeN should play with their Barbie dolls and stay in the kitchen?
I think that's silly, I really do.. I mean look at the conversation we are having, YOUR peacock tail isn't causing global warming.
so what you're saying is, JBP is "anti-establishment", yet the "establishment" keeps inviting him on TV to destroy the same pathetic feminist talking points over and over in front of an audience of millions of people?
Jeremy Gross Yeah why should your peacock tail have the right to cause global warming. It's been rather uncomfortable.
Clavers Odhiambo Yet you are not asking there was nothing wrong with women liking barbies or liking to cook. Yet feminist made feminist wrong. For me it's about choice. So a women who loves barbies shouldn't be denigrated by a woman who is a navy seal. Both choices are okay.
Jeremy Gross They are using metaphors to communicate.
When Bret started asking about genetic reasons for celibacy and homosexuality the woo woo meter went off the chart. This guy is a nutcase right wing consipracy theorist using his PhD in Biology. Really shows the difference between an actual scientist and a charlatan. I'm so glad I quit watching this after 40 minutes and wish I'd gotten that time back.
Do you enjoy having discussions on topics that "you shouldn't talk about" ?... Try joining our discord server! We have daily voice chats about life, philosophy, science and art. It's free! discord.gg/XSSGDcdB5f
Mind your own business ...?
Who says what you should talk about ?
What’s up with the jump at 23:45?. Missing some of the footage?
During a really interesting answer as well
watch darkhorse podcast im sure he explains whats going on. Also why isthis guy dodging debate the audience clearly wanted that topic to go on😢
Be sure to make an account on the Callin app. We have exciting shows booked for every day of the week. The daily host and I will start with a brief discussion about the topic, then we start taking callers. Eventually, we will have multiple callers active at a time and turn it into more of a group discussion. One of the main reasons for moving to the Callin app is their **100% FREE SPEECH** policy. If it's legal to say, we can say it. I think it's important for us to support platforms that make freedom of speech a priority. So JOIN US ! Make sure you subscribe to **The Pangburn Hangout** and give me a follow! If you're interested in hosting your own discussion, dm me. www.callin.com/show/the-pangburn-hangout-ytIdqseMzM
Love the decision to add the white noise. Gives it a retro feel, like I am listening it on my radio.
"I Love it" as in "I don't love it."
Why would Bret Weinstein think that mathematical models do not make predictions 20:45? Strange.
Not exactly. You need the factors you are calculating to be properly in place. If you are missing some of them, then the mathematical models fails.
@@Tantive I know that we almost always need to calibrate parameters of the models (like we have universal constants in simple physical models). That is part of model building and doesn't prevent the model to make predictions after that.
Coz models are better suited to test predictions, not make them.
He's referring to a specific sub-discipline of evolutionary biology, not mathematical models in general. It is a bit like the saltwater vs freshwater schools in economics, if you're familiar with that.
Bret's not wrong about the problems (though he does a terrible job explaining them) or the extra skepticism, but Dawkins isn't wrong that "better models" is the answer.
why would you cut this, i wish i could've seen the whole thing.
Agreed. The, i estimate 50min to an hour, of missing footage is cut from the most interesting parts of the conversation.
Pay Travis and the world is yours
Mithro Patoola or pharma already paid pangburn to cut it out
I don't understand why Dawkins is pushing so much on prudence when trying to explain modern social issues with evolutionary theories but he has always been so explicit against religion.
@Carla Delastella Yet he obviously does accept one explanation for social phenomena, namely a cobstructivist one. Yet there's no more evidence for those ideas than for biological causes, in general.
Or are you telling me Dawkins _doesn't_ believe social, cultural, or political interventions can be fruitful? If not, he does accept a theory implicitely.
It runs the risk of resurrecting things like eugenics via blowback to antinatonalist. Which would be the natural course of argument against such talk.
That’s something that has always bothered me about him. He reminds me of that edgy kid meme
@@bobbyaxelrod7596 Thats the elephant in the room my friend.
