Interesting interview, but frankly neither the clickbait title nor the clickbait thumbnail is remotely true. (Likewise, the Forbes article is remarkably off-base.) And I say that with nothing but respect for Noble's contributions in systems biology and physiology. Scientists are definitely *not* thinking that evolution may be purposeful, and therefore not freaking out about the possibility. Noble (and Andrea Morris, both here and in Forbes) are badly over-interpreting the polygenic risk score analysis. It will be very unfortunate indeed if some people remember Noble for his misguided ideas in this area rather than his seminal contributions in physiology and biophysics.
Dear Prof Greg, I didn’t "interpret" the polygenic risk score study. I interviewed the lead scientist of the study who explained the findings to me exactly how I explained it. I also spoke with dozens of scientists in this field who do indeed think evolution is purposeful and needs a serious update to reflect that. I reference numerous publicly available peer-reviewed articles and books written by respected scientists in this space. They gave solid reasons why, or I wouldn’t have followed the story. The headline isn’t clickbait as Royal Society members tried to shut down an entire conference which is also documented in both video and article. I appreciate there is disagreement and debate, as I reference in this video and article, and that Noble’s ideas need rigorous testing. I also appreciate your not mischaracterizing my reporting which is painstakingly thorough and fact-checked.
@@VariableMindsthe title "science is reconsidering evolution" implies that evolution and hence its fundamental aspects like natural selection and adaptation is increasingly agreed in statistically significant rates to being false in the scientific community, which is of course not true. The title baits those who believe in christian fundamentalism and creationist ideas - that humans were directly engineered and popped into existence like so. its doing this by suggesting that "scientists agree that evolution did not happen the way we thought it did up until now". its not a direct implication, but is a strong controversial and false suggestion, hence the click-baiting.
@@wnllkmusicof course you are correct. “Science is reconsidering” ??? wtf? The theory of evolution has literal mountains of evidence. Anyone that challenges it without similar scrutiny and volume of evidence is clearly playing the grift game. Or is plain not smart and value their wants and desires more than reality. Lots of people in this category. Silly humans
Who are the “scientists” you are referring to? Those who turned Darwinism into religion sponsored by enormous amounts of grant money? Evolution did take place, but it could not possibly be Darwinian, because its starting point - procaryote is better adapted to any environment than its pinnacle - us. There was simply no advantages for a simple organism to evolve into anything more complex. There must be a different mechanism.
Wow! What a difference the interviewer makes. Dennis Noble is a great mind, but the host did her homework, and brought the best out of him. Thank you Andrea.
I'm trying to wrap my head around what he's talking about and she's just right there asking him to define his use of words. It's good to have an interviewer that's much smarter than me. Humbling, informative
My experience exactly, Andrew! "WTF Mr. Noble thinks / talks about" I wondered. And Andrea seems to hit the nails head with her next question. Its good to read, that I have "brothers in feelings" out there like you. ;)
Look how deeply this level and direction of thought is penetrating our society…At This Point in history. We can see here the current urge to squash freedom of speech. This discussion is important in soooo many ways. Prof Noble would thrive in a Socratic world. And our interviewer (my apology, I can’t find her name without losing my place) is a marvelous support for the search for truth and social cohesion. Yea!
Donald Hoffman's theory of conscious realism postulates that evolution by natural selection is directed towards fitness payoffs and that organisms develop internal models of reality that increase these fitness payoffs. This means that organisms develop a perception of the world that is directed towards fitness, and not of reality. In other words, perceptual experiences do not match or approximate properties of the objective world, but instead provide a simplified, species-specific user interface to that world. Such constraints define purpose, and purpose implies consciousness. Add to this the discovery by theoretical physicists that spacetime, hence matter and energy are not fundamental and we are left with the notion that perhaps consciousness is fundamental and its ultimate purpose is to find a way to escape the constraints it is trapped into.
I think it really comes down to how we define things. Any definition given necessarily takes a particular point of view which excludes other points of view. The so-called "sliders" in Conway's game of life is a great example of what I mean. One could make a perfectly valid argument that what we call sliders are simply a product of how some humans view the changes in the system over time. In some sense there is nothing that moves at all and only grid cells turning off and on based on very simple deterministic rules. However, there is an equally valid frame that says that there are these higher level patterns that can emerge that we label as sliders. If a person doesn't believe in sliders then they don't get to build a universal turing machine out of them like more than one person has in the past. Similarly, if a person doesn't believe in siddhis then they don't get to develop and use them. When we speak of "consciousness" I think it is important to remember that regardless of which definition we are using it is one of probably infinite roughly equally valid points of view. The more clear a definition is the more exclusionary it is but also often the more useful it is within the scope or frame that it sets. No definition can be perfect and an example to illustrate the point could be how almost soul crushingly hard it is to give a good definition of something as mundane as a drinking cup or a chair. A good definition should include as many cup or chair like objects as possible while excluding as many non-cup or chair like objects as possible. I think the more important question might be "How useful is this framing to me and what can I do with it?" or maybe "How does my prospective change with this perspective?". I've always taken the point of view that where it seems mechanistic reductionism wants to ignore or deprecate the so called higher levels of existence is roughly as equally valid/invalid, true/untrue, etc as the polar opposite idealistic/mystical view which often wants to deny the salience of what lies beneath. I think that framing is more useful than picking either extreme because I can sort of switch back and forth between them depending on the context and utility in that context. Both are useful in different frames but neither is completely true.
Unfortunately for some, his definition does nothing to suppose a Godless system. He seems to acknowledge some aspect of this. Though his stance is definitely that there is no ghost in the shell.
Here are the key points of this Video: 00:02 Noble's research challenges the concept of the Vican Barrier in evolution 03:02 Darwin considered an additional process to natural selection 08:26 Autocatalytic sets challenge the Gene Centric Theory. 11:08 Science is reconsidering genetic reductionism. 16:43 Genetic determinism challenged by study on polygenic risk scores. 18:54 Genes and proteins have complex causal relationships. 23:11 Challenging the concept of genes as the blueprint of life. 25:25 Evolution has generated purpose in organisms. 30:34 Evolution and purpose in a scientific context 33:10 Living cells have complex structures that constrain the behavior of molecules. 38:05 Organisms can turbocharge natural selection. 40:28 Viruses can reproduce without being alive. 45:09 Unconscious processes can produce purposive behavior without being intentional 48:06 Cells exhibit cognitive abilities in Evolution 52:52 Purpose emerges through constraints within autocatalytic networks 55:31 Purpose can be perceived as a non-conscious process by science. 1:00:00 Reconsidering Darwinism and the central dogma 1:02:08 Challenging the notion of genes as the sole cause 1:06:41 Challenges faced due to expressing views on Evolution 1:09:03 Rethinking paradigms in evolutionary science 1:13:13 Respecting the integrative aspect of living organisms for disease treatment 1:15:23 Debunking of Chomsky's theory of language and limitations of AI 1:20:02 Darwin's death changed the direction of evolutionary theory.
I love the interjections she adds to explain or define what is being discussed and yet those interjections assume audience intelligence. It made this interview much more accessible to those of us who are interested but not entrenched or a professional in the field. Thank you!
I'm glad Noble is still arguing with Dawkins. There's nothing basically wrong with what he says, as there's nothing basically wrong with Dawkins' selfish gene. But we've learned a lot since I worked on the Human Genome project in the early 1990s. (I worked on the cystic fibrosis gene and also did chaos studies with the heart and brain, so there are two specific connections.) Back then, the canonical view was that almost all of the DNA was junk. It isn't. That overwhelming majority of DNA is for the control structures that turn genes on and off and in-between. If a chemical (not always a protein) sticks to the _junk_ and covers the start codon, the gene will never be expressed. If another chemical sticks to the _junk_ and covers where the first chemical would stick, it turns the gene proactively back on. This is a gross oversimplification just to get the basic idea across, and things are way more complicated. This is basic epigenetics. Almost all the differences between humans and chimpanzees are epigenetic, so this is big. It's also small. Political affiliation is about 70% heritable, most likely due to stress hormones from the mother _in utero._ Of course, e.g. transcription factors in the egg are important, as Noble mentions, but it goes way beyond that. *This is in no way fringe science.* It was slightly controversial two decades ago but no longer. I reccomend two popularly accessible sources. One is Robert Sapolsky's _Human Behavioral Biology_ series here on RUclips. It's 12 years old but still very good. The other is the book _Evolution in Four Dimensions_ by Eva Jablonsky and Marion J. Lamb. It's from 2006, when there was still some controversy worth paying attention to, but it's solid. It describes four interrelated evolutionary mechanisms: genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic. I'm doing more cognitive linguistics and science these days, so I'm very interested in the last two which seem the most outré. My conclusions are that it's pretty solid and jibes with my hypotheses about how Broca's and Wernicke's areas and the auriculate whatyoumaycallit evolved in conjunction with the predictions based on the psycholingusts' ideas based on Shannon entropy. Of course, the focus on my current work is AGI so I can build an army of steampunk-looking robots to conquer the world. Still, a lot of that is based on human brains, especially as the psycholinguists have been doing great stuff with fMRI lately and confirmed predictions I made a decade ago.
I wonder how much the "junk DNA hypothesis" was really canonical? I don't recall meeting any geneticist who really thought that all junk was inactive DNA. Or they just did not dare oppose me? 😉 However, I like what you say about political affiliation. If people knew how much of an effect genes appear to have on various aspects of our lives many would freak out, I suspect. Also, it would be a "political correctness nuke"...
Thank you for writing the comment I was about to start clacking away on, right down to recommending the Sapolsky course. There is an anti science evangelical fundamentalist faction that will take this video, ignore everything but the sensational bits and declare evolution a dead issue, not gene focused reductive evolution, but evolution in all forms but the epigenetic changes they call 'micro evolution'. In fact, this is the third video of it's kind I have seen pop up and I cannot help but think the writers of the 'wedge document' and their ilk at the Discovery Institute may be arranging things upstream somewhere. Of course, what is presented here does not in any way help their cause, but that is clearly stated about a third of the way through, and many people will not get past the first five minutes before they decide it supports their views. The push to discredit evolution and put intelligent design in classrooms as an alternative is a dirty business, and they will replace the call for a re assessment with a flat dismissal of all non theistic ways of looking at evolution.
But surely both points can't both be in the position of being "Nothing wrong" with them? This theory is progressing the idea of a machine like process coming by accidental processes. Purpose. Now what might that mean? Although this scientist does not promote intelligent design, it does lay a foundation for considerations of what might provide this purpose, drive or whatever you want to call it. Bearing in mind that there is a contingent of respected scientific minds that is seriously considering the so called Simulation hypothesis.
Political affiliation is heritable? What? That sounds like a big lie. As if "stress hormones" could ever be able to carry information about such high level symbolic structures. Like, are we sure it's not just environmental factors? And you say you are interested in congnitive linguistics...
I’ve always wondered as a layman where we have different consultants in their medical field treating patients such as haematologists, cardiac, respiratory etc is a form of reductionism. The reason this interests me is that through the latter part of my life I’ve experienced all sorts of differing symptoms and have been visiting various consultants in different fields, each one giving me advice and medication which appears to help yet other underlying conditions appear later. I’ve often felt I need someone to look at all of my symptoms and come up with a prognosis that deals with the whole body system as opposed to each individual consultant concentrating on one element of the body. Apologies if this post is not relevant, but the comments form Dennis Noble about reductionism and his work on the biological system as a whole seem to resonate with me.
I work in philosophy, and I find most of these discussions exploit the vagaries of linguistic definitions and some conceptual vagueness in order to get speculative arguments up and running. We should not over-attribute directional or purposive forces to evolution when we do not have any alternate life forms outside of our planet's offerings to act as contrast, and we struggle to see clear evidence in the evolutionary record as it is. We simply cannot know if general evolutionary 'directions' supply any guidance or provide 'intelligence' beyond observed selection and the various pressures we know about. We may 'like the idea' of more direction going on - but that's not an argument.
The "selfish" gene is a misuse of English. Dawkins didn't choose it by accident - he wanted to vindicate personal greed and egotism and the privileges he enjoys from the Liberal political order.
The cellular ‘intelligence’ theory needs to consider whether they’d call cellular automata ‘intelligent’, because I can write a genetic algorithm in 100 lines of code which ‘learns to survive’ based on ‘genes’. Is the algorithm ‘intelligent’? It has a problem, it uses stochastic to solve it. I think we need to step away from the feeling that things are either intelligent or they aren’t, and the idea that it’s special somehow (same with a lot of words, like ‘purpose’), for these things exist in gradients, and it’s really up to us where we draw the line between special and less special.
Intelligence is primitive compared to what cells are. They can respond correctly to stimuli without pre-trained data and they don't use our algorithms. This is beyond intelligence.
@@Carnezz But the evolutionary process that created the cells is similar to pre-training in NNs. Besides that, constructor theory would have it that life follows a specific subset of all potential algorithms; namely the algorithms that prefer survival within the current and future environments.
@@MrMichiel1983 Correct. My point was that 'after' the evolutionary process has completed, single-cells are still capable of responding to new stimuli it wasn't trained on. Intelligence as we know it, is basically responding to environments based on prior knowledge. Cells exceed this capability, it's beyond intelligence. This is just a single cell too, which we must not forget functions synchronously with trillions of other cells every second in harmony. This amalgamates to a single entity alone, among a hive of biological entities (organisms). Biology as we know it is far more advanced than any alien sci-fi we can ever dream of.
@@Carnezz Um no? Evolution ‘trains’ organisms (if you want to view it that way) to survive in the myriad of situations they encounter. Arguably there is an extent to which, say a cell, can ‘generalize’, in that if you put it in a synthetic new environment it might survive a while, assuming it isn’t SO different, like space or lava. Likewise NNs can also generalize to an extent, but likewise if you subject them to something outlandish, their response will be equally outlandish.
@@anywallsocket It's possible that NN training and AI are just the new trendy metaphor , just like computer code and expert systems were in the 80's to explain intelligence, and Descartes animal machines were in his time of mechanical discoveries... But we now know that DNA isn't like computer code (at all), and animals aren't machines.
I am not a biologist, nor a med student ( 34 year old dad here working with networks) , but I alwqys kept fish and was reading biology as a hobby. This freaks me out too lol, I try to explain this to my family, but nobody gets it😅😅😅 feel a bit alone, but the comments make me feel better. There are " other weirdos" like me out there. Greetings from Hungary😊
I'll be giving this a second listen. Andrea does an absolutely STELLAR job of inserting definitions of terms and asking astute questions. Kudos to you Andrea. I'd love to see you interview Rupert Sheldrake.
Rupert "The Pseudoscience Grifter and Religious propaganda stooge" Murdoch? No thanks. After decades he STILL has not presented ONE piece of irrefutable testable verifiable empirical evidence for his woo woo.
This is the smartest woman and best interviewer I’ve ever seen. She asks the exact questions we want to know and then lets her guest explain without interrupting. Great channel!
I agree. And it was one of my first impressions… she asked questions that seem so basic yet the questions we all ask are ultimately boiled down to the same exact simple inquiries now matter how complex some folks either want to ask them or complex answered trying to address them
Andrea, I am so thrilled every time I discover a skilled and honorable host such as yourself. You're interview platform is comprehensive, respectful, and complete. Thank you so much for your efforts and hard work, it shows. As for your guest, what an inciteful intelligent and humble gentleman. His grasp and understanding of how the business of science has been corrupted by the grant system is spot on! My hat is off to him, what integrity!
You mean you liked someone agreeing with your creationism. The man is not stupid ... he is just a liar. Now if you accepted he is lying to you deliberately ... which he is ... then he is not such a respectable, honorable or humble person is he. You only think he is a wonderful person because you think he is scientifically proving the religious story you chose to believe.
@@brettallen7632 Creationism? Here is a suggestion for you. If you disagree with something that was said, explain what it is you think is incorrect, then present a comprehensive opposing theory of you're own. Simply name calling is the avenue of a simpleton. Run along now, the grown ups are having a discussion.
I just came across your channel and I have to say listening to the two of you has been one of the most refreshing experiences of the last several years of my life. The way the two of you speak with each other is something special. I love that you ask questions too, so often it seems like either people don't ask the questions because they don't want to seem ignorant, or they tend to ask the questions but with an air of ... I can't name it. Many of us especially these days might be afraid to show the vulnerability that comes with not knowing something. I've found that it is actually an incredible strength to showcase curiosity. It's a wonderful sign of intelligence in my opinion. I'm also a woman and so there was a whole separate More personal way in which this resonated with me. This was just an incredible talk, he is incredible and I hope you get him back on. I've always wondered how people of science could be atheist when that is just as absolute as theism. I'm agnostic because I can't prove it either way, you know? Like, I don't know. And the idea that scientists could ever speak in absolute terms about things that we have not proven one way or another like the topic today. You would think that after all we've seen in history but scientists would know better than to gang up and bully somebody with a radical new idea. There seem to be so many situations throughout history where the underdog ends up being the one we remember. I'm so excited to watch the rest of your videos. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Also, it is a mischaracterization to suggest that Dawkins considers organisms to be inherently selfish. It is the *gene* which is selfish. Cooperation on the organismal level can enhance the gene's selfish replication. This is why cooperation evolved. Dawkins has been very clear about this in his writings.
Dawkins personifies nothing genes and nature, exposing the fallacy in his viciously citlrcular reasoning. He degenerates into the antiquated, Enlightenment era, paganism which impressed those ideas on his mind. He can't justify his position. He quickly resorts to ad hominim anytime someone asks the begged questions. He uses potty humor, and grotesque sexual references for shock value to distract people from his lack of reason, logic, and rationality. He merely insists upon what he believes, but that doesn't get you to why anyone else should believe what he believes. He doesn't understand that "is" doesn't get you to "ought".
Yes... Noble keeps (purposefully?) misinterpreting Dawkins in order to push his own narrative. And yet he keeps saying "he cannot consider he might be wrong", when he's the one twisting things to try and prove himself right...
Yes, all areas of knowledge requiring ongoing research have all been contaminated by the downside of the internet. Could it be different of school systems were revamped towards thinking instead of the basics? The basics limit most to entertainment, not learning.
