I think that is one of the most stimulating and fun interviews with Mr Morris and Shermer! Although it did not move my agnostic needle at all! Shermer did a great job on this one.
I have all Simons books. They are all amazing reads and exceptionally thought provoking. Simon is well known for his quirky sense of humour. He is also well known for his brilliance.
Yes. His talent for rationality suddenly went out the window. He became an incomprehensible word salad when trying to defend his belief in christianity. It was truly odd and it shows how compartmentalized the mind can be.
You atheists are so hilarious. So much preening and arrogance, it's kind of pathetic. The lack of humility puts even the most fundamentalist Christian to shame.
I think if there is any older intelligent life in the universe than us they would’ve taken evolution into their own hands would’ve been able to change themselves in ways beyond what this guy really engaged with.
The "direction" of evolution is determined by the environmental pressures on the population of a species, which changes from place to place and from time to time. Animals evolved in the sea and climbed on to the land, then moved back into the sea and presently there are amphibian which evolving to live on land. So much for direction.
Misunderstanding on purpose seems to be the only way to attempt the "evolution isn't real" argument. Not like these science deniers have evidence that supports their beliefs, claims, position or their arguments.
Simon Conway Morris says it goes deeper than that. Evolution is constrained also by the laws of physics, which point towards a relatively narrow set of evolutionary solutions.
@@jrskp3677 The ability of humans to deceive and delude themselves is astonishing. People hold false ideas right up to the point of their own deaths. This is a deep flaw with the human species.
@@dimwoo Indeed. It's great thing to have, imagination. It can lead to solutions to difficult problems. But a persons goes too far if they think their imaginings are actually true. What they need to understand is, their imaginings need to be tested by predictions that come true. It's called the scientific method.
I’m only half way, they are talking about extraterrestrial intelligences but they didn’t even mention that UAP’s are undisputed. For anyone to say we don’t know where they come from, it’s true. But, we know they aren’t from here. These people just don’t want to say it out loud.
Really enjoyed this. My understanding is that the "Theory of Evolution" is not good language. Evolution is the established fact. The working theory, Darwin's, to explain the fact of evolution, is better called "Natural Selection." Michael seems perplexed that smart people like Conway Morris might not automatically be atheists. I find that relatively simple answers to the religious questions that come into play somewhere around 1:23 are not that difficult to answer, stemming from an odd epiphany that came to me during a lecture while a student at Princeton. If I can get 10 people to request me to, here as a reply, I would be happy to explain what I mean on a certain blog at a certain time.
Why do atheists care about the beliefs of others? It seems like it is an affront to them that one doesn't agree with their position. Let it go. It is like the atheist is constantly looking for someone or indeed daring someone to convince them god exists. Believe or don't believe....and let others do the same and be happy in the choice either way. And the meanig of life is not universal but will be individual because we are not alike, we are individually unique. There is no one size fits all when it comes to belief. Our lives, experiences, perspectives and everything about each life (thank goodness) is different.
@@tonyburton419 I'm not interested in discussing this with people who have no philosophical background, especially ones who parrot others' bad arguments.
Love it…… he has his own RUclips show and I only just finding out !!!! Dam. Love Michael shermer………… he does need someone though…..not sure what it is. Maybe a nice warm piece of music at the start…..or a darker warmer background. Can’t quite put my finger on it . Anyway great show great host
Great interview. Spiritual belief seems to sometimes become a salve that is used to help seal cracks. I prefer accepting positional ignorance, and working towards knowledge - whether we will or even can know any particular group of ideas about reality. Sometimes when I hear experts in one area say something like, "we might be wrong," I wonder if they haven't read much about Quantum Mechanics, CERN, etc. Reality is nothing like we ever imagined it in any literary sense. Words cannot help us with the reality we discovered, beyond the shadow of a doubt, regarding Quantum Mechanics. On that topic, and regarding much of what Science has clearly demonstrated, words are moribund. Yet, there's some nebulous stories from the far past intimating that this or that - may have happened. Then a bunch of unschooled ruffians believed it. As far as reality goes, I'm staying with the men and women in white coats. Or perhaps, someone can show me the Schrodinger Equation, or Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, in... any ancient text. Given that Science has clearly shown that the reality we now know, was never described in any ancient text - in any reasonable way, then it's reasonable to question the ability for ancient texts, to define reality - at all.
Science doesn't define all reality. Science does not measure the values of goodness, beauty and love. However, goodness beauty and love are human attributes contributing to the quality of life - personal relationships. Religion "ancient texts" upholds the values of goodness beauty and love, within humans relationships. Therefore, science does not define all of the human conditions.