This is the first time, I think ever, that I agreed with two opposing views. Amazing conversation. Thanks for posting.
Weinstein thinks that nature of memes is symbiotic, Dawkins thinks that nature of memes is parasitic.
So, You think that nature and memes is symbiotic and parasitic at the same time?
That's correct.@@_DarkEmperor
im glad Bret took that poll from the audience..i wish that would happen more often...in addition, i wish there was an organization that would just let these people speak until one of them taps out..lol the future of combat sports
Bret, not Eric. But you're right. Polling was a good call.
@@DoctorMandible goes to show how often I listen to Eric..lol
Polls don't matter as you know. The only thing that matters is truth. You are officially a victim of group think.
@ what are you talking about
And what's your definition or truth
Yeah, audience questions are usually stupid.
I'm really interested in Bret's Evolutionary Suicide bit. It prompted me to wonder if me never wanting children may somehow be a less extreme version of this. Maybe instead of feeling worthless because I won't reproduce and then killing myself, I instead decided to still be a productive person and simply stamp out my lineage all the same. Even weirder is that the reasons I have for doing so are suspiciously in line with Bret's argument.
No. I'd say memes are responsible for that, not genes
Yeah as much as I love humanity you sound like a spiteful mutant so it would probably be best.
It's nonsense, Brett unfortunately is completely out of his debt
I believe Robert Sapolski also covers this in the standford lecture. Not having kin is supposed to be to help raise the offspring of your siblings ..
Though one can see the selfish memes going completely bonkers with the way the system divides everyone into cubicles and feeds a constant stream of narrow focus of selfish, indulgent, materialistic memes that end in extinction. It's easy to see if you read 48 laws of power how certain types would use this knowledge to control people easier for their own gains. Some do this instinctually like Nietchze observstion re blonde beast of prey. Others use the knowledge to collect more wealth and weild power.
On the sphere sitting on a razor... mathematics tells us that a sphere can sit on a razor without falling, yes. BUT, such a systems is also mathematically shown to be unstable. Any deviation in the forces present or the position of the sphere will cause it to fall. Such precision is not realistically possible for a host of reasons, and the mathematical models account for that. Stability analysis of systems is only about a century old, so I'm not surprised if he is unaware of it.
Yes. I was yelling at the screen too. Dawkins responded saying that all we need is better models, not to throw out models. What he should have said is closer to what you said. Bret should be knowledgeable of stability analysis, it's a undergraduate-level concept.
Accounting for stability isn't helpful when all you care about is in which way the sphere will fall. The number of variables at play in an evolutionary model is virtually infinite, and the number of variables that can significantly impact the way the model behaves is incalculable, or in proportion to the complexity of the model, futile.
TLDR: Stability analysis can only show you *how wrong you can be* if you didn't account for something, but it doesn't tell *if* you didn't account for something.
The other thing that can come to mind is the fact that a good model would use brownian motion of air around the sphere and that's something he should know, since stochastic dynamics is used A LOT in mathematical biology.
I was also taken aback by his remarks on mathematics. Point out the limitations, by all means, but to dismiss mathematical models in such a general sense shows a lack of understanding. And if a mathematical model cannot capture the complexity of a system, how on earth is a narrative representation supposed to be better? All you end up doing is making a nice story that fits the data. Poor science.
49:00
The whole event's purpose was for the conversation starting at this point. Also, I get the sense that Mr. Weinstein was bouncing a theory of his on Mr. Dawkins. And as far as I am concerned his arguments were so clearly articulated and well thought that I honestly expected Mr. Dawkins to go
"Hah, I haven't thought of this from this angle!"
SPOILER ALERT: This isn't what happened. Mr. Dawkins seemed to either not understand Bret's argument or NOT WANTING to understand Mr. Weinstein's argument.