Great interview, Please don't stop this series of interviews. Some people are criticizing not in a good way as a clickbait as it does not meet their point of view. I am an avid science reader and no way I feel this is clickbait. It is a different point of view than the populist view of evolution and this is presented by a well-studied scientist who is well known for his research. This is one of the best interviews I have watched and it is well-prepared.
It is simply incorrect to say that stochasticity means "randomness that can't be predicted". And Noble doesn't use the concept in this way. Stochastic systems can range from being entirely unpredictable to being highly reproducible and predictable, including in biological systems.
Maybe that only applies to biology? In statistics, what the second part of your statement describes is a deterministic system. Stochastic is used interchangeably with random AFAIK.
@@kabubagachugu7729In statistical Mechanics a stochastic system can be predicted in certain circumstances. You can't predict how a single particle is going to move, but you can predict how pressure affects temperature and volume. You can predict averages. And maybe there is a way to predict how evolution tends to behave. Maybe there are equations of state that describe evolution in a macro scale.
Standard definition--randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely. Peter Hoffman does a great job of describing how cells harness random "molecular storm" of water molecules to power life processes. Book = Life's Ratchet
The word cant mean yeah and nay at the same time. Or it means stable and reproducible or any mix or the opposite, can't be both, otherwise the word is just system, therefore, saying esthocastic system is nonsense.
Really interesting conversation, and masterfully edited. Your inclusion of asides to explain concepts really adds a lot of value to the presentation. New sub!
I think Noble speaks a lot of sense but doesn't go far enough. The reason why neo-darwinists loved the gene centric model was that it didn't have to consider the crazy complexity of biological systems, precisely because in doing so it places crazy levels of constraints of what a blind purposeless process can do. Noble is essentially promoting irreducible complexity without naming it. The discussion about somehow mindless chemistry is ingrained with purpose (but it isn't purpose really folks) is just nonsense. At bottom, these are the endless circular conversations we're now going to have to be subjected to, where somehow the word 'emergence' explains everything, and only because the field is irrationally limiting itself to methodological naturalism.
Actually what you are describing is part of so called Neo-Darwinism, where biomes and cycle of replacement of all the species associated with them is part of that theory. And gene centric model is still part of that.
Please, Andrea, keep up your work and content. This is the first video of yours I've seen, (YT algo picking you up by looks of recent comments) and it is absolutely masterfully done. The world needs hosts/creators like you to give voice and spotlight to people and ideas in an ever polarizing and rigid world.
I love how sharp your analysis skills are and how you handle these conversations.. this one was very insightful just like the one with Penrose. I'd love to see Donald Hoffman here too someday if you are interested in his conscious realism theorem.
FANTASTIC! A conversation btwn a knowledgeable, prepared, bright interviewer with an actual SCIENTIST about profoundly important and interesting cutting edge science, placing it in context by referring to hundreds of years of science. Appreciate Denis for his past and current work; his ability to communicate with humor and respect for both colleagues and a general audience, plus the (actual) intellectual humility and epistemological uncertainty science requires. TY, to Denis, Andrea, the BBC (and YT). Those commenting have the basic education to follow this conversation, and some possess much more basis to contribute ideas here (thanks to good universities and/or perspicacious, intelligent self-education and continuing engagement with science). Not everyone sadly will have familiarity with Karl Popper, or Thomas Nagel )the latter by ref to the title of his essay “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”). Kudos to Andrea for subtitling the screen during some of those key references (eg Karl Popper). Without historical context or familiarity with necessary concepts like epistemological uncertainty, and understanding that science is ALWAYS “ongoing,” people increasingly consume pseudoscience mistaking it for science - incl via so many tiresome, “surface” podcasts on YT, where presenter or interviewer (or both) don’t have the faintest idea what they’re talking about or the language with which to express complex ideas simply. TY!
17 minutes into the video: Dr. Noble is creating another milestone of accolade. To put his idea in one complete sentence: a particular human genome is programmable thus may evolve because of a set of factors like environment, breeding, habits, nutrition to name a few. I made this comment to help me remember this concept. A remarkable feat indeed. Thank you. P.S. It was like they're saying: we all have the same common genes yet some don't get sick that that particular brings. And what's crazy is that some people have the perfect set of healthy genes yet suffer the same disease or illness.
There is no perfect set of genes, either youd be too hot or too cold, it would be too bright or too dark for vitd etc. Whatever set of genomes you have, you have pros and cons My perfect breeding genes are DO NO, NOT WANT.
Yes, but the issue here is that while your genes change because of environment, breeding, habits, nutrition etc. and so many other factors, all of THOSE changes does not leave ANY impact on the genes that are given to NEXT generation and should not. In other words - by definition nothing that can impact your genes from evironment can be called evolution, but cataclysm. Evolution is only about survivability of individuals and groups and if there is involvement of intellect and habits - that plays bigger roles than genes in that mechanism. There is no interface where environment impacts genes. If your sperm or eggs are damaged for example by X-Ray - that is generally a bad thing and will leave a substantial impact on your next generation, however overall that damage can be healed(for DNA, but apparently not for mtDNA), when they will further interbreed with other individuals, that have not had their DNA damaged. (There is exception to that, - there are some organisms, that have evolved from cancerous cells - currently it is under question of there exists multicellular life, that has developed from cancerous cells, but it might be possible that it is also the case) Also, genes does not prevent illnesses - they allow to co-exist with them. Your surprise about that people with better genes(by what definition?) are suffering the same illnesses looks like a false example - within the same society it is impossible that there exist some person with better? genes, than his relatives or people that have simlar autosomal DNA, that can actually prevent disease unlike others, that have to go through this illness. Unless they are fresh migrants with immunitiy agaisnt Nile virus or are mixed offsprings of a migrant and local, that pure bred locals simply does not have. Many things in health also contain chance of luck - some people do not get blood poisoning from swimming in the sea, but some who swim near pollution with open wounds get that. That rarely has anything to do with genes. I would suggest some good read about history how modern evolution theory evolved, as this lady is showing some bias suggesting that there is a significant definition between Darwins ideas and modern Evolution theories based on Darwins ideas, compared to what? There is currently Epigenetic ideas, that are challenging some of the gaps of current evolution theory, but that really would not change default Evolution ideas, but will hopefully add better explanations for evolutionary changes that seems to be caused by environment(it still stands correct that environment that affects your nonreproductive genes are not given to your next generations, but the DNA that is getting corrupted and play no role in your adaptations) - we still are not sure what is effect of parenting in old age(when DNA defects are starting to show up more than younger parents have them) - we do not know how much pollution(when plastic is found in brains and apparently that means - that viruses can easier get into organism as well)is is part of those defects, etc., however evolution is about survivability and there are many animals that are going to extinct and genes, regardless how much they are changing them, are still not playing any part in their chances to survive like other external factors.
This conversation was the most insightful discussion I have ever herd on a scientific topic. It required both of you to make this happen. I am wowed by this.
They are brilliant, but they are also clearly biased and want to make themselves/humanity feel more special than perhaps is the case. I'm extremely sceptical of any idea that magically puts us in the special position because throughout centuries we always got burnt by that notion.
@TheCabIe I really don't think Penrose is trying to make humanity "special" though. He has accurate observations that we don't really know what consciousness is and he is trying to figure it out.
Penrose holds a Nobel laureate and has done dozens of studies in his respective field. He's widely respected by his peers although eccentric in a field that's not very established. Noble has done exactly 0 in evolutionary biology, is completely unknown in a field where the mechanisms are very well established and constantly makes demonstrable mistakes. Comparing the 2 is either insulting or a sign of severe ignorance on the matters at hand.
Dennis is highly intelligent...which is very rare. This shows in his openness and humility...characteristics not found in the big talkers with huge egos.
Very little of what happens in the human body is done by conscious will of the human. But the human does consciously provide the ingredients the body needs to survive and live. It is like providing the right program to your computer to create a spreadsheet. Without that program being provided by the human that spreadsheet could not be created EASILY. Yes a calculator could be used but the time needed would be far greater. Once the spreadsheet is created it can be set up to auto populate and continue and propagate into the future.
At 38:00, I have a hard time distinguishing the ‘traditional’ from Nobel’s view. Whether it is the organism inducing changes in the dna, or micro-evolution, it’s still the same processes occurring within the immune system? I don’t see how this form of ‘purpose’ creeps in here as you say it does, though perhaps someone can help clarify.
He is saying that evolution isn't random (as neo-darwinism / 'tradition' holds) but directly related to informational input from elsewhere in the organism, i.e. the result of feedback from the environment and the state of the system as a whole. Put a different way: he is claiming that DNA changes are (on the whole) functional, not random, because part of a feedback loop that neo-darwinism denies exists.
@@furtherback6131 but doesn’t the traditional view harbor non-randomness as well, ie when we get a bit of a virus naturally we will try to copy it in our controlled environment to evolve defenses?
@@anywallsocket On an individual level but I belive he is saying that that single encounter causes genetic adaptation to occur so offspring can also deal with that virus. Whereas the current theory would say the encounter with the virus will only affect the organisation that encountered it but leave the offspring unaltered. That's the weismann barrier. So you could catch some new disease and then your body would recreate an antibody to counter it, but also alter your DNA so that your offspring can also deal with it innately.
@@anywallsocket Evolution is always talking about the progression from one organism to the next organism. A single organism doesn't evolve. It just adapts within its given parameters and inherent capacities.
@@plaiche Well, we know and have known for over a decade that genes and how they express themselves are due to environmental stimuli (epigenetics), this was a missing key since in the past people often argued if it is nature or nurture, that is, is it genes or is it environment? epigenetics prove that it is both.
@@Danuxsy But it goes further than that in my reading. Relegating dna to a dynamic tool when incorporating the cell/organisms responses to stimuli. This is further reinforced by research proving the Weismann barrier to be a failed hypothesis. So yes, both, but random selection is not driving the ship, and determinism is highly problematic.
@@plaiche there cannot be anything other than randomness or determinism in the Universe (in homo sapiens there is strong evidence that the latter is true), you are a product of biology interacting with environment, so are your thoughts and desires. Determinism is not "highly problematic", in fact our societies would most likely be better off if we embraced this fact and began seeing people for what they truly are, biological machines. It is also a much more helpful worldview than the idea of free will which is mostly kept alive by religion (which relies on it being true)
I'm a very unscientific agnostic. Yet I very much enjoyed listening( but not really understanding this conversation. You're an extraordinarily bright and beautiful young woman!
I’m beginning to think that the ultimate goal of scientists is to live until their hair is white and wispy and purposely neglect any form of its management.
Wispy hair is hard to manage. Efforts are made to no avail. But I do think vanity tends to fall away when your mind is busy thinking through more important matters. 😅
@@Catwitchtarot On the contrary, I believe the wispy threads are All vanity. They’re just what remains of what they can muster as an image. Someone that didn’t care would just buzz it all off and be done with it.
@@jimj9040 Buzzing it off could be viewed as vanity just as well, as some may consider it a way to look better. As you say the whisps are merely an attempt to muster an image. Shaved head could be an attempt at mustering a different image just the same.
This interview is missing one crucial block to form a visceral understanding of how autocatalytic processes work. Denis Noble missed this monumental point when describing life as a process around 56:45 1) Life is a property of matter. 2) "Any process" involving matter does(!) require a reason, and that reason is existing within a thermodynamic inequilibrium. As soon as equilibrium is reached, all processes cease. Life can only exist on an energy gradient. The local gradient we have on Earth is formed by the planet cooling itself against the space, mostly via radiative cooling, while receiving new heat and photons from the Sun and radioactive decay inside of itself. An easy way to compehend this is the metal analogy: most metals will be liquid at high temperatures but start forming an ordered crystal lattice that didn't exist before one atom at a time while being cooled down to room temperature. Some atoms like carbon (due to their outer electron level) can form and reform into different molecules of almost infinite complexity when there is an appropriate energy gradient. Most life on Earth can only use the high-quality potential energy of chemical bonds (digesting) to upkeep itself, but plants, microalgage and cyanobacteria intercept photons from the Sun directly and use that to assemble matter. This is also why carbon life can only exist within a very narrow temperature band (0-100C, because all organic matter requires either H or O as inputs at some point), and mammals within a fraction of even that. Our bodies only function within roughly 35-44C, and are designed to spend energy to cool or heat up when outside the perfect (36.6C) band.
I don't know if he's missing a point or if he just has different beliefs. You sound like one of those reductionists he's talking about. I'm guessing you don't believe in the immortal soul
@@humanerror7 He is just stating facts 🤷♂️ What does any of this have to do with "souls"? Let's turn it around: isn't the very idea of souls and spirits a dogmatic and oversimplified to explain feelings, consciousness and intelligence? It is very much on the level of love "being" in the heart.
@@juliusfucik4011 and I suppose you don't believe in 'trusting your gut' either? Saying that love isn't in the heart...what nonsense. Just another example of this lame reductionist stylistic trend which has dominated popular science for the last century or so.
That's exactly what I was thinking (as a student completing his master studying the thermodynamical processes guiding DNA replication in eukaryotic cells)! There is no novel purpose arising within the process of evolution (as Noble explained), only a constant re-engineering (and optimization) of one basic purpose which is common to every living things and simple organic molecules like the first short RNAs which formed a few billions years ago (and even tornados or snowflakes): dissipating energy. As the environment and the physical properties of the Earth's atmosphere and soil change, these complex systems (organic molecules and now cells) slowly acquire new ways and mediums in which to dissipate heat in a more efficient way (and that is the mechanism lying under the macroscopic process of evolution which is natural selection). As my molecular genetic professor once told me; "Insects didn't evolved wings because of how much it increased their reproductive capabilities, helps them find new sources of food or evade predators (although it sure does from a macroscopic point of view), no. They evolved wings because in the end, it allowed them to radiate more energy (coming originally from the sun) back in the air, then back into space". A clear observation of this is how, when left undisturbed for long enough (without extinction event), life on Earth will tend to differentiate and radiate into more and more complex and highly specific species. Because it is much more efficient for the thermodynamical forces at play on Earth searching to dissipate the energy constantly coming from the sun, to have millions of species highly adapated to a precise ecological niche (like a species of bird eating only one type larva at said altitude inside the amazonian forest) VS having a few thousand species highly resistant to many environment and able to sustain rapid environmental changes (like a raccoon or a brown bear). A good analogy to this phenomena is if you imagine an empty squared box that you want to fill as much as possible with balls of various sizes. If you put 3 or 4 tennis balls inside the box, you will likely have some empty spaces in the corners of the box and between the balls due to their roundness and size. But if you put many marble or even grain of salt-sized balls in the box, you will be able to fill it up much more efficiently. In this exemple, you can imagine the energy radiating from the sun as being the empty space inside the box (which itself can be seen as the Earth) and the balls as the ways in which matter will form complex structures to dissipate that energy! And for the physicists reading this, although this results in an increase of the entropy of the universe (which is the whole point of energy dissipating structure), this process is kept running on Earth because of the fact that we are in an open system (which is opposed to the presumed closed system that is the universe and in which enthropy always as to increase)! The sun constantly sends energy on our planet which is then re-engineered into complex structures (tornados, organic molecules, etc.) by thermodynamic processes which are themselves guided by the simplest law in the universe : the normal law.
But there is no need to explain these things. >>>As soon as equilibrium is reached, all processes cease. I would nitpick, that what you are describing as a Life are only chemical reactions(while definition of Life requires continuity through reproduction among other things) but we generally do not consider those processes as life - we do not consider Sun as life, even if Sun(and death of it) is crucial part in generating anything that is past Hydrogen on Mendelyeev table and death of Sun will be generating new Sun or Suns. Anyway, we as beings do not need to be bothered not only by chemical reactions, but also how our belly is going to be stuffed to do those processes. Even moose is not guided by the need to find food, not to mention people, where only most primitive ones are guided by schemes on how to get rich and get more money... Also, while our body cells are doing very specialized actions, we do not consider them as life(white blood cells can exist and hunt on their own their whole lifetime), but we consider life as organisms, that are guided by virtual and non material actions born in our brains. There is probably the issue, that we are using the same words for describing different things, but the topic of this video is centered around Human Life.
51:26 The purpose of evolution is simply SCR， Survival，Contro1，Reproduce，even before life。 1:10:19 There’s a way that when we have models and we tell stories about something works, we can look at the evidence and them parse our assumptions and, go, let’s have this team of scientists run off with an assumption to tell the story this way, and this team run off and tell the story this way, and both of them have the evidence, and we’ll just see who’s more right after 20 years. Here is a structural model for that, for natural selection. We all saying “NATURAL SELECTION” but no one define the meaning of Nature in a structural model.
I was skeptical that the title was just clickbait, or "sneakily" trying to promote Creationism, but I'm glad I watched through this whole interview. Well explained and well handled by the both of you. I fully agree that Science is best when we challenge previous assumptions about reality, and put them to the test against alternate models. I also understand why the overall scientific community has been hesitant to fully consider these ideas. "Harnessing stochasticity" and the idea that an organism, or even a cell, could influence its own genes/epigenetics from the top-down, is truly fascinating. Looking forward to learning more about this and seeing how well it stands over time.
Just found your channel. LOVE LOVE LOVE! Finally something profoundly interesting on RUclips. One question, how is it that Noble’s environment goes through diurnal lighting and clothing changes but your lighting and environment has no change even though you sit in front of the natural light of windows? Did you re-record your questions and responses in one sitting for production effect?
I'm so glad you're enjoying these videos. They're fun to make. I got a similar question on my last video where Roger and I went to some trouble to match our clothes in an effort to maintain a modicum of continuity, but it's just too difficult, as you point out, since sources in the UK are 5 hours ahead. So, it's always day for me and sometimes evening for them.
I think Andrea lives in a Platonic universe of ideal forms where it is always bright and sunny. Quite a propos since her interviewing skills are pure perfection!
You bring such an extraordinary amount of research and understanding to these interviews. And that makes such an enormous impact on your ability to engage and ask so many fantastic questions on these complex topics. I have now watched your interview with Roger Penrose 3 times. That’s how much I love it! I can already tell that this is one that I will return to over and over again. Thank you so much for making your remarkable work available to all of us! It is such a gift!! ❤
Yet another fantastic interview! You’re a very gifted journalist. Please replicate yourself 10 times we can see way more interviews of great thinkers by you!
The way I see evolution is its explaining B to C, but not explaining A to B. Evolution doesn't answer the origins of life, it explains how life evolved over time.
This was very interesting. I can not help thinking about the biologist Michael Levin and his work. He is arguing that each of us is "a collective intelligence of groups of cells". In his conversation with Curt Jaimungal "Michael Levin: Consciousness, Cognition, Biology, Emergence" he is refering to Noble's work. Could be interesting to get a conversational connection there.
@@telwood15 OK, now I've googled it. Apparently, it was a Ferranti Mercury computer he used, not the Colossus designed by Tommy Flowers nor the Bombe designed by Alan Turing.
I do wish I could talk to this guy and find out if he worked with Dr. William W.L. Glenn, who invented the pacemaker that has kept my brother on the right side of the dirt for 55 years now.
31:14 the selfish gene doesn't mean that humans are born selfish, Dawkins himself has addressed that. I also don't think he's dogmatic, you'd just need evidence to change his mind. -- So while you'd be free to say his position is like a religion, you'd be wrong. I also find it interesting that you're using religion as a pejorative here.
@@donnievance1942 I don't have a problem with it, however I find it interesting/funny when religious people use it that way. It's like an admission that they know religion isn't a good thing.
It ís like removing all pistons from a car and yet the car still works because the car itself found a new pathway to achieve locomotion. I’m sure you’d consider a piston to be a component. But in the new pathway, it may not be as important due to finding another pathway to achieve the same goal
He is saying you can remove a currently critical component and life will adapt in real time to finding another way to accomplish the same goal. Obviously the previously critical component is no longer critical in this new paradigm
is it possible that there are layers to consciousness to the end that one layer could be doing something and aware of something while another sublayer could be doing other things that the first layer wasn’t actively aware of? So your highest layer of consciousness would be your mind that’s doing every day tasks in the physical world while a lower layer controls body functions.
Andréa, I’m so pleased that I stumbled upon your channel. Your discussions are very interesting and not dumbed, to the oversimplification, for pop-sci consumption. The receipts are shown and we can springboard into our own explorations of paths heretofore unknown. Excellent and I’m a new subscriber. Good work!
Very much agree. Not to be critical, but since you mention it - many interviewers are simply unprepared to converse with their interviewees. But many are, and we're all learning
Love how you interject with amazing explanation and detail inside the conversation…. This channel is my new home for real scientific research and interviews… Magic stuff!!!❤
Nah that shit annoys the fuck out of me. I look at it as disrespectful to the guests, and patronizing to the viewers. If she wants to do the elementary school summarizing shit then she should stick to that in entirely separate videos or even a different channel. I want to hear the guests in full pure form, no lengthy cuts that COMPLETELY break and derail the natural flow of a guest's explanations. Just so she can do it... And break it down for us midwits.
@40:00 min in, how would the your theory adjust if you consider the singular organism, rather as a multitude of organism making up & regulating the purpose of the larger biological vessels (body) & therfore the homeostasis & protection of the larger organism that it lives on?
At 59, im getting the education I wasnt interested in as a teenager thanks to wonderful conversations like these on RUclips... I find such a wonderful crossover and connection between the works of Iain Mcgilchrist, Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup and Denis Noble...and if you're also dipping your toes in Advaita Philosophy, it really presents a very thought provoking framework to consider life and the purpose thereif...😊
How does evolution of purpose violate neodarwinism? Genes create organisms that are selected to efficiently propagate those genes and if "purpose" is a quality that serves this cause then so be it ....
@@mahasamatman12 Huh? He proposed an entirely valid argument, which is held by most biologists, that the modern synthesis is still sufficient to explain most biological features in terms of natural selection.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Well, if you think equating purpose with ""a quality" is a valid argument, there's nothing I can do for you. Maybe you should start with some basic notions of logical reasoning and then look at epistemology ?
@@mahasamatman12 What he meant was that purpose refers to the adaptive value provided by the feature, which necessarily increases the fitness of the organism. That is one of Tinbergen's four questions that are meant to investigate the proximate and ultimate causes for the emergence of a given biological feature. The other three questions, by the way, engage with the ontological development of the feature, the mechanisms that allow for the arrival of that feature, and the phylogenetic history of the organism in which that feature arose. I'm not sure what this has to do with the basic tenets of logical reasoning or epistemological standards. It appears that you're unfamiliar with how biological research is carried out in the 21st century, which still hinges on the modern synthesis' findings and processes.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 I would rather suggest that you are unfamiliar with what serious science looks like in the 21 th century. Since Darwin's time, physics have discarded the concept of ether, replaced Newton's theory of gravitation by general relativity and are looking to replace it by some quantum gravity theory. Biologists, on the other hand, are desperately clinging to a 19th century theory - conceived at a time when a cell was seen as a blob of jelly - which has become a cultural norm and and unbreachable dogma even though it hardly passes the test of a truly scientific theory. Likewise the indoctrinated public worships this collection of 19th century anecdotes as MAGA morons worship trump, unaware of the requirements of a real, serious, scientific theory. There are even people in the comments section of RUclips videos who are are willing to explain that teleological processes are in fact , a feature of darwinian evolution !
I skipped this video several times as it was suggestive of thinly disguised creationism; I’m very glad that, at length, I gave it a full hearing. It’s incredibly ironic that Richard Dawkins has become the Guardian of the Dogma for this entire area of human inquiry. There must be, somewhere deep inside him, a recognition that he has become more-or-less the same as that which he, in his other life as one of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism, so charismatically and successfully attacked. This from a man who, in one of his books, proudly lauded the acquiescence of an old, renowned Oxford professor to a competing theory when exposed to powerful evidence that refuted his own position. Dawkins described how much respect he and his classmates had for that professor, and cited the incident as being an outstanding example of the power of science to make our way towards discovering truth. Yet he seems to have either forgotten all about it, or cannot yet see himself in the role of the Source of Knowledge, still feeling himself a scrappy underdog. I don’t have any way to effectively communicate with Dr. Dawkins. If I did, I would urge him to remember that story he told, and that example he held so dear. On the issue described in the video, and even more so on the issue of transexualism, the evidence for which is overwhelming and doesn’t even require a modification of genetic determinism, I would ask that he accept the mantle of reasoned acquiescence exemplified by that professor. There are very few among his supporters or detractors who would not respect and honor him all the more for it. Particularly in these times, we need outstanding examples of contrition and reasoned compromise, not intransigence and bull-headedness. p.s. It also occurs to me that this paradigm might provide more satisfying, as more testable, hypotheses for an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality - something with which the gene-centric view has struggled mightily…though I’ve come to believe the concept of homosexuality has shown itself to be far too constrained…
@@juliuscaesar8163 , As far as that goes, of course he believes himself to be right. But that’s the problem. He’s usually a pillar of fact-based reasoning, but on the issue of transsexuality at least, he is factually, provably, demonstrably wrong. If the issue concerned the life cycle of eels, or even the durability of the gene-centric emphasis of evolutionary theory, one might avoid being “dramatic” and let it slide. But Dawkins is a widely respected authority, and his errors regarding this issue hurt actual people. People who happen to belong to a tiny, ostracized, stigmatized minority currently under attack by exploitative forces using them as scapegoats for all kinds of unrelated societal ills. Whatever he believes, his very public, very wrong statements on this issue have to be called out.
Seems to be setting up a false dilemma, epigenetics and phenotypical expression, is demonsterable and well understood. I don't understand why these old men are still arguing. Granted I'm only 10 minutes in, let's hope this actually becomes interesting.
Exactly.... And we also went through the "Vitalism" woo woo before. It's annoying that certain biologists want evolutionary theory to put there niche mechanisms upfront....while not presenting anything that removes natural selection and the outrageous body of irrefutable testable verifiable material evidence that has been gathered confirming it. Noble has a lot of work to do to convince anyone of his Vitalism 2.0
@@alextomlinson Vitalism was an old debunked theory that thought that organizations of non living matter cannot ever produce living entities. (IE-Organic chemistry cannot exist). That there is essentially something magical inherently in living entities that is not present in non living matter and can never be present in non living matter. There is more to it, but that is the gist. It was disproven entirely by the advancement of organic chemistry. (IE- I take 2 inorganic compounds and create an organic compound).
1:09:56 in making this point, an important part of Kant’s first, critique is precisely this insight - that science begins with a ‘monograma’ the idea of an outline, a scaffolding of the whole to even begin its purpose. This “whole” is a pure idea of reason, a schema. Moreover all the discussion here on self-organizing principles and processes of “organisms” (a Kantian naming, see Third Critique) is precisely Kantian. Both a basis for and the implications of any “new” biology today will forever be inexorably philosophical. Reality is a non-dual whole that, in thought, we can “think” processes, structures and “things” but these are mere reifications for the use of the understanding, which in turn has its purposiveness (a Kantian term) for the organism, and so on and so on.
"Science is reconsidering" I'm glad you interviewed Mr. Science himself who we all know speaks on behalf of all science and scientists. Very impressive
Without longtermism, this man will be erased. I should make him the inly beneficiary of my will, in the meantime. I like him, but i am also responsible for forcing myself to like him. It's so fresh to see him every time. Nobody is like that. I've never seen it in my life. I've never felt this way in my life. We must elevate and protect this man from so many types of nonsense. I know exactly how to do that.
Why do you need to force yourself to like him? He’s a great guy, and a great scientist and explainer. He doesn’t need to be liked by anyone but I’m sure he is liked widely. I’ve never even heard him speak before.
Not sure how I stumbled upon this, as I usually lurk, not logged in and behind a VPN and such, which gives me an often disheartening pie slice of what the majority of people find interesting (which can be interesting itself), since the google has no profile to work its algo magic with. So, I've taken off my anonymizing mask to log in and say that this channel contains some of the best science journalism I've seen on the internet. I've read bits about Mr. Noble but now I feel I have a greater understanding of what's going on. Will subscribe.
Why do you want him so badly to say that cells are conscious? He didn't say they are, so in a way he does think we're special 😄 *Cognitive like Ai, that's what he says. That's very different from "consciousness", everyone knows Ai is not conscious. You should pursue the truth not try to bend things to fit a perspective you wish or suspect is true
If microbes are cognitive only on the level of AI, why would that make them "not conscious"? Consciousness is not a concept tied to the notion of how smart something is. Many, "not smart" beings, including some humans, are nevertheless conscious. Your glib statements about consciousness imply a total obliviousness to the philosophical topic of what consciousness is. It's considered to be one of the most difficult and elusive problems in ontology. There is a broad consensus that consciousness cannot be reduced to any of its constituent items, like cognition, memories, emotions, or even the bare, minimal elements of sense perception. These would seem to be the contents of consciousness, not consciousness itself-- which would seem to be a property underlying all these things. There is a position called panpsychism which holds consciousness to be integral to all physical existence, right down to the subatomic level, and that consciousness can be simply regarded as the interior aspect or "perspective from the inside " of physicality. This does not mean that the consciousness involved in a single electron has human or animal-like contents, such as cognitive process, emotions, or memories. The panpsychist position does not pretend to answer the analytic question of "what consciousness is," but it aims to eliminate the objectionable aspects of substance dualism-- the notion that reality is divided between fundamentally different sorts of substance: physical substance and some sort of spiritual substance, like consciousness or the "soul." Like substance dualism, or vitalism, the attempt to explain consciousness through the systems concept of "emergence" is fraught with problems. Panpsychism eliminates most, or all, of these problems through the simplifying concept that the physical and the conscious are a unitary identity. It's route to this concept is through the unpretentious mechanism of Occam's Razor. There simply was no explanatory need to adopt a dual concept in the first place. We can build a perfectly functional ontology without it. Panpsychism has a special problem of its own, which I'm not ambitious enough to go into in this YT comment.
I no longer understand the meaning of consciousness and intelligence. They seem to describe some concept, that, whenever you try to specify, dissappear in front of your eyes.
@@clashmanthethird We know they're not conscious the same way we know rocks aren't. Funny enough they literally run on a type of rock material. It's had to speak with absolute certainty about almost anything, but if you want to say AI is conscious you'd probably need more evidence and justifications than I do to say they're not
@14:08 as a portrait artist, I've come to realize, I ONLY notice about 12 different eye shapes, 10 ish mouth shapes, about 8 forehead shapes, and maybe about 9 noses. Go ahead... examine this. You pass by humans all the time, go ahead see if your uncles hands are on that one, is that eyebrow identical to your grampas? Notice the hair? How many textures of hair do YOU see in your world? About 8? Point being, I've come to understand we are a very limited visual difference in comparison to each other.
Humans used to be a lot more diverse too (we killed or interbred with a lot of them and whats left is kinda the averagings out of currently) I wonder what it was like I see the world a little more granularly: Inwards to outwards nose bridge slope/buldge gradient Nose width at bridge gradient Nose width at nostril gradient Tip of nose size Tip of nose roundness/angularness gradient Nostril diameter in round nostrils Nostril circle to bean to slit 3 point spectrum Nostril length in more bean or slit shaped nostrils Total nose size related to face Presence of snout How the nose pulls on the upper lip Distance from nose to lips Nose connected to eyebrows Crinkles around the nose type and severity Inflammation of nose Tight or loose cartilage Bloodflow to nose Nose hairs: Texture Color Length Nose moisture/mucus Shininess of nose Size of pores on nose Skin oiliness to dryness scale (it loops around too) But they tend to be concentrated more often together
Underneath the empirical disagreement between Noble and Dawkins there may also be an emotional and behavioral contrast, the difference between a conservative and liberal personality potential. Discomfort with ambiguity is one trait of a conservative personality, as might be expressed by Dawkins in his adamant embrace of a Cartesian order behind emergence, a reassuring systematic control of purpose by genes. Noble more easily accepts an absence of codified orderliness, perhaps reflecting a more liberal personality tendency. As to their politics - that is irrelevant.
If you're watching on a desktop just install an Ad-blocker extension compatible with your browser. I personally use U-Block Origin but there are many other. If watching on your phone, get Brave browser and watch the video on there instead of on the app. The browser should come with an adblocker already.
It amazes me that the questions the interviewer makes, push the actual boundaries of the interviewed vision, rather than only talking about things constrained into the interviewed view of the subject. I can tell that Noble reinforced his view on this topic after the interview, and even reached a new level of understanding of his own theory. That's the PURPOSE of an interviewer.
The greatest impediments to scientific progress are bias and egoism (pride). We have developed the scientific method to counter bias, but we ate still plagued with egoism. Egoism emerges when a scientist makes a evidentiary and convincing argument against a scientific axiom. If he isn't convincing, he will only generate a few stares or laughs. But if he is convincing, he will arouse stern criticism, censor, and even anger. This is because he stepped on the selfish pride of other scientist. Their subconscious mind is saying: "I have known this to be true my entire career, and you come around and tell me I'm wrong, enlightening poor me, as if this whole time I was too blind or dumb to see this myself". No matter how careful you are to avoud stepping on their fragile egos, it often doesn't work, because like other animals, we humans are mostly ruled by our innate primordial proclivities. Out of all of our innate proclivities, status (rank, peaking order, ego, etc) appears to drive our behavior the most. Scientist across many scientific endeavors have complained about this primordial behavior from other colleagues. I've seen it in anthropology, cancer research, chemistry, medicine: to name a few. Those finding complex problem solving skills in animals, and some tool use were initially shunned. Those promoting the water-ape theory still receive an angry response, even though the traditional theory explaining why we humans are hairless (essentially not actually) is absurd. When cancer research was making little progress over decades, those suggesting novel approaches were initially often given the same harsh treatment. Recently, a scientist offered unrefutable evidence that fossil fuels predominantly are not formed from fossils, and he is being ignored, censored, and attacked.
@@cyberWarrior7519 I'm not the type of person that critizes people because of their looks, weight, lack of intelligence, etc. I don't like such bullies. But I don't know how to describe you without appearing this way. You are clearly as blind as someone with no eyes. Now that the unrefutable facts are out of the way, the question is how can people become this blind? Is it lack of intelligence, usually not. It is usually the same reason that I mentioned in my original comment: narcissism (status, ego, rank, etc), the greatest of our primordial proclivities. So Ironically, because you are an animal with the instincts thereof, you can't see that you are an animal. Yes, it's comical, but reality is sometimes this way.
@@DoctorDoom69 That's true at the margins, but senile decline is a disease, not normal aging. Persons with active mental lives often develop mental skills throughout life that over-ride the marginal organic decline. I'm 76. My properly measured (not a self-test on the internet) IQ is 132. My SAT scores were in the 97th (math) and 99th (English language skills) percentiles, respectively. My SATs would probably drop off if I took them now, but that's mainly because I've been away from school for so long. I'm pretty confident that I could ace out 95%+ of the population, and that probably includes you. All I have to do to figure that out is to look at your poor capitalization and punctuation. You wouldn't have done well on the English section. Your YT handle doesn't give a very promising impression either. I know you think it's clever, but that is what somebody like you would think, isn't it? Smart people don't announce, "I'm STOOPID!" to the world. So, you think that it's "endearing" that Dennis Noble is way more intelligent than you are? Now, that's really funny. Been writing any books on the complex system dynamics of genetics and evolution lately?
Noble is one grand evidence of Humane Intelligence in the Sciences. Mechanistic thoughts, he dissolves on every single phrase; a true Genius. Undead, are the ones who cannot learn from this giant scientist of our times. Thanks for this magnificent interview!