So in conclusion: Awesome video!
this happens all time in science where the ego starts talking. Very common among top intellectuals
fact is he both didnt want to understand it so he couldnt...
Dawkins is stubborn and opinionated and would never admit to being wrong about anything. I used to be a fan but when he got into the new atheist movement he started to show his arrogance and his haughty personality. Bret,on the hand, is a pleasure to listen to and he comes across as much more humble and rational.
@@squarerootof2 I had the same thought after seeing him interviewed by joe rogan. I think it's his "oxford" pedigree. He has some brilliant ideas but others do too..
Did everyone watch until the end? Dawkins agrees that the propagation of meme's is in part due to the extended phenotype, but that it's only part of the reason they propagate. I see no problems with this response.
Weinstein seemed to be claiming that this was the only (or at least main) reason they propagate (because they are better for the lineage of that species), which pretty much goes against why Dawkins coined the term, meme, to differentiate it from what natural selection controls in biological evolution (phenotypes and extended phenotypes).
I can't blame Dawkins for being a bit firm on the definition of a term he coined.
Pangburn Philosophy never fails to disappoint. 😢
Travis Pangburn is the Billy Mcfarland (Fyre Festival) of those kinds of events.
Richard Dawkins was the master Bret Weinstein was the prig apprentice who tried to take control of the debate.
It must have been a struggle for Richard Dawkins to keep his composure.
Kudos to Richard Dawkins.
And you're serious?
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
If Dawkins wasn't so dismissive of religion I guess I would take him more seriously.
@@joekunis9986 "dismissive of religion ". Religion is a myth.
@@glennford7179 Was Jesus a myth?
@@joekunis9986 Yes. Prove otherwise, objectively. I doubt it.
Lol, why is the thumbnail just bret?
zachery zachery cause he ran intellectual circles around Dawkins
I mean, did you listen to it??
Survival of the beardiest.
zachery zachery despite Dawkins' popularity being about 10% of its 2006 peak, he's still about twice as popular as Bret; so it makes sense to wager that people will seek out Dawkins' videos at a much higher rate than Weinstein's - and that the latter needs more promotional help than the former. that's just an educated guess, though.
@@RochesFan As evidenced in this video, Dawkins is old news, and I say this as a huge admirer of the man. In UA-cam land, Bret has surpassed him when its comes to provoking thought. Obviously whoever put this video up agrees.
Incidentally, concerning their Trump comments about pulling us into war, I hope they're both tremendously embarrassed now.
what Brett describes at roughly 15:30 is also a description of a fundamental problem with String Theory in Physics, you can get String theories (there are more than one) to satisfy almost any outcome because the parameters can be adjusted to fit almost , if not any out come. Random tangent but an important one (if you can't work out why that would be a problem, its because theories should give definite predictions, otherwise they cannot be veryfied)
intresting so you can explain any outcome in a more logical and reasonable way instead of saying god made it happen .but still cant verify it.
what do you mean definite predictions are there infinite predictions to a single outcome in string theory
@@nuthakantirohan4685 All mental models of reality are incomplete. One would have thought that all these peoples commenting on this stuff are aware of the incompleteness theorum.
@@Quiintus7 well I think both quantum mechanics and general relativity are complete and predict almost everything after big bang and they fail at big bang and at beyond the horizon of black fail so it's intuitive to assume that both the macro and micro interact with each other therefore we need a new theory that combines both of these. For rest of the universe either macro or micro explanation satisfy the outcome
That's exactly what I thought of! Take a theory that you can make fame or money off of, then apply pattern matching and retrofit it to meet any observations. This talk was rubbish and I have far less respect for both of them then I had when I started.
Live from outer space.
I've been waiting for this to be uploaded! Thank you so much.
It sounds like Brett is reading evolution into everything, that way Jordan Peterson reads Christianity into everything.
I never realized that memes are the subject of this type of intellectual discourse and debate. I always figured they were just a silly way to communicate on the internet. I will pay more attention to meme selection and be extra conscious of the memes I select to post from now on.