30:08 - "I am ok with attributing Purpose to an organism like myself, or to a cat, or to a mouse ...". So just to reject the idea of Creator, you attribute high-level attributes to practically every single thing that breathes? You don't believe in a God, but believe in countless gods that can run this whole thing we call Existence in unison, as a result of collective effort? Because attributing high-level features to everything does exactly mean that. It's not only about life, the whole universe is like that: take exotic particles and quantum realities. Don't accept a High Intelligence that created all of that, you end up attributing all the elements of Design to the Elements that exist: atoms and subatomics know how to do what they do, natural laws know how to act and react; endless amount of these things know how to act in this fabric of existence. The endless number of gods, this is. No wonder we live in dark ages. When I was a kid, I loved Science (as in "scientific methodology"). But as I grew and learned more, the whole paradigm started to become excruciatingly painful and dark. All the time you see different types of zealots trying to push their convictions, labeling all that a "scientia". Don't any of these people understand that "scientia without wisdom is blind, and wisdom without scientia is lame"? 42:03 - "Any part of the cell outside the cell is dead"... Why don't you just say all those parts are just that: parts? Part without the whole mechanism is innately "dead". You take the cog, insert it into its socket and bam, it "lives". Why complicate it so much? Viruses are exactly that: compatible components, when inserted, they start working. 44:33 - "It's intelligent...". Again the same way of thinking: you are making countless amount of "things" intelligent, not accepting the concept of Creator. Multiple gods accepted instead of One. Just because we can't see a material agency between what is happening and the Doer, it doesn't mean it's not there. Wisdom is in recognition of that fact. What you guys are doing is absolutely ruling out these possibilities just to get rid of the notion of creation. 51:16 - "Purpose and ... developed." How? It can't develop itself ("Munchhausen's beard"), it can't appear and develop BY itself. Just happened without intelligent agency? No proverbial "hand" in all this? 53:23 "... emerges" - That phrase again. Everything that happens the first time and we can't explain the "How come?", we label it with a new word and start building semantic puzzles around it until we convince ourselves in how cool all of it sounds? Self-feeding, endless loop that goes nowhere. 56:04 - 57:30 : See, how greatly you describe the whole process? It's clear, enlightening. Yet, at the end you say "The PROCESS itself does the trick. There is NOTHING there to make it go up and down ... Cartesian dualism: ghost is a machine... There is nothing there, only processes". WHO THE HECK PUT THAT DESIGN IN THERE?! How that "process" came to be? It's like saying "Hook a battery to a lamp, it illuminates. Lamp does nothing by itself, there is nothing of Lamp that makes it light up. It's all battery. Lamp does nothing." - WHO CARES? You hooked the battery. YOU... the BATTERY! None of these things are NOTHING! 57:30: "I don't believe in anything"... That's the problem. In 20-30 yrs time you will become suicidal. I am not trying to be harsh/rude/disrespectful, it's just fact. PURPOSE is the only thing that gives value to our lives. PURPOSE is what creates HOPE, and HOPE keeps us ticking. People like Mr Noble get to an old age because they keep that intellect busy, playing their games constantly, until light goes out. They don't get to become "suicidal"/bored/conflicted. Actually they will come and go back and forth in their thoughts constantly, simply because they are in the frontier of this game. What happens to people like you tho?! You are not "producing" anything like they are - that deficit will dry your sense of PURPOSE, drain your HOPE and the rest ... is just sad statistics. Don't you see that? I feel so sad for nihilists.
I think he makes a really good point about reductionism, I think that can be a problem in science in general. Oftentimes it seems like scientists are looking so closely at the individual pieces they fail to see what emerges from them. And ironically, I think he does the same thing with AI. He is so focused on the building blocks of the thing, he is missing the fact that it is what emerges that matters, and oftentimes what emerges does not resemble the pieces from which it emerged. You can have pieces that are rigid, but through complex structure emerges something fluid.
I'm glad he corrected a fundamental misunderstanding that many have (as did you), namely that evolution brought about life. Evolution presumes the existence of life and proceeds from that point on. As he said, we have little to no idea as to the origin of life. It remains a deep mystery.
@@TheCabIe OK, anyone can dream up an hypothesis but you say there are many "good hypothesis, and I assume you mean that it scientific terms. Please name just two and explain by what scientific criteria you judge them to be "good" and how they meet those criteria? References to one or two key, seminal, scientific journal articles as evidence would help support your assertion)
@@erehwhon *anyone can dream up an hypothesis* You mean just like this guy in the video who did exactly that? I know you're full of shit if you say stuff like "we have little to no idea" about origin of life, like there's no research done or good hypotheses put forward.
@@TheCabIe Can you or can you not name two hypotheses (of the "plenty" that you mention), and point to the key scientific journal papers in support thereof (one or two articles will be fine)? If you cannot, just be honest and say so - otherwise you are just wasting everyone's' time. Maybe, instead, spend your time reading some current microbiology textbooks?
@@erehwhon What's the use, I'm sure you already have counters as to why those particular hypotheses are "void and cannot possibly work" or whatever and yeah, I don't know much about the field to know what's exactly being talked about. But I know enough that we DO have some ideas. You're speaking from a fundamentalist position with your initial statement like "we have no idea".
Andrea, these talks are excellent, and I can only imagine the time and effort that goes into them. I really hope you do more, as you have a very open minded and intelligent approach to topics, themselves deeply researched. This talk by Dennis Noble is mostly in sync with the ideas of Michael Levin (and others) whom I’m sure you are familiar, in particular ideas of cell level, purposeful cognition. That would be an interesting conversation!
No, the scientific community is NOT reconsidering evolution, it remains, as it has been for over 100 years, the foundation of all moder study of biology.
@@walkergarya actually, they reconsidering evolution every other day ... these people are permanently wrong ... every other day, there is another rethink, or something unexpected and surprising, something what shakes up decades-long dogmas etc ... But it is a natural outcome ... these people have been misrepresenting the evidence for 165+ years ....
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries”. Robert Jastrow Dr Noble attempts to not only climb the highest peak, but also, upon encountering the band of theologians throws them off the edge, thereby, in the greatest form of irony (and futility), establishes himself as god.
Not at all. Theologians are ignorant. And they put their faith in god only to be wrong time and time again. Theologians were wrong when they thought the universe was made in 6 days. They were wrong when they thought all suffering was caused by free will, when nature itself produces suffering, they were wrong when they thought that the gospels were written by the names on them, they were wrong when they thought that time was linear, they were wrong about the earth being the center of the universe. And after climbing mountains of ignorance in blind faith to a god that has been wrong, and after moving the goal post so many times the goal is 5 miles away from where it started, finally the theologians are now deceasing in number drastically.
@@thebelmont1995You are so wrong. GOD created life and HE set the parameters of science which he can change at any time. HE does not do so because the repercussions would be great. It’s amazing the small minded who attempt to refute the power of GOD in an attempt to feel as though they have some power themselves. You are dead spiritually and intellectually. The theologians will always remain and be answerable to GOD.
@@onestarabove7027 I am not wrong. God did not create all life. We created god. God is a man made construct. Its amazing how ignorant the religous are. They project their own insecurities onto non believers. Its quite funny. They deny sciences, deny evidence, and deny reality because they are so afraid of being powerless and of their own mortality.
@@onestarabove7027 I am not wrong. Everything I stated was a factual event that happened. God did not create all life. We created god. I feel so sorry for you. You are brainwashed and deny reality. Get well friend.
I think one of the reasons the neo-darwinists have an adversity to this idea, is because it opens one to the idea that purpose can be the driving factor farther back, to the molecules that would make up the chemistry that make up biology; it's easy to draw a line between naturalistic top-down purpose-driven evolution to purpose being core in the sense that the religious or non-religious intelligent design camp have proposed.
There's nothing about Noble's theory that supports the religious idea of divine purpose, except in a sort of free-association metaphorical sense. You may be correct that creationists may try such a trick of rhetorical sophistry, but it will be lame and not something that should worry scientists. You're probably also correct that such considerations are a psychological driver of resistance in the scientific community, but that's lame as well. We don't do science as a PR campaign in philosophical arguments. I'm a rationalist atheist, but I've been opposed to one-way reductionism all my life. Noble's theories validate some ideas I've held throughout adulthood. In particular, I worry about the implications for resurrecting extinct species like the mammoth and the thylacine. If you don't have the egg cell of the mother with its particular mechanisms, how can you reproduce an animal that is accurate to the original mammoth? It's not only the egg cell, but the whole body of the mother that are the developmental context in which the mammoth DNA and the subsequent zygote must progress. There is an intricate biochemical and physical relationship between the zygote as it grows and the mother's physiology, with many elaborate feed-back interactions. While it may be possible to bring a clone to term in the uterus of an Indian elephant, it is surely not possible to produce something that is precisely identical to the original mammoths. Will a baby mammoth clone be able to survive and thrive on modern elephant milk? Will it be able to resist modern elephant pathogens? If it survives it may be possible to use the resultant "mammoth" as a mother surrogate in iterated repetitions of the process to produce animals that converge more and more closely to the original, but I fear that the whole project may be a lot more difficult and expensive than some people, even scientists, now naively assume. Here's where the obliviousness of most biologists to Noble's concept of top-down wholistic and emergent causation becomes a practical issue. There's also the issue of the mitochondria. Are they going to be able to clone mammoth mitochondrial DNA and insert it into mitochondrial intracellular membrane structures in elephant egg cells? It seems like the whole process might have to be done in many, many painstaking stages. And think about the colossal task of doing this with so many different unique sets of mammoth DNA that you create an ensemble of enough genetically distinct individuals to have a viable gene pool just at the level of avoiding a near-term in-breeding catastrophe. A very small group of individuals would not be able to reproductively sustain themselves over the long haul.
Richard Feynman used to tell a story about his graduate students in Quantum Physics. When they started studying under him, they would eventually come to him and say something like, “Dr. Feynman. What you are teaching us doesn’t make sense. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. It just doesn’t make any sense.” Dr. Feynman would reply, “Shut up and calculate. The math works. That’s all that you’re gonna get. Don’t think about it.” Maybe the processes of evolution, like Quantum Mechanics, is beyond any physics or chemistry that we have thus far invented. It just doesn’t make sense, but there might be a theory that describes it without resorting to a higher power. Or it might be that the universe is just beyond our ability to completely understand. The Scientific Method states three things; That the natural world runs on laws, that the human mind can understand these laws, and that we can discover them using the scientific method. But how do we know these are all true?
whatever it is, I don't think it will have anything to do with a higher power or anything supernatural, as there is no such thing as either of those two things, and the answer will be like every other question in history, a natural one.
Earlier in my life I was fascinated by science, and most of my reading was in various fields of science. That was until I realized that most scientists are in fact adherents to one or other form of scientific dogma which is often quite reminiscent of religion, and that they cannot in fact reason beyond the dogma that they have come to adhere to. There are so many examples of this it would fill a book. Also, contrarians are summarily dismissed - again, identical to the way religion does. I do not know whether Noble or Dawkins are closer to correct, although it seems to me that there are limitations to Dawkin's approach which seem problematic. What I do know is that my realization about scientific dogma was correct. I see this manifested in nuclear physics, biology, climatology, and many others. These days I read mostly fiction - that way I can be quite sure that what I am reading is just the viewpoint of the author, and not some doctrine masquerading as deep universal truth.
Denis Noble's perspective aligns with my idea that continuous sperm production throughout a male's adult life serves as an adaptive mechanism. This process allows for the incorporation of environmental influences and stochastic variations, potentially leading to beneficial adaptations. The constant renewal of male gametes provides an opportunity for genetic diversity and responsiveness to changing surroundings. This mechanism could enhance the species' ability to evolve and adapt more rapidly than relying solely on female gametes, which are produced before birth. The ongoing production of sperm may thus serve as a dynamic means of capturing environmental information and generating potentially advantageous genetic variations.
Only this is a complete BS, as sperm is a result of constant division of cells, while eggs were produced before birth. None of that has any impact from environment, as the error rate in production of cells does not come from environment - generally no matter how good environment for males is there, they will be limited by age, where their own cells are going to degrade, that will lead to soon death. Also, very much procreation from males depends on how much testosteron is produced and environment there also plays no role on that. Very primitive approach to this question, that have more variables that has nothing to do with environment.
The more I consider times arrow and emergence, the more I feel time does move in both directions (in a way). That we are falling towards a conclusion in the same way we are flowing from a beginning.
Many scientists have adopted atheism along with Darwinism and have created a new religious dogma that they now cherish and defend like it's a god. Simply seek the truth and seek it always.
@thejabberwocky2819 DOGMA - a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. "the dogmas of faith" RELIGION - pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. "consumerism is the new religion"
@@rogerengland2821 Neither concept matches that definition. That's the point. There is no authority in atheism, nor any principles or sets of principles. Evolution is not laid down as incontrovertibly true, since that isn't how science works. The authority which shows evolution to be reasonably certain to be true, is the empirical evidence and research which supports that conclusion. Neither does evolution have principles. Want to fail miserably again?
@@thejabberwocky2819 I'm not trying to win anything. I'm just starting the obvious hypocrisy and sanctimonious attitude of many persons who call themselves Atheist. They have no proof of their beliefs but collectively act as if they do. This is no different than religious behavior.
@@rogerengland2821 Clearly not. Because you just failed miserably to support your claim that atheism or evolution are dogmatic. Thanks for admitting that you can't and won't do so! Atheism has no beliefs. Evolution is not a belief. Try again.
Interesting interview, but frankly neither the clickbait title nor the clickbait thumbnail is remotely true. (Likewise, the Forbes article is remarkably off-base.) And I say that with nothing but respect for Noble's contributions in systems biology and physiology. Scientists are definitely *not* thinking that evolution may be purposeful, and therefore not freaking out about the possibility. Noble (and Andrea Morris, both here and in Forbes) are badly over-interpreting the polygenic risk score analysis. It will be very unfortunate indeed if some people remember Noble for his misguided ideas in this area rather than his seminal contributions in physiology and biophysics.
Dear Prof Greg, I didn’t "interpret" the polygenic risk score study. I interviewed the lead scientist of the study who explained the findings to me exactly how I explained it. I also spoke with dozens of scientists in this field who do indeed think evolution is purposeful and needs a serious update to reflect that. I reference numerous publicly available peer-reviewed articles and books written by respected scientists in this space. They gave solid reasons why, or I wouldn’t have followed the story. The headline isn’t clickbait as Royal Society members tried to shut down an entire conference which is also documented in both video and article. I appreciate there is disagreement and debate, as I reference in this video and article, and that Noble’s ideas need rigorous testing. I also appreciate your not mischaracterizing my reporting which is painstakingly thorough and fact-checked.
@@VariableMindsthe title "science is reconsidering evolution" implies that evolution and hence its fundamental aspects like natural selection and adaptation is increasingly agreed in statistically significant rates to being false in the scientific community, which is of course not true. The title baits those who believe in christian fundamentalism and creationist ideas - that humans were directly engineered and popped into existence like so. its doing this by suggesting that "scientists agree that evolution did not happen the way we thought it did up until now". its not a direct implication, but is a strong controversial and false suggestion, hence the click-baiting.
@@wnllkmusicof course you are correct. “Science is reconsidering” ??? wtf? The theory of evolution has literal mountains of evidence. Anyone that challenges it without similar scrutiny and volume of evidence is clearly playing the grift game. Or is plain not smart and value their wants and desires more than reality. Lots of people in this category. Silly humans
Who are the “scientists” you are referring to? Those who turned Darwinism into religion sponsored by enormous amounts of grant money? Evolution did take place, but it could not possibly be Darwinian, because its starting point - procaryote is better adapted to any environment than its pinnacle - us. There was simply no advantages for a simple organism to evolve into anything more complex. There must be a different mechanism.
@@wnllkmusicthats not how i took it at all, i understood it as reconsidering how it works, not reconsidering the existance of it entirely
Wow! What a difference the interviewer makes. Dennis Noble is a great mind, but the host did her homework, and brought the best out of him. Thank you Andrea.
Very much. I'm hooked idc who's she's talking to I feel like she's going to get her hooks into the story and find both sides, flush things out
I agree.
Noble isn't a great mind. He consistently demonstrates that he doesn't understand the field he's criticising.
J. Scott Turner has also written extensively about the role desire and purpose play in evolution.
True her questions really make this digestable for someone with limited academic knowledge especially when it comes to biology whew
I'm trying to wrap my head around what he's talking about and she's just right there asking him to define his use of words. It's good to have an interviewer that's much smarter than me. Humbling, informative
My experience exactly, Andrew! "WTF Mr. Noble thinks / talks about" I wondered. And Andrea seems to hit the nails head with her next question.
Its good to read, that I have "brothers in feelings" out there like you. ;)
I'm getting distracted by just trying to understand what the argument are I this comment section
Look how deeply this level and direction of thought is penetrating our society…At This Point in history. We can see here the current urge to squash freedom of speech. This discussion is important in soooo many ways. Prof Noble would thrive in a Socratic world. And our interviewer (my apology, I can’t find her name without losing my place) is a marvelous support for the search for truth and social cohesion. Yea!
Is she married?
Yes, greatest question ;-)
Donald Hoffman's theory of conscious realism postulates that evolution by natural selection is directed towards fitness payoffs and that organisms develop internal models of reality that increase these fitness payoffs. This means that organisms develop a perception of the world that is directed towards fitness, and not of reality. In other words, perceptual experiences do not match or approximate properties of the objective world, but instead provide a simplified, species-specific user interface to that world. Such constraints define purpose, and purpose implies consciousness. Add to this the discovery by theoretical physicists that spacetime, hence matter and energy are not fundamental and we are left with the notion that perhaps consciousness is fundamental and its ultimate purpose is to find a way to escape the constraints it is trapped into.
Well said !
Absolutely agree. Expanding the intelligent observer, reducing entropy and testing the limits of the simulation is our perceived goal.
Sounds a lot like Taoism. Maybe the ancients got it right.
The last sentence sounds like Gnostic teachings. But you could well be right
I think it really comes down to how we define things. Any definition given necessarily takes a particular point of view which excludes other points of view. The so-called "sliders" in Conway's game of life is a great example of what I mean. One could make a perfectly valid argument that what we call sliders are simply a product of how some humans view the changes in the system over time. In some sense there is nothing that moves at all and only grid cells turning off and on based on very simple deterministic rules. However, there is an equally valid frame that says that there are these higher level patterns that can emerge that we label as sliders. If a person doesn't believe in sliders then they don't get to build a universal turing machine out of them like more than one person has in the past. Similarly, if a person doesn't believe in siddhis then they don't get to develop and use them.
When we speak of "consciousness" I think it is important to remember that regardless of which definition we are using it is one of probably infinite roughly equally valid points of view. The more clear a definition is the more exclusionary it is but also often the more useful it is within the scope or frame that it sets. No definition can be perfect and an example to illustrate the point could be how almost soul crushingly hard it is to give a good definition of something as mundane as a drinking cup or a chair. A good definition should include as many cup or chair like objects as possible while excluding as many non-cup or chair like objects as possible. I think the more important question might be "How useful is this framing to me and what can I do with it?" or maybe "How does my prospective change with this perspective?". I've always taken the point of view that where it seems mechanistic reductionism wants to ignore or deprecate the so called higher levels of existence is roughly as equally valid/invalid, true/untrue, etc as the polar opposite idealistic/mystical view which often wants to deny the salience of what lies beneath. I think that framing is more useful than picking either extreme because I can sort of switch back and forth between them depending on the context and utility in that context. Both are useful in different frames but neither is completely true.
Noble's definition of "purpose" when conscious, is the closest description of free will I've seen from any scientist.
So its still purposeless and randomized and all that
Telos is Telos. It is not someone's persuasive definition of Telos.
Unfortunately for some, his definition does nothing to suppose a Godless system. He seems to acknowledge some aspect of this. Though his stance is definitely that there is no ghost in the shell.
@@dunebuggy1292it for sure does not support a god
Here are the key points of this Video:
00:02 Noble's research challenges the concept of the Vican Barrier in evolution
03:02 Darwin considered an additional process to natural selection
08:26 Autocatalytic sets challenge the Gene Centric Theory.
11:08 Science is reconsidering genetic reductionism.
16:43 Genetic determinism challenged by study on polygenic risk scores.
18:54 Genes and proteins have complex causal relationships.
23:11 Challenging the concept of genes as the blueprint of life.
25:25 Evolution has generated purpose in organisms.
30:34 Evolution and purpose in a scientific context
33:10 Living cells have complex structures that constrain the behavior of molecules.
38:05 Organisms can turbocharge natural selection.
40:28 Viruses can reproduce without being alive.
45:09 Unconscious processes can produce purposive behavior without being intentional
48:06 Cells exhibit cognitive abilities in Evolution
52:52 Purpose emerges through constraints within autocatalytic networks
55:31 Purpose can be perceived as a non-conscious process by science.
1:00:00 Reconsidering Darwinism and the central dogma
1:02:08 Challenging the notion of genes as the sole cause
1:06:41 Challenges faced due to expressing views on Evolution
1:09:03 Rethinking paradigms in evolutionary science
1:13:13 Respecting the integrative aspect of living organisms for disease treatment
1:15:23 Debunking of Chomsky's theory of language and limitations of AI
1:20:02 Darwin's death changed the direction of evolutionary theory.
Except the problem is evolution defies the natural laws as we know them.
*Weismann barrier.
nice
I could kiss you on the mouth for this
Thank you so much for this! It is enormously helpful!! ❤
I love the interjections she adds to explain or define what is being discussed and yet those interjections assume audience intelligence. It made this interview much more accessible to those of us who are interested but not entrenched or a professional in the field. Thank you!
Agreed.
I agree. It’s a clever editing decision for an interview. I don’t think I’ve seen that before
I'm glad Noble is still arguing with Dawkins. There's nothing basically wrong with what he says, as there's nothing basically wrong with Dawkins' selfish gene. But we've learned a lot since I worked on the Human Genome project in the early 1990s. (I worked on the cystic fibrosis gene and also did chaos studies with the heart and brain, so there are two specific connections.)
Back then, the canonical view was that almost all of the DNA was junk. It isn't. That overwhelming majority of DNA is for the control structures that turn genes on and off and in-between. If a chemical (not always a protein) sticks to the _junk_ and covers the start codon, the gene will never be expressed. If another chemical sticks to the _junk_ and covers where the first chemical would stick, it turns the gene proactively back on. This is a gross oversimplification just to get the basic idea across, and things are way more complicated. This is basic epigenetics.
Almost all the differences between humans and chimpanzees are epigenetic, so this is big. It's also small. Political affiliation is about 70% heritable, most likely due to stress hormones from the mother _in utero._ Of course, e.g. transcription factors in the egg are important, as Noble mentions, but it goes way beyond that.
*This is in no way fringe science.* It was slightly controversial two decades ago but no longer.
I reccomend two popularly accessible sources. One is Robert Sapolsky's _Human Behavioral Biology_ series here on RUclips. It's 12 years old but still very good. The other is the book _Evolution in Four Dimensions_ by Eva Jablonsky and Marion J. Lamb. It's from 2006, when there was still some controversy worth paying attention to, but it's solid. It describes four interrelated evolutionary mechanisms: genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic. I'm doing more cognitive linguistics and science these days, so I'm very interested in the last two which seem the most outré. My conclusions are that it's pretty solid and jibes with my hypotheses about how Broca's and Wernicke's areas and the auriculate whatyoumaycallit evolved in conjunction with the predictions based on the psycholingusts' ideas based on Shannon entropy. Of course, the focus on my current work is AGI so I can build an army of steampunk-looking robots to conquer the world. Still, a lot of that is based on human brains, especially as the psycholinguists have been doing great stuff with fMRI lately and confirmed predictions I made a decade ago.
I wonder how much the "junk DNA hypothesis" was really canonical?
I don't recall meeting any geneticist who really thought that all junk was inactive DNA. Or they just did not dare oppose me? 😉
However, I like what you say about political affiliation. If people knew how much of an effect genes appear to have on various aspects of our lives many would freak out, I suspect. Also, it would be a "political correctness nuke"...
Thank you for writing the comment I was about to start clacking away on, right down to recommending the Sapolsky course. There is an anti science evangelical fundamentalist faction that will take this video, ignore everything but the sensational bits and declare evolution a dead issue, not gene focused reductive evolution, but evolution in all forms but the epigenetic changes they call 'micro evolution'.
In fact, this is the third video of it's kind I have seen pop up and I cannot help but think the writers of the 'wedge document' and their ilk at the Discovery Institute may be arranging things upstream somewhere. Of course, what is presented here does not in any way help their cause, but that is clearly stated about a third of the way through, and many people will not get past the first five minutes before they decide it supports their views. The push to discredit evolution and put intelligent design in classrooms as an alternative is a dirty business, and they will replace the call for a re assessment with a flat dismissal of all non theistic ways of looking at evolution.
I have no problem with your army of steampunk's taking over the World as long as they're wearing hotpants
But surely both points can't both be in the position of being "Nothing wrong" with them? This theory is progressing the idea of a machine like process coming by accidental processes. Purpose. Now what might that mean? Although this scientist does not promote intelligent design, it does lay a foundation for considerations of what might provide this purpose, drive or whatever you want to call it. Bearing in mind that there is a contingent of respected scientific minds that is seriously considering the so called Simulation hypothesis.
Political affiliation is heritable? What? That sounds like a big lie. As if "stress hormones" could ever be able to carry information about such high level symbolic structures.
Like, are we sure it's not just environmental factors?
And you say you are interested in congnitive linguistics...
I’ve always wondered as a layman where we have different consultants in their medical field treating patients such as haematologists, cardiac, respiratory etc is a form of reductionism.
The reason this interests me is that through the latter part of my life I’ve experienced all sorts of differing symptoms and have been visiting various consultants in different fields, each one giving me advice and medication which appears to help yet other underlying conditions appear later. I’ve often felt I need someone to look at all of my symptoms and come up with a prognosis that deals with the whole body system as opposed to each individual consultant concentrating on one element of the body.
Apologies if this post is not relevant, but the comments form Dennis Noble about reductionism and his work on the biological system as a whole seem to resonate with me.
What a great guy, very clever but open minded and accessible.
I work in philosophy, and I find most of these discussions exploit the vagaries of linguistic definitions and some conceptual vagueness in order to get speculative arguments up and running. We should not over-attribute directional or purposive forces to evolution when we do not have any alternate life forms outside of our planet's offerings to act as contrast, and we struggle to see clear evidence in the evolutionary record as it is. We simply cannot know if general evolutionary 'directions' supply any guidance or provide 'intelligence' beyond observed selection and the various pressures we know about. We may 'like the idea' of more direction going on - but that's not an argument.
Work in philosophy?
Stopped reading at ",i work in philosophy"😂
thanks, paula, that's some good critical thinking, which there's clearly a shortage of in this comment section
The "selfish" gene is a misuse of English. Dawkins didn't choose it by accident - he wanted to vindicate personal greed and egotism and the privileges he enjoys from the Liberal political order.
@@notaras1985Why would such a statement disqualify anybody from making a very reasonable argument which clearly was made here?
The cellular ‘intelligence’ theory needs to consider whether they’d call cellular automata ‘intelligent’, because I can write a genetic algorithm in 100 lines of code which ‘learns to survive’ based on ‘genes’. Is the algorithm ‘intelligent’? It has a problem, it uses stochastic to solve it. I think we need to step away from the feeling that things are either intelligent or they aren’t, and the idea that it’s special somehow (same with a lot of words, like ‘purpose’), for these things exist in gradients, and it’s really up to us where we draw the line between special and less special.
Intelligence is primitive compared to what cells are. They can respond correctly to stimuli without pre-trained data and they don't use our algorithms. This is beyond intelligence.
@@Carnezz But the evolutionary process that created the cells is similar to pre-training in NNs. Besides that, constructor theory would have it that life follows a specific subset of all potential algorithms; namely the algorithms that prefer survival within the current and future environments.
@@MrMichiel1983 Correct. My point was that 'after' the evolutionary process has completed, single-cells are still capable of responding to new stimuli it wasn't trained on. Intelligence as we know it, is basically responding to environments based on prior knowledge. Cells exceed this capability, it's beyond intelligence. This is just a single cell too, which we must not forget functions synchronously with trillions of other cells every second in harmony. This amalgamates to a single entity alone, among a hive of biological entities (organisms). Biology as we know it is far more advanced than any alien sci-fi we can ever dream of.
@@Carnezz Um no? Evolution ‘trains’ organisms (if you want to view it that way) to survive in the myriad of situations they encounter. Arguably there is an extent to which, say a cell, can ‘generalize’, in that if you put it in a synthetic new environment it might survive a while, assuming it isn’t SO different, like space or lava. Likewise NNs can also generalize to an extent, but likewise if you subject them to something outlandish, their response will be equally outlandish.
@@anywallsocket It's possible that NN training and AI are just the new trendy metaphor , just like computer code and expert systems were in the 80's to explain intelligence, and Descartes animal machines were in his time of mechanical discoveries...
But we now know that DNA isn't like computer code (at all), and animals aren't machines.
I am not a biologist, nor a med student ( 34 year old dad here working with networks) , but I alwqys kept fish and was reading biology as a hobby. This freaks me out too lol, I try to explain this to my family, but nobody gets it😅😅😅 feel a bit alone, but the comments make me feel better. There are " other weirdos" like me out there. Greetings from Hungary😊
Find Dr. jack kruse Danny jones interview , greetings from El Salvador
ALL these atheist scientists are going to look pretty silly when they have to bend their knee and confess that Jesus is Lord.
I'll be giving this a second listen. Andrea does an absolutely STELLAR job of inserting definitions of terms and asking astute questions. Kudos to you Andrea. I'd love to see you interview Rupert Sheldrake.
Rupert "The Pseudoscience Grifter and Religious propaganda stooge" Murdoch?
No thanks. After decades he STILL has not presented ONE piece of irrefutable testable verifiable empirical evidence for his woo woo.
This is the smartest woman and best interviewer I’ve ever seen. She asks the exact questions we want to know and then lets her guest explain without interrupting. Great channel!
That’s the questions he had her ask. A charlatan for sure.
@@terrymckenzie8786 Give us a break. Does absolutely everything need to be a conspiracy?
I agree. And it was one of my first impressions… she asked questions that seem so basic yet the questions we all ask are ultimately boiled down to the same exact simple inquiries now matter how complex some folks either want to ask them or complex answered trying to address them
Andrea, I am so thrilled every time I discover a skilled and honorable host such as yourself. You're interview platform is comprehensive, respectful, and complete. Thank you so much for your efforts and hard work, it shows. As for your guest, what an inciteful intelligent and humble gentleman. His grasp and understanding of how the business of science has been corrupted by the grant system is spot on! My hat is off to him, what integrity!
I wholeheartedly agree. All I can say with my limited language skills - great interviewer and brilliant interviewee.
You mean you liked someone agreeing with your creationism. The man is not stupid ... he is just a liar. Now if you accepted he is lying to you deliberately ... which he is ... then he is not such a respectable, honorable or humble person is he. You only think he is a wonderful person because you think he is scientifically proving the religious story you chose to believe.
@@brettallen7632 Creationism? Here is a suggestion for you. If you disagree with something that was said, explain what it is you think is incorrect, then present a comprehensive opposing theory of you're own. Simply name calling is the avenue of a simpleton. Run along now, the grown ups are having a discussion.
@@johnunderwood9575lolll well said
@@brettallen7632 Prove it.
I just came across your channel and I have to say listening to the two of you has been one of the most refreshing experiences of the last several years of my life. The way the two of you speak with each other is something special. I love that you ask questions too, so often it seems like either people don't ask the questions because they don't want to seem ignorant, or they tend to ask the questions but with an air of ... I can't name it. Many of us especially these days might be afraid to show the vulnerability that comes with not knowing something. I've found that it is actually an incredible strength to showcase curiosity. It's a wonderful sign of intelligence in my opinion.
I'm also a woman and so there was a whole separate More personal way in which this resonated with me. This was just an incredible talk, he is incredible and I hope you get him back on. I've always wondered how people of science could be atheist when that is just as absolute as theism. I'm agnostic because I can't prove it either way, you know? Like, I don't know. And the idea that scientists could ever speak in absolute terms about things that we have not proven one way or another like the topic today. You would think that after all we've seen in history but scientists would know better than to gang up and bully somebody with a radical new idea. There seem to be so many situations throughout history where the underdog ends up being the one we remember.
I'm so excited to watch the rest of your videos. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I like the way the host provides definitions for scientific ideas . It makes the discussion more understandable and hence enjoyable.
Also, it is a mischaracterization to suggest that Dawkins considers organisms to be inherently selfish. It is the *gene* which is selfish. Cooperation on the organismal level can enhance the gene's selfish replication. This is why cooperation evolved. Dawkins has been very clear about this in his writings.
Dawkins personifies nothing genes and nature, exposing the fallacy in his viciously citlrcular reasoning. He degenerates into the antiquated, Enlightenment era, paganism which impressed those ideas on his mind. He can't justify his position. He quickly resorts to ad hominim anytime someone asks the begged questions. He uses potty humor, and grotesque sexual references for shock value to distract people from his lack of reason, logic, and rationality. He merely insists upon what he believes, but that doesn't get you to why anyone else should believe what he believes. He doesn't understand that "is" doesn't get you to "ought".
Selfish was probably not the best word to use.
All what he wrote is a pure speculation, not a scientist work. Anyway, being selfish already implies a mind.
Yes... Noble keeps (purposefully?) misinterpreting Dawkins in order to push his own narrative.
And yet he keeps saying "he cannot consider he might be wrong", when he's the one twisting things to try and prove himself right...
This is pretzel logic lol
Definitely shows how much of our current knowledge is hampered by popularity rather than facts
And some scientists holding dogmatic positions.
Yes, all areas of knowledge requiring ongoing research have all been contaminated by the downside of the internet.
Could it be different of school systems were revamped towards thinking instead of the basics?
The basics limit most to entertainment, not learning.
Hasn't that always been the case?
Very important point.
Not popularity, hubris.
Great interview, Please don't stop this series of interviews.
Some people are criticizing not in a good way as a clickbait as it does not meet their point of view. I am an avid science reader and no way I feel this is clickbait. It is a different point of view than the populist view of evolution and this is presented by a well-studied scientist who is well known for his research. This is one of the best interviews I have watched and it is well-prepared.
It is simply incorrect to say that stochasticity means "randomness that can't be predicted". And Noble doesn't use the concept in this way. Stochastic systems can range from being entirely unpredictable to being highly reproducible and predictable, including in biological systems.
Maybe that only applies to biology?
In statistics, what the second part of your statement describes is a deterministic system.
Stochastic is used interchangeably with random AFAIK.
@@kabubagachugu7729In statistical Mechanics a stochastic system can be predicted in certain circumstances. You can't predict how a single particle is going to move, but you can predict how pressure affects temperature and volume. You can predict averages. And maybe there is a way to predict how evolution tends to behave. Maybe there are equations of state that describe evolution in a macro scale.
@@vidal9747 in principle there are but the states are n-dimensional variables optimised for maximum reproduction
Standard definition--randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.
Peter Hoffman does a great job of describing how cells harness random "molecular storm" of water molecules to power life processes. Book = Life's Ratchet
The word cant mean yeah and nay at the same time. Or it means stable and reproducible or any mix or the opposite, can't be both, otherwise the word is just system, therefore, saying esthocastic system is nonsense.
Really interesting conversation, and masterfully edited. Your inclusion of asides to explain concepts really adds a lot of value to the presentation. New sub!
Probably your best interview yet! Your skill at adding much needed context for us lay-people at the right time is unparalleled!
I think Noble speaks a lot of sense but doesn't go far enough. The reason why neo-darwinists loved the gene centric model was that it didn't have to consider the crazy complexity of biological systems, precisely because in doing so it places crazy levels of constraints of what a blind purposeless process can do. Noble is essentially promoting irreducible complexity without naming it. The discussion about somehow mindless chemistry is ingrained with purpose (but it isn't purpose really folks) is just nonsense. At bottom, these are the endless circular conversations we're now going to have to be subjected to, where somehow the word 'emergence' explains everything, and only because the field is irrationally limiting itself to methodological naturalism.
Actually what you are describing is part of so called Neo-Darwinism, where biomes and cycle of replacement of all the species associated with them is part of that theory. And gene centric model is still part of that.