You are missing the fact that "meme" as a word is originally created by Dawkins and basically means "idea"... the current usage of this word has gone very far from the original meaning, which they are using here.
@@Fatlinek Interestingly, I am pondering whether or not "meme" exclusively includes ideas.
Don't you know what evolution psychology is? That is built entirely upon the concept of memes.
The hypothesis is essentially our morality, and in fact "morality" of any social species, is built upon behavior that is most likely to lead to reproduction and survival.
@@Fatlinek memes aren't really just ideas but behaviors that spread via none genetic means.
A simple one I think i remember Richard mentioning was, hearing a stranger whistling a song, that puts that song in your head and you may put it in someone else's by now listening to it or humming it and etc
"The female peacock, the peahen"
*Stares up into space with mind blown
The pc nomenclature is now, peafowl.
Somebresome
That’s hilarious. I’m using that.
@@MoreAmerican did you just assume that birds legume?
!!! PMS INTENSIFIES !!!
For those who were there, what was the actual length of the discussion? And does anyone have a recording or filming of the discussion as opposed to these extracts?
My guess is it should be at least 2 hours, likely a bit more, meaning we are probably missing 50min to an hour of footage during the very obvious cuts that happen at the most critical parts of the discussion.
It was about an hour and a half - two hours long
the full discussion was 4 hours and 45 minutes, with a 15 minute intermission around the 3 hour mark. not sure if I was allowed, but I filmed the entire thing on my cell phone, the audio is surprisingly clear and very enjoyable to listen to: ua-cam.com/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/v-deo.html
Thx Echo! audio quality was great
@@retiredshitposter1062 Made my night! Wish I saw this earlier.
Bret argument essentially is - all organisms have capacities and all capacities are generated by evolution, ergo the capacity for the manufacture of memes is an evolutionarily generated capacity
just adaptionism. Brett thinks because he has a hammer everything is a nail.
@@ipilotaneva2586bad take
Bret is being more of a Darwinian philosopher than a scientist.
28:58, "let us let that one go" really? That is why the audience clapped, this is why we are here.
He hates group selection. To him it's pseudo science.
I'm not surprised he's not big on discussing it and repeats over and over again to be careful with this topic.
The last time this topic became fashionable, we ended up with state enforced eugenics and ideologies of "racial purity", "sub-humans" etc.
It doesn't mean such topic shouldn't be ever discussed, but it's just wise to work out the kinks in a non-mass-public setting beforehand as it's very easy to misrepresent / misunderstand the topic and history shows it plays right into human biases and negative tendencies.
To put it short, the effects of broad-audience discussions of this can, and did in the past, become very toxic very quickly.
@@Tagnar Finally someone in the comments section who can think like how scientists ought to think. I dislike how people think that just because Richard Dawkins chooses not to discuss something that it means he is wrong, which some people have made this fallacy here in the comments section.
@@GrubKiller436 This is an elitist view. Important topics need to be discussed in the open, even, and especially if they are going to provoke misinterpretation. They need to be worked rigorously to a satisfactory conclusion in order to achieve social integration. Any suppression of that simply leads to perpetual misunderstanding.
@@michaeledwards7967
First time I've ever heard humility be called elitist. This is an elitist view and Dawkins is suprressing a discussion? Do you even understand what you're saying?
When was the last time making sure there are no misinterpretations meant that you're an elitist suppressing discussions?
If a person has the arrogance to misinterpret something when its context has yet to be established, that is entirely a mistake on their own part.
That's like saying it's your fault I have an opinion because you didn't say anything.
How so many could view this video and NOT come away with the feeling that it's mostly Dawkins cringing at Weinstein's theoretical musings (such as how nationalism can be linked to natural seiction). The way Weinstein smugly looks at the audience instead of Dawkins when the latter is speaking is such a tipoff to this man's burgeoning ego.
I mean...
Fascists aren't known for being humble.