Well said
What is the alternative to methodological naturalism?
Please, Andrea, keep up your work and content. This is the first video of yours I've seen, (YT algo picking you up by looks of recent comments) and it is absolutely masterfully done. The world needs hosts/creators like you to give voice and spotlight to people and ideas in an ever polarizing and rigid world.
I love how sharp your analysis skills are and how you handle these conversations.. this one was very insightful just like the one with Penrose. I'd love to see Donald Hoffman here too someday if you are interested in his conscious realism theorem.
Thank you :)
FANTASTIC! A conversation btwn a knowledgeable, prepared, bright interviewer with an actual SCIENTIST about profoundly important and interesting cutting edge science, placing it in context by referring to hundreds of years of science. Appreciate Denis for his past and current work; his ability to communicate with humor and respect for both colleagues and a general audience, plus the (actual) intellectual humility and epistemological uncertainty science requires. TY, to Denis, Andrea, the BBC (and YT).
Those commenting have the basic education to follow this conversation, and some possess much more basis to contribute ideas here (thanks to good universities and/or perspicacious, intelligent self-education and continuing engagement with science). Not everyone sadly will have familiarity with Karl Popper, or Thomas Nagel )the latter by ref to the title of his essay “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”). Kudos to Andrea for subtitling the screen during some of those key references (eg Karl Popper). Without historical context or familiarity with necessary concepts like epistemological uncertainty, and understanding that science is ALWAYS “ongoing,” people increasingly consume pseudoscience mistaking it for science - incl via so many tiresome, “surface” podcasts on YT, where presenter or interviewer (or both) don’t have the faintest idea what they’re talking about or the language with which to express complex ideas simply. TY!
17 minutes into the video: Dr. Noble is creating another milestone of accolade. To put his idea in one complete sentence: a particular human genome is programmable thus may evolve because of a set of factors like environment, breeding, habits, nutrition to name a few. I made this comment to help me remember this concept. A remarkable feat indeed. Thank you.
P.S. It was like they're saying: we all have the same common genes yet some don't get sick that that particular brings. And what's crazy is that some people have the perfect set of healthy genes yet suffer the same disease or illness.
There is no perfect set of genes, either youd be too hot or too cold, it would be too bright or too dark for vitd etc.
Whatever set of genomes you have, you have pros and cons
My perfect breeding genes are DO NO, NOT WANT.
Yes, but the issue here is that while your genes change because of environment, breeding, habits, nutrition etc. and so many other factors, all of THOSE changes does not leave ANY impact on the genes that are given to NEXT generation and should not. In other words - by definition nothing that can impact your genes from evironment can be called evolution, but cataclysm. Evolution is only about survivability of individuals and groups and if there is involvement of intellect and habits - that plays bigger roles than genes in that mechanism.
There is no interface where environment impacts genes. If your sperm or eggs are damaged for example by X-Ray - that is generally a bad thing and will leave a substantial impact on your next generation, however overall that damage can be healed(for DNA, but apparently not for mtDNA), when they will further interbreed with other individuals, that have not had their DNA damaged.
(There is exception to that, - there are some organisms, that have evolved from cancerous cells - currently it is under question of there exists multicellular life, that has developed from cancerous cells, but it might be possible that it is also the case)
Also, genes does not prevent illnesses - they allow to co-exist with them. Your surprise about that people with better genes(by what definition?) are suffering the same illnesses looks like a false example - within the same society it is impossible that there exist some person with better? genes, than his relatives or people that have simlar autosomal DNA, that can actually prevent disease unlike others, that have to go through this illness. Unless they are fresh migrants with immunitiy agaisnt Nile virus or are mixed offsprings of a migrant and local, that pure bred locals simply does not have.
Many things in health also contain chance of luck - some people do not get blood poisoning from swimming in the sea, but some who swim near pollution with open wounds get that. That rarely has anything to do with genes.
I would suggest some good read about history how modern evolution theory evolved, as this lady is showing some bias suggesting that there is a significant definition between Darwins ideas and modern Evolution theories based on Darwins ideas, compared to what? There is currently Epigenetic ideas, that are challenging some of the gaps of current evolution theory, but that really would not change default Evolution ideas, but will hopefully add better explanations for evolutionary changes that seems to be caused by environment(it still stands correct that environment that affects your nonreproductive genes are not given to your next generations, but the DNA that is getting corrupted and play no role in your adaptations) - we still are not sure what is effect of parenting in old age(when DNA defects are starting to show up more than younger parents have them) - we do not know how much pollution(when plastic is found in brains and apparently that means - that viruses can easier get into organism as well)is is part of those defects, etc., however evolution is about survivability and there are many animals that are going to extinct and genes, regardless how much they are changing them, are still not playing any part in their chances to survive like other external factors.
@@ewfse364u35jhepigenetics is proven
Dennis Noble's impressive understanding and his ability to express it succinctly is no easy feat.
I don't know how many bowls I had to smoke to realize this but I'm glad I found this video to confirm what I was thinking fifteen minutes from now 😂
This conversation was the most insightful discussion I have ever herd on a scientific topic. It required both of you to make this happen. I am wowed by this.
That one line at 1:04:18 is so cold clap back lmaoooo, it’s definitely going into my favorite sounds bites for insults and comeback jajaja
What an excellent mind Noble has, and what a great interview by Andrea. Thank you!
I love listening to people like Denis Noble and Roger Penrose, trying to figure It All out. They are our best minds, and are our heroes.
They are brilliant, but they are also clearly biased and want to make themselves/humanity feel more special than perhaps is the case. I'm extremely sceptical of any idea that magically puts us in the special position because throughout centuries we always got burnt by that notion.
@TheCabIe I really don't think Penrose is trying to make humanity "special" though. He has accurate observations that we don't really know what consciousness is and he is trying to figure it out.
Penrose holds a Nobel laureate and has done dozens of studies in his respective field. He's widely respected by his peers although eccentric in a field that's not very established.
Noble has done exactly 0 in evolutionary biology, is completely unknown in a field where the mechanisms are very well established and constantly makes demonstrable mistakes.
Comparing the 2 is either insulting or a sign of severe ignorance on the matters at hand.
@@TheCabIeSo you are biased, too.
@@malchir4036Noble is just beginning.
Dennis is highly intelligent...which is very rare. This shows in his openness and humility...characteristics not found in the big talkers with huge egos.
@fredm.7145 No one was laughing at Dawkins. Just stating facts. Close-minded, condescending and arrogant are synonymous with Dawkins, not Noble.
@@helencheung2537 in what sense? How much of his work have you read?
Very little of what happens in the human body is done by conscious will of the human. But the human does consciously provide the ingredients the body needs to survive and live. It is like providing the right program to your computer to create a spreadsheet. Without that program being provided by the human that spreadsheet could not be created EASILY. Yes a calculator could be used but the time needed would be far greater. Once the spreadsheet is created it can be set up to auto populate and continue and propagate into the future.
Would be so great if Denis Noble and Michael Levin discussed with each other! :)
Yes that would be something! Great suggestion!
At 38:00, I have a hard time distinguishing the ‘traditional’ from Nobel’s view. Whether it is the organism inducing changes in the dna, or micro-evolution, it’s still the same processes occurring within the immune system? I don’t see how this form of ‘purpose’ creeps in here as you say it does, though perhaps someone can help clarify.
He is saying that evolution isn't random (as neo-darwinism / 'tradition' holds) but directly related to informational input from elsewhere in the organism, i.e. the result of feedback from the environment and the state of the system as a whole. Put a different way: he is claiming that DNA changes are (on the whole) functional, not random, because part of a feedback loop that neo-darwinism denies exists.
@@furtherback6131 but doesn’t the traditional view harbor non-randomness as well, ie when we get a bit of a virus naturally we will try to copy it in our controlled environment to evolve defenses?
@@anywallsocket
On an individual level but I belive he is saying that that single encounter causes genetic adaptation to occur so offspring can also deal with that virus.
Whereas the current theory would say the encounter with the virus will only affect the organisation that encountered it but leave the offspring unaltered. That's the weismann barrier.
So you could catch some new disease and then your body would recreate an antibody to counter it, but also alter your DNA so that your offspring can also deal with it innately.
@@Atom_X. I see thank you, I didn’t know they were talking about the next organism
@@anywallsocket Evolution is always talking about the progression from one organism to the next organism. A single organism doesn't evolve. It just adapts within its given parameters and inherent capacities.
Isn't the additional mechanism that Darwin was looking simply epigenetics ?
"Simply"? That alone changes the entire blueprint metaphor to a symphony. Noble is adding the conductor (cells/organisms)
Yes it was.
@@plaiche Well, we know and have known for over a decade that genes and how they express themselves are due to environmental stimuli (epigenetics), this was a missing key since in the past people often argued if it is nature or nurture, that is, is it genes or is it environment? epigenetics prove that it is both.
@@Danuxsy But it goes further than that in my reading. Relegating dna to a dynamic tool when incorporating the cell/organisms responses to stimuli. This is further reinforced by research proving the Weismann barrier to be a failed hypothesis. So yes, both, but random selection is not driving the ship, and determinism is highly problematic.
@@plaiche there cannot be anything other than randomness or determinism in the Universe (in homo sapiens there is strong evidence that the latter is true), you are a product of biology interacting with environment, so are your thoughts and desires. Determinism is not "highly problematic", in fact our societies would most likely be better off if we embraced this fact and began seeing people for what they truly are, biological machines. It is also a much more helpful worldview than the idea of free will which is mostly kept alive by religion (which relies on it being true)
I'm a very unscientific agnostic. Yet I very much enjoyed listening( but not really understanding this conversation. You're an extraordinarily bright and beautiful young woman!
I’m beginning to think that the ultimate goal of scientists is to live until their hair is white and wispy and purposely neglect any form of its management.
I’m working on it
I mean they are our modern day wizards basically.
Wispy hair is hard to manage. Efforts are made to no avail. But I do think vanity tends to fall away when your mind is busy thinking through more important matters. 😅
@@Catwitchtarot On the contrary, I believe the wispy threads are All vanity. They’re just what remains of what they can muster as an image. Someone that didn’t care would just buzz it all off and be done with it.
@@jimj9040 Buzzing it off could be viewed as vanity just as well, as some may consider it a way to look better. As you say the whisps are merely an attempt to muster an image. Shaved head could be an attempt at mustering a different image just the same.
How does one determin If the origin is purpusfull? Couldnt that evolve itself? So randomness creating purpose?
Edit: basically 25:00
learn spelling at 2nd grade
@@margarita8442 substantiv comment, probably American? Som of us speak english as a second language, and are bilingual. Welcome to the Internett
@@DeadEndFrog where from darlinks ?
@@margarita8442 feel free to add any substance Even If it goes against your culture and National identity to have meaningfull exchanges
This interview is missing one crucial block to form a visceral understanding of how autocatalytic processes work.
Denis Noble missed this monumental point when describing life as a process around 56:45
1) Life is a property of matter.
2) "Any process" involving matter does(!) require a reason, and that reason is existing within a thermodynamic inequilibrium.
As soon as equilibrium is reached, all processes cease. Life can only exist on an energy gradient. The local gradient we have on Earth is formed by the planet cooling itself against the space, mostly via radiative cooling, while receiving new heat and photons from the Sun and radioactive decay inside of itself.
An easy way to compehend this is the metal analogy: most metals will be liquid at high temperatures but start forming an ordered crystal lattice that didn't exist before one atom at a time while being cooled down to room temperature. Some atoms like carbon (due to their outer electron level) can form and reform into different molecules of almost infinite complexity when there is an appropriate energy gradient.
Most life on Earth can only use the high-quality potential energy of chemical bonds (digesting) to upkeep itself, but plants, microalgage and cyanobacteria intercept photons from the Sun directly and use that to assemble matter.
This is also why carbon life can only exist within a very narrow temperature band (0-100C, because all organic matter requires either H or O as inputs at some point), and mammals within a fraction of even that. Our bodies only function within roughly 35-44C, and are designed to spend energy to cool or heat up when outside the perfect (36.6C) band.
I don't know if he's missing a point or if he just has different beliefs. You sound like one of those reductionists he's talking about. I'm guessing you don't believe in the immortal soul
@@humanerror7 He is just stating facts 🤷♂️ What does any of this have to do with "souls"?
Let's turn it around: isn't the very idea of souls and spirits a dogmatic and oversimplified to explain feelings, consciousness and intelligence? It is very much on the level of love "being" in the heart.
@@juliusfucik4011 and I suppose you don't believe in 'trusting your gut' either?
Saying that love isn't in the heart...what nonsense. Just another example of this lame reductionist stylistic trend which has dominated popular science for the last century or so.
That's exactly what I was thinking (as a student completing his master studying the thermodynamical processes guiding DNA replication in eukaryotic cells)! There is no novel purpose arising within the process of evolution (as Noble explained), only a constant re-engineering (and optimization) of one basic purpose which is common to every living things and simple organic molecules like the first short RNAs which formed a few billions years ago (and even tornados or snowflakes): dissipating energy.
As the environment and the physical properties of the Earth's atmosphere and soil change, these complex systems (organic molecules and now cells) slowly acquire new ways and mediums in which to dissipate heat in a more efficient way (and that is the mechanism lying under the macroscopic process of evolution which is natural selection). As my molecular genetic professor once told me; "Insects didn't evolved wings because of how much it increased their reproductive capabilities, helps them find new sources of food or evade predators (although it sure does from a macroscopic point of view), no. They evolved wings because in the end, it allowed them to radiate more energy (coming originally from the sun) back in the air, then back into space".
A clear observation of this is how, when left undisturbed for long enough (without extinction event), life on Earth will tend to differentiate and radiate into more and more complex and highly specific species. Because it is much more efficient for the thermodynamical forces at play on Earth searching to dissipate the energy constantly coming from the sun, to have millions of species highly adapated to a precise ecological niche (like a species of bird eating only one type larva at said altitude inside the amazonian forest) VS having a few thousand species highly resistant to many environment and able to sustain rapid environmental changes (like a raccoon or a brown bear).
A good analogy to this phenomena is if you imagine an empty squared box that you want to fill as much as possible with balls of various sizes. If you put 3 or 4 tennis balls inside the box, you will likely have some empty spaces in the corners of the box and between the balls due to their roundness and size. But if you put many marble or even grain of salt-sized balls in the box, you will be able to fill it up much more efficiently. In this exemple, you can imagine the energy radiating from the sun as being the empty space inside the box (which itself can be seen as the Earth) and the balls as the ways in which matter will form complex structures to dissipate that energy!
And for the physicists reading this, although this results in an increase of the entropy of the universe (which is the whole point of energy dissipating structure), this process is kept running on Earth because of the fact that we are in an open system (which is opposed to the presumed closed system that is the universe and in which enthropy always as to increase)! The sun constantly sends energy on our planet which is then re-engineered into complex structures (tornados, organic molecules, etc.) by thermodynamic processes which are themselves guided by the simplest law in the universe : the normal law.
But there is no need to explain these things.
>>>As soon as equilibrium is reached, all processes cease.
I would nitpick, that what you are describing as a Life are only chemical reactions(while definition of Life requires continuity through reproduction among other things) but we generally do not consider those processes as life - we do not consider Sun as life, even if Sun(and death of it) is crucial part in generating anything that is past Hydrogen on Mendelyeev table and death of Sun will be generating new Sun or Suns.
Anyway, we as beings do not need to be bothered not only by chemical reactions, but also how our belly is going to be stuffed to do those processes. Even moose is not guided by the need to find food, not to mention people, where only most primitive ones are guided by schemes on how to get rich and get more money...
Also, while our body cells are doing very specialized actions, we do not consider them as life(white blood cells can exist and hunt on their own their whole lifetime), but we consider life as organisms, that are guided by virtual and non material actions born in our brains. There is probably the issue, that we are using the same words for describing different things, but the topic of this video is centered around Human Life.
51:26 The purpose of evolution is simply SCR， Survival，Contro1，Reproduce，even before life。
1:10:19 There’s a way that when we have models and we tell stories about something works, we can look at the evidence and them parse our assumptions and, go, let’s have this team of scientists run off with an assumption to tell the story this way, and this team run off and tell the story this way, and both of them have the evidence, and we’ll just see who’s more right after 20 years.
Here is a structural model for that, for natural selection.
We all saying “NATURAL SELECTION” but no one define the meaning of Nature in a structural model.
I was skeptical that the title was just clickbait, or "sneakily" trying to promote Creationism, but I'm glad I watched through this whole interview. Well explained and well handled by the both of you.
I fully agree that Science is best when we challenge previous assumptions about reality, and put them to the test against alternate models. I also understand why the overall scientific community has been hesitant to fully consider these ideas. "Harnessing stochasticity" and the idea that an organism, or even a cell, could influence its own genes/epigenetics from the top-down, is truly fascinating. Looking forward to learning more about this and seeing how well it stands over time.
Just found your channel. LOVE LOVE LOVE! Finally something profoundly interesting on RUclips. One question, how is it that Noble’s environment goes through diurnal lighting and clothing changes but your lighting and environment has no change even though you sit in front of the natural light of windows? Did you re-record your questions and responses in one sitting for production effect?
I'm so glad you're enjoying these videos. They're fun to make. I got a similar question on my last video where Roger and I went to some trouble to match our clothes in an effort to maintain a modicum of continuity, but it's just too difficult, as you point out, since sources in the UK are 5 hours ahead. So, it's always day for me and sometimes evening for them.
I think Andrea lives in a Platonic universe of ideal forms where it is always bright and sunny. Quite a propos since her interviewing skills are pure perfection!
You bring such an extraordinary amount of research and understanding to these interviews. And that makes such an enormous impact on your ability to engage and ask so many fantastic questions on these complex topics. I have now watched your interview with Roger Penrose 3 times. That’s how much I love it! I can already tell that this is one that I will return to over and over again. Thank you so much for making your remarkable work available to all of us! It is such a gift!! ❤
Thank you for your kind words. It means a lot.
I concur, just discovered your channel! Lots of food for thought! (Plus a saucy comment section too haha). Subbing right now :)
Yet another fantastic interview! You’re a very gifted journalist. Please replicate yourself 10 times we can see way more interviews of great thinkers by you!
The way I see evolution is its explaining B to C, but not explaining A to B. Evolution doesn't answer the origins of life, it explains how life evolved over time.
This was very interesting. I can not help thinking about the biologist Michael Levin and his work. He is arguing that each of us is "a collective intelligence of groups of cells". In his conversation with Curt Jaimungal "Michael Levin: Consciousness, Cognition, Biology, Emergence" he is refering to Noble's work. Could be interesting to get a conversational connection there.
This computer was used at Bletchley Park and developed by Alan Turin, and constructed in part by a brilliant Post Office engineer .
Was it the same computer? Alan Turin*g*, by the way.
Yes it was. I'm sure if you googled it you'll get the history.
@@telwood15 OK, now I've googled it. Apparently, it was a Ferranti Mercury computer he used, not the Colossus designed by Tommy Flowers nor the Bombe designed by Alan Turing.
@@ximono thanks,that's interesting.
I do wish I could talk to this guy and find out if he worked with Dr. William W.L. Glenn, who invented the pacemaker that has kept my brother on the right side of the dirt for 55 years now.
31:14 the selfish gene doesn't mean that humans are born selfish, Dawkins himself has addressed that. I also don't think he's dogmatic, you'd just need evidence to change his mind. -- So while you'd be free to say his position is like a religion, you'd be wrong. I also find it interesting that you're using religion as a pejorative here.
Dawkins would use it as a pejorative, so what's your problem?
@@donnievance1942 I don't have a problem with it, however I find it interesting/funny when religious people use it that way. It's like an admission that they know religion isn't a good thing.
Atheism is religious. If something that is religious is of or relates to religion, and atheism is a privation of religion, then atheism is religious.
@@keyboardwarrior6296 You're welcome to believe that, but I don't share your belief.
@@DistinctiveBlend Would you say that atheism is a theological matter?
Adrienne, I like the way you asking questions. Really brilliant! I certainly need to look further into Nobel's ideas and other Kaufman.
If something “critical” is removed, I’m having trouble understanding how it is “critical”….
It ís like removing all pistons from a car and yet the car still works because the car itself found a new pathway to achieve locomotion.
I’m sure you’d consider a piston to be a component.
But in the new pathway, it may not be as important due to finding another pathway to achieve the same goal
He is saying you can remove a currently critical component and life will adapt in real time to finding another way to accomplish the same goal.
Obviously the previously critical component is no longer critical in this new paradigm
Once the big organism is made, it creates new ways to live, and the original parts are no longer critical
It’s like Pokémon battles. A critical hit doesn’t always kill, and when you get a critical hit, it doesn’t always matter.
@@pyropulseIXXI OR it could mean that those pistons weren't really the critical part
So, maybe the cell are emergent functions not other way around. But as we are approaching from reductions view we see the "functions" are emerging.
is it possible that there are layers to consciousness to the end that one layer could be doing something and aware of something while another sublayer could be doing other things that the first layer wasn’t actively aware of? So your highest layer of consciousness would be your mind that’s doing every day tasks in the physical world while a lower layer controls body functions.
The interviewer did a great job
Andréa, I’m so pleased that I stumbled upon your channel. Your discussions are very interesting and not dumbed, to the oversimplification, for pop-sci consumption. The receipts are shown and we can springboard into our own explorations of paths heretofore unknown. Excellent and I’m a new subscriber. Good work!
Very much agree. Not to be critical, but since you mention it - many interviewers are simply unprepared to converse with their interviewees. But many are, and we're all learning
Love how you interject with amazing explanation and detail inside the conversation….
This channel is my new home for real scientific research and interviews…
Magic stuff!!!❤
Thank you Barry!
Nah that shit annoys the fuck out of me. I look at it as disrespectful to the guests, and patronizing to the viewers. If she wants to do the elementary school summarizing shit then she should stick to that in entirely separate videos or even a different channel. I want to hear the guests in full pure form, no lengthy cuts that COMPLETELY break and derail the natural flow of a guest's explanations. Just so she can do it... And break it down for us midwits.
@40:00 min in, how would the your theory adjust if you consider the singular organism, rather as a multitude of organism making up & regulating the purpose of the larger biological vessels (body) & therfore the homeostasis & protection of the larger organism that it lives on?
At 59, im getting the education I wasnt interested in as a teenager thanks to wonderful conversations like these on RUclips... I find such a wonderful crossover and connection between the works of Iain Mcgilchrist, Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup and Denis Noble...and if you're also dipping your toes in Advaita Philosophy, it really presents a very thought provoking framework to consider life and the purpose thereif...😊
Living systems have purposes.
Molecules do not have purposes.
A living system can not spontaneously appear out of a bunch of molecules lying around.
And I guess salt crystals don't spontaneously form out of salt molecules "lying around" in a solution, right?
How does evolution of purpose violate neodarwinism? Genes create organisms that are selected to efficiently propagate those genes and if "purpose" is a quality that serves this cause then so be it ....
So comfortable and secure to cling to 19th century childish dogmas rather than facing the complexity of the real world, isn't it ?
@@mahasamatman12 Huh? He proposed an entirely valid argument, which is held by most biologists, that the modern synthesis is still sufficient to explain most biological features in terms of natural selection.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Well, if you think equating purpose with ""a quality" is a valid argument, there's nothing I can do for you. Maybe you should start with some basic notions of logical reasoning and then look at epistemology ?
@@mahasamatman12 What he meant was that purpose refers to the adaptive value provided by the feature, which necessarily increases the fitness of the organism. That is one of Tinbergen's four questions that are meant to investigate the proximate and ultimate causes for the emergence of a given biological feature. The other three questions, by the way, engage with the ontological development of the feature, the mechanisms that allow for the arrival of that feature, and the phylogenetic history of the organism in which that feature arose.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the basic tenets of logical reasoning or epistemological standards. It appears that you're unfamiliar with how biological research is carried out in the 21st century, which still hinges on the modern synthesis' findings and processes.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 I would rather suggest that you are unfamiliar with what serious science looks like in the 21 th century. Since Darwin's time, physics have discarded the concept of ether, replaced Newton's theory of gravitation by general relativity and are looking to replace it by some quantum gravity theory. Biologists, on the other hand, are desperately clinging to a 19th century theory - conceived at a time when a cell was seen as a blob of jelly - which has become a cultural norm and and unbreachable dogma even though it hardly passes the test of a truly scientific theory. Likewise the indoctrinated public worships this collection of 19th century anecdotes as MAGA morons worship trump, unaware of the requirements of a real, serious, scientific theory. There are even people in the comments section of RUclips videos who are are willing to explain that teleological processes are in fact , a feature of darwinian evolution !
I skipped this video several times as it was suggestive of thinly disguised creationism; I’m very glad that, at length, I gave it a full hearing.
It’s incredibly ironic that Richard Dawkins has become the Guardian of the Dogma for this entire area of human inquiry. There must be, somewhere deep inside him, a recognition that he has become more-or-less the same as that which he, in his other life as one of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism, so charismatically and successfully attacked. This from a man who, in one of his books, proudly lauded the acquiescence of an old, renowned Oxford professor to a competing theory when exposed to powerful evidence that refuted his own position. Dawkins described how much respect he and his classmates had for that professor, and cited the incident as being an outstanding example of the power of science to make our way towards discovering truth. Yet he seems to have either forgotten all about it, or cannot yet see himself in the role of the Source of Knowledge, still feeling himself a scrappy underdog.
I don’t have any way to effectively communicate with Dr. Dawkins. If I did, I would urge him to remember that story he told, and that example he held so dear. On the issue described in the video, and even more so on the issue of transexualism, the evidence for which is overwhelming and doesn’t even require a modification of genetic determinism, I would ask that he accept the mantle of reasoned acquiescence exemplified by that professor. There are very few among his supporters or detractors who would not respect and honor him all the more for it. Particularly in these times, we need outstanding examples of contrition and reasoned compromise, not intransigence and bull-headedness.
p.s. It also occurs to me that this paradigm might provide more satisfying, as more testable, hypotheses for an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality - something with which the gene-centric view has struggled mightily…though I’ve come to believe the concept of homosexuality has shown itself to be far too constrained…
Quit being so dramatic. Maybe Dawkins just believes himself to be right. Has that crossed your mind?
@@juliuscaesar8163 ,
As far as that goes, of course he believes himself to be right. But that’s the problem. He’s usually a pillar of fact-based reasoning, but on the issue of transsexuality at least, he is factually, provably, demonstrably wrong. If the issue concerned the life cycle of eels, or even the durability of the gene-centric emphasis of evolutionary theory, one might avoid being “dramatic” and let it slide. But Dawkins is a widely respected authority, and his errors regarding this issue hurt actual people. People who happen to belong to a tiny, ostracized, stigmatized minority currently under attack by exploitative forces using them as scapegoats for all kinds of unrelated societal ills. Whatever he believes, his very public, very wrong statements on this issue have to be called out.
Dawkins is my atheist pope. But what happens when my atheist pope turns against my atheist scriptures?
Seems to be setting up a false dilemma, epigenetics and phenotypical expression, is demonsterable and well understood. I don't understand why these old men are still arguing. Granted I'm only 10 minutes in, let's hope this actually becomes interesting.
Exactly.... And we also went through the "Vitalism" woo woo before. It's annoying that certain biologists want evolutionary theory to put there niche mechanisms upfront....while not presenting anything that removes natural selection and the outrageous body of irrefutable testable verifiable material evidence that has been gathered confirming it. Noble has a lot of work to do to convince anyone of his Vitalism 2.0
You clearly don't get it and are rude.
@@RaydensherajWhat is vitalism and how is this vitalism 2.0?
@@alextomlinson Vitalism was an old debunked theory that thought that organizations of non living matter cannot ever produce living entities. (IE-Organic chemistry cannot exist). That there is essentially something magical inherently in living entities that is not present in non living matter and can never be present in non living matter. There is more to it, but that is the gist. It was disproven entirely by the advancement of organic chemistry. (IE- I take 2 inorganic compounds and create an organic compound).
@@rdizzy1 ok can you explain how this is vitalism 2.0?
My new favorite scientific converse RUclips channel! Thank you for your contributions!
Great interview and video
1:09:56 in making this point, an important part of Kant’s first, critique is precisely this insight - that science begins with a ‘monograma’ the idea of an outline, a scaffolding of the whole to even begin its purpose. This “whole” is a pure idea of reason, a schema. Moreover all the discussion here on self-organizing principles and processes of “organisms” (a Kantian naming, see Third Critique) is precisely Kantian. Both a basis for and the implications of any “new” biology today will forever be inexorably philosophical. Reality is a non-dual whole that, in thought, we can “think” processes, structures and “things” but these are mere reifications for the use of the understanding, which in turn has its purposiveness (a Kantian term) for the organism, and so on and so on.
These theories are very much aligned with Robert Sapolsky's deterministic explanations of nature.
"Science is reconsidering" I'm glad you interviewed Mr. Science himself who we all know speaks on behalf of all science and scientists. Very impressive
"Science is reconsidering" is a much less harmful statement than "The science is settled."
@QGG639 both are still intentionally misleading
But 97% of scientists agree*!
*of the few hundred that responded to our questionnaire
Hello I am atheist. I am leader of all science. Also like typical atheist, I smellz bad and can't punctuate.
Theoretical science is a joke.
Without longtermism, this man will be erased. I should make him the inly beneficiary of my will, in the meantime. I like him, but i am also responsible for forcing myself to like him. It's so fresh to see him every time. Nobody is like that. I've never seen it in my life. I've never felt this way in my life. We must elevate and protect this man from so many types of nonsense. I know exactly how to do that.
Why do you need to force yourself to like him? He’s a great guy, and a great scientist and explainer. He doesn’t need to be liked by anyone but I’m sure he is liked widely. I’ve never even heard him speak before.
@@santhanamss because he may be influential to future legislation, and also is competent enough to write like a legislator himself already
Not sure how I stumbled upon this, as I usually lurk, not logged in and behind a VPN and such, which gives me an often disheartening pie slice of what the majority of people find interesting (which can be interesting itself), since the google has no profile to work its algo magic with.
So, I've taken off my anonymizing mask to log in and say that this channel contains some of the best science journalism I've seen on the internet. I've read bits about Mr. Noble but now I feel I have a greater understanding of what's going on. Will subscribe.
Why do you want him so badly to say that cells are conscious? He didn't say they are, so in a way he does think we're special 😄 *Cognitive like Ai, that's what he says. That's very different from "consciousness", everyone knows Ai is not conscious. You should pursue the truth not try to bend things to fit a perspective you wish or suspect is true
What is conscious then?
Everyone knows Ai isn't conscious? I don't even *know* that other human beings are conscious, I can only infer that.
If microbes are cognitive only on the level of AI, why would that make them "not conscious"? Consciousness is not a concept tied to the notion of how smart something is. Many, "not smart" beings, including some humans, are nevertheless conscious. Your glib statements about consciousness imply a total obliviousness to the philosophical topic of what consciousness is. It's considered to be one of the most difficult and elusive problems in ontology.
There is a broad consensus that consciousness cannot be reduced to any of its constituent items, like cognition, memories, emotions, or even the bare, minimal elements of sense perception. These would seem to be the contents of consciousness, not consciousness itself-- which would seem to be a property underlying all these things.
There is a position called panpsychism which holds consciousness to be integral to all physical existence, right down to the subatomic level, and that consciousness can be simply regarded as the interior aspect or "perspective from the inside " of physicality. This does not mean that the consciousness involved in a single electron has human or animal-like contents, such as cognitive process, emotions, or memories. The panpsychist position does not pretend to answer the analytic question of "what consciousness is," but it aims to eliminate the objectionable aspects of substance dualism-- the notion that reality is divided between fundamentally different sorts of substance: physical substance and some sort of spiritual substance, like consciousness or the "soul."
Like substance dualism, or vitalism, the attempt to explain consciousness through the systems concept of "emergence" is fraught with problems. Panpsychism eliminates most, or all, of these problems through the simplifying concept that the physical and the conscious are a unitary identity. It's route to this concept is through the unpretentious mechanism of Occam's Razor. There simply was no explanatory need to adopt a dual concept in the first place. We can build a perfectly functional ontology without it.
Panpsychism has a special problem of its own, which I'm not ambitious enough to go into in this YT comment.
I no longer understand the meaning of consciousness and intelligence.
They seem to describe some concept, that, whenever you try to specify, dissappear in front of your eyes.
@@clashmanthethird
We know they're not conscious the same way we know rocks aren't. Funny enough they literally run on a type of rock material. It's had to speak with absolute certainty about almost anything, but if you want to say AI is conscious you'd probably need more evidence and justifications than I do to say they're not
@14:08 as a portrait artist, I've come to realize, I ONLY notice about 12 different eye shapes, 10 ish mouth shapes, about 8 forehead shapes, and maybe about 9 noses.
Go ahead... examine this.
You pass by humans all the time, go ahead see if your uncles hands are on that one, is that eyebrow identical to your grampas?
Notice the hair? How many textures of hair do YOU see in your world? About 8?
Point being, I've come to understand we are a very limited visual difference in comparison to each other.
I've noticed it too. There are "types" of faces.
How many fivehead shapes are there. :)
@@williamgreene4834 😂 too many Mines almost a 6 now
Humans used to be a lot more diverse too (we killed or interbred with a lot of them and whats left is kinda the averagings out of currently)
I wonder what it was like
I see the world a little more granularly:
Inwards to outwards nose bridge slope/buldge gradient
Nose width at bridge gradient
Nose width at nostril gradient
Tip of nose size
Tip of nose roundness/angularness gradient
Nostril diameter in round nostrils
Nostril circle to bean to slit 3 point spectrum
Nostril length in more bean or slit shaped nostrils
Total nose size related to face
Presence of snout
How the nose pulls on the upper lip
Distance from nose to lips
Nose connected to eyebrows
Crinkles around the nose type and severity
Inflammation of nose
Tight or loose cartilage
Bloodflow to nose
Nose hairs: Texture Color Length
Nose moisture/mucus
Shininess of nose
Size of pores on nose
Skin oiliness to dryness scale (it loops around too)
But they tend to be concentrated more often together
I subscribed
Luckily,I am already subscribed…😂❤
Underneath the empirical disagreement between Noble and Dawkins there may also be an emotional and behavioral contrast, the difference between a conservative and liberal personality potential. Discomfort with ambiguity is one trait of a conservative personality, as might be expressed by Dawkins in his adamant embrace of a Cartesian order behind emergence, a reassuring systematic control of purpose by genes. Noble more easily accepts an absence of codified orderliness, perhaps reflecting a more liberal personality tendency. As to their politics - that is irrelevant.
Google ads really screwing this video badly
I use Brave. It blocks ads out of the box
Just buy premium dawg
If you're watching on a desktop just install an Ad-blocker extension compatible with your browser. I personally use U-Block Origin but there are many other. If watching on your phone, get Brave browser and watch the video on there instead of on the app. The browser should come with an adblocker already.
use an ad blocker. Haven't seen a YT ad in 10 years.
Subscribe to RUclips premium! No ads!
i want to know what this guy's diet is like to be this sharp at 87 years old
There are plenty of 87-year-old who are sharp. Cognitive decline is not a normal part of aging. It is a common misconception that is based on ageism.
@@cathykrueger4899 this guy is doing better than the average 87 year old. That's not ageism.
Beans, beans, beans. Beans of all colors. Beans without butter. Ate one too many? Time to eat another.
Pure energy, NADH+, ATP probably
@@1sorwhat is it about adenosine that it is found in so many key functions of biological processes.
If evolution is purposeful, highly likely the universe is purposeful...so what is the purpose?
to create the most advanced lifeform that can exist in the Universe
To breed and to extend your race/Nation is really the only thing that matters in biology.
It amazes me that the questions the interviewer makes, push the actual boundaries of the interviewed vision, rather than only talking about things constrained into the interviewed view of the subject. I can tell that Noble reinforced his view on this topic after the interview, and even reached a new level of understanding of his own theory. That's the PURPOSE of an interviewer.
The greatest impediments to scientific progress are bias and egoism (pride). We have developed the scientific method to counter bias, but we ate still plagued with egoism.
Egoism emerges when a scientist makes a evidentiary and convincing argument against a scientific axiom. If he isn't convincing, he will only generate a few stares or laughs. But if he is convincing, he will arouse stern criticism, censor, and even anger.
This is because he stepped on the selfish pride of other scientist. Their subconscious mind is saying: "I have known this to be true my entire career, and you come around and tell me I'm wrong, enlightening poor me, as if this whole time I was too blind or dumb to see this myself".
No matter how careful you are to avoud stepping on their fragile egos, it often doesn't work, because like other animals, we humans are mostly ruled by our innate primordial proclivities. Out of all of our innate proclivities, status (rank, peaking order, ego, etc) appears to drive our behavior the most.
Scientist across many scientific endeavors have complained about this primordial behavior from other colleagues. I've seen it in anthropology, cancer research, chemistry, medicine: to name a few. Those finding complex problem solving skills in animals, and some tool use were initially shunned. Those promoting the water-ape theory still receive an angry response, even though the traditional theory explaining why we humans are hairless (essentially not actually) is absurd. When cancer research was making little progress over decades, those suggesting novel approaches were initially often given the same harsh treatment. Recently, a scientist offered unrefutable evidence that fossil fuels predominantly are not formed from fossils, and he is being ignored, censored, and attacked.
Amen.
One reason Einstein was so great..he valued truth above all else.
We humans aren’t animals
God created Adam, call me backward, but you are definitely still behind your fish ancestors
@@cyberWarrior7519 I'm not the type of person that critizes people because of their looks, weight, lack of intelligence, etc. I don't like such bullies. But I don't know how to describe you without appearing this way.
You are clearly as blind as someone with no eyes. Now that the unrefutable facts are out of the way, the question is how can people become this blind? Is it lack of intelligence, usually not. It is usually the same reason that I mentioned in my original comment: narcissism (status, ego, rank, etc), the greatest of our primordial proclivities. So Ironically, because you are an animal with the instincts thereof, you can't see that you are an animal. Yes, it's comical, but reality is sometimes this way.
@@cyberWarrior7519
Humans choose to behave like animals.
Is that because they are, because they were or because they chose to be?
Nothing more endearing than an smart and still mentally sharp old man haha ✨
Cognitive decline is not a normal part of aging.
@@cathykrueger4899 what? Yes it is , Aging literally promotes cognitive decline, in multiple ways too.
@@DoctorDoom69 That's true at the margins, but senile decline is a disease, not normal aging. Persons with active mental lives often develop mental skills throughout life that over-ride the marginal organic decline. I'm 76. My properly measured (not a self-test on the internet) IQ is 132. My SAT scores were in the 97th (math) and 99th (English language skills) percentiles, respectively. My SATs would probably drop off if I took them now, but that's mainly because I've been away from school for so long. I'm pretty confident that I could ace out 95%+ of the population, and that probably includes you.
All I have to do to figure that out is to look at your poor capitalization and punctuation. You wouldn't have done well on the English section. Your YT handle doesn't give a very promising impression either. I know you think it's clever, but that is what somebody like you would think, isn't it? Smart people don't announce, "I'm STOOPID!" to the world. So, you think that it's "endearing" that Dennis Noble is way more intelligent than you are? Now, that's really funny. Been writing any books on the complex system dynamics of genetics and evolution lately?
paradigm shift is here; enjoy it people; doesn't happen often
Noble is one grand evidence of Humane Intelligence in the Sciences. Mechanistic thoughts, he dissolves on every single phrase; a true Genius. Undead, are the ones who cannot learn from this giant scientist of our times. Thanks for this magnificent interview!
30:08 - "I am ok with attributing Purpose to an organism like myself, or to a cat, or to a mouse ...". So just to reject the idea of Creator, you attribute high-level attributes to practically every single thing that breathes? You don't believe in a God, but believe in countless gods that can run this whole thing we call Existence in unison, as a result of collective effort? Because attributing high-level features to everything does exactly mean that. It's not only about life, the whole universe is like that: take exotic particles and quantum realities. Don't accept a High Intelligence that created all of that, you end up attributing all the elements of Design to the Elements that exist: atoms and subatomics know how to do what they do, natural laws know how to act and react; endless amount of these things know how to act in this fabric of existence. The endless number of gods, this is.
No wonder we live in dark ages. When I was a kid, I loved Science (as in "scientific methodology"). But as I grew and learned more, the whole paradigm started to become excruciatingly painful and dark. All the time you see different types of zealots trying to push their convictions, labeling all that a "scientia". Don't any of these people understand that "scientia without wisdom is blind, and wisdom without scientia is lame"?
42:03 - "Any part of the cell outside the cell is dead"... Why don't you just say all those parts are just that: parts? Part without the whole mechanism is innately "dead". You take the cog, insert it into its socket and bam, it "lives". Why complicate it so much? Viruses are exactly that: compatible components, when inserted, they start working.
44:33 - "It's intelligent...". Again the same way of thinking: you are making countless amount of "things" intelligent, not accepting the concept of Creator. Multiple gods accepted instead of One. Just because we can't see a material agency between what is happening and the Doer, it doesn't mean it's not there. Wisdom is in recognition of that fact. What you guys are doing is absolutely ruling out these possibilities just to get rid of the notion of creation.
51:16 - "Purpose and ... developed." How? It can't develop itself ("Munchhausen's beard"), it can't appear and develop BY itself. Just happened without intelligent agency? No proverbial "hand" in all this? 53:23 "... emerges" - That phrase again. Everything that happens the first time and we can't explain the "How come?", we label it with a new word and start building semantic puzzles around it until we convince ourselves in how cool all of it sounds? Self-feeding, endless loop that goes nowhere.
56:04 - 57:30 : See, how greatly you describe the whole process? It's clear, enlightening. Yet, at the end you say "The PROCESS itself does the trick. There is NOTHING there to make it go up and down ... Cartesian dualism: ghost is a machine... There is nothing there, only processes". WHO THE HECK PUT THAT DESIGN IN THERE?! How that "process" came to be? It's like saying "Hook a battery to a lamp, it illuminates. Lamp does nothing by itself, there is nothing of Lamp that makes it light up. It's all battery. Lamp does nothing." - WHO CARES? You hooked the battery. YOU... the BATTERY! None of these things are NOTHING!
57:30: "I don't believe in anything"... That's the problem. In 20-30 yrs time you will become suicidal. I am not trying to be harsh/rude/disrespectful, it's just fact. PURPOSE is the only thing that gives value to our lives. PURPOSE is what creates HOPE, and HOPE keeps us ticking. People like Mr Noble get to an old age because they keep that intellect busy, playing their games constantly, until light goes out. They don't get to become "suicidal"/bored/conflicted. Actually they will come and go back and forth in their thoughts constantly, simply because they are in the frontier of this game. What happens to people like you tho?! You are not "producing" anything like they are - that deficit will dry your sense of PURPOSE, drain your HOPE and the rest ... is just sad statistics. Don't you see that? I feel so sad for nihilists.
I think he makes a really good point about reductionism, I think that can be a problem in science in general. Oftentimes it seems like scientists are looking so closely at the individual pieces they fail to see what emerges from them. And ironically, I think he does the same thing with AI. He is so focused on the building blocks of the thing, he is missing the fact that it is what emerges that matters, and oftentimes what emerges does not resemble the pieces from which it emerged. You can have pieces that are rigid, but through complex structure emerges something fluid.
I'm glad he corrected a fundamental misunderstanding that many have (as did you), namely that evolution brought about life. Evolution presumes the existence of life and proceeds from that point on. As he said, we have little to no idea as to the origin of life. It remains a deep mystery.
We have plenty of good hypothoses that may work. Trying to say it's a "deep mystery" is pretty disingenuous.
@@TheCabIe OK, anyone can dream up an hypothesis but you say there are many "good hypothesis, and I assume you mean that it scientific terms. Please name just two and explain by what scientific criteria you judge them to be "good" and how they meet those criteria? References to one or two key, seminal, scientific journal articles as evidence would help support your assertion)
@@erehwhon *anyone can dream up an hypothesis*
You mean just like this guy in the video who did exactly that?
I know you're full of shit if you say stuff like "we have little to no idea" about origin of life, like there's no research done or good hypotheses put forward.
@@TheCabIe Can you or can you not name two hypotheses (of the "plenty" that you mention), and point to the key scientific journal papers in support thereof (one or two articles will be fine)? If you cannot, just be honest and say so - otherwise you are just wasting everyone's' time. Maybe, instead, spend your time reading some current microbiology textbooks?
@@erehwhon What's the use, I'm sure you already have counters as to why those particular hypotheses are "void and cannot possibly work" or whatever and yeah, I don't know much about the field to know what's exactly being talked about. But I know enough that we DO have some ideas. You're speaking from a fundamentalist position with your initial statement like "we have no idea".
Andrea, these talks are excellent, and I can only imagine the time and effort that goes into them. I really hope you do more, as you have a very open minded and intelligent approach to topics, themselves deeply researched. This talk by Dennis Noble is mostly in sync with the ideas of Michael Levin (and others) whom I’m sure you are familiar, in particular ideas of cell level, purposeful cognition. That would be an interesting conversation!
"Science Is Reconsidering Evolution" .... it's about time !!!
_
No, the scientific community is NOT reconsidering evolution, it remains, as it has been for over 100 years, the foundation of all moder study of biology.
@@walkergarya actually, they reconsidering evolution every other day ... these people are permanently wrong ...
every other day, there is another rethink, or something unexpected and surprising, something what shakes up decades-long dogmas etc ...
But it is a natural outcome ... these people have been misrepresenting the evidence for 165+ years ....
Why? What evidence do you have that it's in any way wrong?
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries”.
Robert Jastrow
Dr Noble attempts to not only climb the highest peak, but also, upon encountering the band of theologians throws them off the edge, thereby, in the greatest form of irony (and futility), establishes himself as god.
Not at all. Theologians are ignorant. And they put their faith in god only to be wrong time and time again. Theologians were wrong when they thought the universe was made in 6 days. They were wrong when they thought all suffering was caused by free will, when nature itself produces suffering, they were wrong when they thought that the gospels were written by the names on them, they were wrong when they thought that time was linear, they were wrong about the earth being the center of the universe. And after climbing mountains of ignorance in blind faith to a god that has been wrong, and after moving the goal post so many times the goal is 5 miles away from where it started, finally the theologians are now deceasing in number drastically.
@@thebelmont1995Congrats. You also perfectly described the process of the scientific method.
@@thebelmont1995You are so wrong. GOD created life and HE set the parameters of science which he can change at any time. HE does not do so because the repercussions would be great. It’s amazing the small minded who attempt to refute the power of GOD in an attempt to feel as though they have some power themselves. You are dead spiritually and intellectually. The theologians will always remain and be answerable to GOD.
@@onestarabove7027 I am not wrong. God did not create all life. We created god. God is a man made construct. Its amazing how ignorant the religous are. They project their own insecurities onto non believers. Its quite funny. They deny sciences, deny evidence, and deny reality because they are so afraid of being powerless and of their own mortality.
@@onestarabove7027 I am not wrong. Everything I stated was a factual event that happened. God did not create all life. We created god. I feel so sorry for you. You are brainwashed and deny reality. Get well friend.
Sexual selection cannot be underestimated
I think one of the reasons the neo-darwinists have an adversity to this idea, is because it opens one to the idea that purpose can be the driving factor farther back, to the molecules that would make up the chemistry that make up biology; it's easy to draw a line between naturalistic top-down purpose-driven evolution to purpose being core in the sense that the religious or non-religious intelligent design camp have proposed.
There's nothing about Noble's theory that supports the religious idea of divine purpose, except in a sort of free-association metaphorical sense. You may be correct that creationists may try such a trick of rhetorical sophistry, but it will be lame and not something that should worry scientists. You're probably also correct that such considerations are a psychological driver of resistance in the scientific community, but that's lame as well. We don't do science as a PR campaign in philosophical arguments. I'm a rationalist atheist, but I've been opposed to one-way reductionism all my life. Noble's theories validate some ideas I've held throughout adulthood.
In particular, I worry about the implications for resurrecting extinct species like the mammoth and the thylacine. If you don't have the egg cell of the mother with its particular mechanisms, how can you reproduce an animal that is accurate to the original mammoth? It's not only the egg cell, but the whole body of the mother that are the developmental context in which the mammoth DNA and the subsequent zygote must progress.
There is an intricate biochemical and physical relationship between the zygote as it grows and the mother's physiology, with many elaborate feed-back interactions. While it may be possible to bring a clone to term in the uterus of an Indian elephant, it is surely not possible to produce something that is precisely identical to the original mammoths. Will a baby mammoth clone be able to survive and thrive on modern elephant milk? Will it be able to resist modern elephant pathogens?
If it survives it may be possible to use the resultant "mammoth" as a mother surrogate in iterated repetitions of the process to produce animals that converge more and more closely to the original, but I fear that the whole project may be a lot more difficult and expensive than some people, even scientists, now naively assume. Here's where the obliviousness of most biologists to Noble's concept of top-down wholistic and emergent causation becomes a practical issue.
There's also the issue of the mitochondria. Are they going to be able to clone mammoth mitochondrial DNA and insert it into mitochondrial intracellular membrane structures in elephant egg cells? It seems like the whole process might have to be done in many, many painstaking stages.
And think about the colossal task of doing this with so many different unique sets of mammoth DNA that you create an ensemble of enough genetically distinct individuals to have a viable gene pool just at the level of avoiding a near-term in-breeding catastrophe. A very small group of individuals would not be able to reproductively sustain themselves over the long haul.
Richard Feynman used to tell a story about his graduate students in Quantum Physics. When they started studying under him, they would eventually come to him and say something like, “Dr. Feynman. What you are teaching us doesn’t make sense. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. It just doesn’t make any sense.” Dr. Feynman would reply, “Shut up and calculate. The math works. That’s all that you’re gonna get. Don’t think about it.”
Maybe the processes of evolution, like Quantum Mechanics, is beyond any physics or chemistry that we have thus far invented. It just doesn’t make sense, but there might be a theory that describes it without resorting to a higher power. Or it might be that the universe is just beyond our ability to completely understand.
The Scientific Method states three things; That the natural world runs on laws, that the human mind can understand these laws, and that we can discover them using the scientific method. But how do we know these are all true?
simple enough. we won't know.
until we do.
With quantum-mechanics, that's rather accurate. You can choose to be good at it OR understand it. Nobody understands it.
whatever it is, I don't think it will have anything to do with a higher power or anything supernatural, as there is no such thing as either of those two things, and the answer will be like every other question in history, a natural one.
@@PhrontDoorbecause it's nonsense
Because he was a priest of the quantum cult. The true scientists like Tesla and Steinmetz were suppressed
Earlier in my life I was fascinated by science, and most of my reading was in various fields of science. That was until I realized that most scientists are in fact adherents to one or other form of scientific dogma which is often quite reminiscent of religion, and that they cannot in fact reason beyond the dogma that they have come to adhere to. There are so many examples of this it would fill a book. Also, contrarians are summarily dismissed - again, identical to the way religion does.
I do not know whether Noble or Dawkins are closer to correct, although it seems to me that there are limitations to Dawkin's approach which seem problematic. What I do know is that my realization about scientific dogma was correct. I see this manifested in nuclear physics, biology, climatology, and many others.
These days I read mostly fiction - that way I can be quite sure that what I am reading is just the viewpoint of the author, and not some doctrine masquerading as deep universal truth.
Denis Noble's perspective aligns with my idea that continuous sperm production throughout a male's adult life serves as an adaptive mechanism. This process allows for the incorporation of environmental influences and stochastic variations, potentially leading to beneficial adaptations. The constant renewal of male gametes provides an opportunity for genetic diversity and responsiveness to changing surroundings. This mechanism could enhance the species' ability to evolve and adapt more rapidly than relying solely on female gametes, which are produced before birth. The ongoing production of sperm may thus serve as a dynamic means of capturing environmental information and generating potentially advantageous genetic variations.
Only this is a complete BS, as sperm is a result of constant division of cells, while eggs were produced before birth. None of that has any impact from environment, as the error rate in production of cells does not come from environment - generally no matter how good environment for males is there, they will be limited by age, where their own cells are going to degrade, that will lead to soon death. Also, very much procreation from males depends on how much testosteron is produced and environment there also plays no role on that. Very primitive approach to this question, that have more variables that has nothing to do with environment.
@@ewfse364u35jh It is that constant production that allows the introduction of variation, variationhas to come from somewhere.
The more I consider times arrow and emergence, the more I feel time does move in both directions (in a way). That we are falling towards a conclusion in the same way we are flowing from a beginning.
Many scientists have adopted atheism along with Darwinism and have created a new religious dogma that they now cherish and defend like it's a god. Simply seek the truth and seek it always.
Neither atheism nor evolution are religious or dogma
@thejabberwocky2819
DOGMA - a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. "the dogmas of faith"
RELIGION - pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. "consumerism is the new religion"
@@rogerengland2821 Neither concept matches that definition. That's the point.
There is no authority in atheism, nor any principles or sets of principles.
Evolution is not laid down as incontrovertibly true, since that isn't how science works. The authority which shows evolution to be reasonably certain to be true, is the empirical evidence and research which supports that conclusion. Neither does evolution have principles.
Want to fail miserably again?
@@thejabberwocky2819
I'm not trying to win anything. I'm just starting the obvious hypocrisy and sanctimonious attitude of many persons who call themselves Atheist.
They have no proof of their beliefs but collectively act as if they do. This is no different than religious behavior.
@@rogerengland2821 Clearly not. Because you just failed miserably to support your claim that atheism or evolution are dogmatic. Thanks for admitting that you can't and won't do so!
Atheism has no beliefs. Evolution is not a belief. Try again.
kids... don't go to school. this man is 25.
There's a shitload of ads