@@steveflorida8699 Where did I imply that Science "all of the human conditions?" That was not my point. So, if you happen to be Christian, and the Old Testament does indeed say that you should stone unruly children to death, then do you think that is upholding "goodness, beauty and love?" Do you think when "God" told his chosen people to kill every single Amalekite and take their land - that was upholding "goodness, beauty and love?" When "God" demanded - human sacrifice in the form of himself/his son (it's confusing) was that upholding goodness, beauty and love? Humans are at one time good, beautiful, loving, gruesome, murderous, and torturers. We are the whole package. Ancient documents are clear about this. Do you disagree? I never said, "Science covers all of human reality." Not once. It has discovered the basis for large chunks of reality - regardless of our attitude, and relationship towards it. For example, with Quantum Mechanics. And, and again, what it has discovered was not contained in any ancient books. The ancient books were wrong about the reality - that Science discovered. Sure, sometimes there's beauty love and goodness in ancient texts, but there's also the stoning of children, murdering entire cultures, and human sacrifice. To be honest, don't you have to take the good with the bad?
@@kencreten7308 "reality we now know was never described in any ancient text" your statement. Love and goodness has been and still upheld by religions for personal growth and social peace. Those ancient texts aspire ones to achieve those uplifting traits. Traits modern science and the scientist does not have tools to measure the values of said uplifting traits. Therefore, science has limitations concerning all things of the human condition. And love and goodness are important for the well being of humans and culture. And I never ascribed to being an apologist for all the religious writings.
@@steveflorida8699 Your appears to be a modified "God of the Gaps," argument. How do you know "Science" cannot comment on morality? How do you know that morality is not completely determined in a materialistic way? What is your data evidence? No one knows, yet. Period. We do know a lot about the brain and it's functions. Ancients did not have the tool of Science (Scientific Method = tool). You did leave out the horrible and torturous history of humanity. You cherry picked love, and goodness from ancient texts. Love and goodness did not come from "ancient texts," they came from people. As did torturing people for wrong ideas and literally burning people at the stake for the egregious sin of translating the Bible into native tongues. I'm guessing that is not the kind of "morality" you are talking about? Are you positive you want to base morality on ancient texts? If you want a cohesive argument, you cannot cherry pick. Science, so far, is our best chance to understand humanity, morality and consciousness. Words, however fine they appear, are bankrupt in attempting to describe "human morality." Unless you want and unending debate about the topic of morality and truth - words cannot help you.
James Stewart was a pilot in a B17 and was tortured by the awareness of what his bombs had wrought. In short, he had PTSD, and perhaps had suicidal ideation. The movie was autobiographical to that extent, I understand.
Regarding the use of the words ‘teleology’ and ‘purpose’: The universe seems governed by physics and a finite number of atoms and heat source. These characteristics may have limited inter-reactive possibilities, but not consciousness.
Shh, some science denier apologist may be listening, not likely they'll understand this or actually "hear" the point you've made. That would take honesty, integrity and honor of which they lack in these situations really.
I've read most of Gould and appreciate him, but prefer Lewis Thomas, who remarks that the notion of progress is currently unfashionable in science. A good distinction, I think.
There is a sense in which one could say species is "becoming"; if the evolutionary algorithm has yet to reach the optimum adaptation of a particular niche, the fossils would then show a snapshot on the way to such a minima. I don't know enough to say if the brain development in Lucy would be such an example - unlikely
Purpose, in my mind, presuppose need or desire. Need or desire presuppose life. Life presupposes many things, two of which are an origin and a context, i.e.,an environment.
It’s good to have you screen this kind of crap to help us avoid wasting time. Thanks Michael. (TLDR- Could have been half the length to save even more. It didn’t even put me to sleep…)
I would love to meet this fellow. How brilliant and humble can one be? Imagine a version of him in ten thousand years; sadly it would be the same chat with just a change in environment. If Kurt Godel taught us anything, is that there can be no absolutes. Humans just cannot process that, Just as an ant can't do quantum mechanics. - despite his brilliance, he too has an absolute. Ideaists have consciousness or decoherance, materialist have entropy, and theists have God. Our search for an absolute is akin to the importance of an ant colony building an ant-hill in the grand scheme of things. The illusion is that we are convinced of progress, but it's just fractals changing shapes.
Just as an ant can't do quantum mechanics. I bet that if Professor. Morris has a pet ant, that it can in fact do quantum mechanics, though I could be mistaken.
Seems that Conway Morris never heard of Ockham's razor... Everything is easy explained with Evolution Theory, there is no need for the extra speculations which he offers.
there is this very profound gap 1:10:39 and i think it is because effectively in contrast to the receive wisdom with regard to consciousness and the mind is 1:10:46 actually what we choose to call our consciousness um it is something much much odder than 1:10:52 it's not a material it's not entirely material
I so love your show. Amazing personality. Great content. So professional. Yet…I find myself yawning on so many of your recents. Two hours? So much rambling and rhetoric. This is the attention span of 2022. Have some direct, intelligent discussions and wrap it up < 40 mins.
Carl Sagan was actually pretty bad in certain areas. He had a sketchy understanding of History. He adopted the priest role more than an actual scientist.
Morris is a wonderful interview and clearly brilliant. However, it's truly astonishing, even uncomfortable, to hear how powerless he was to explain his belief in christianity. He simply would not and could not directly answer Shermer's inquiries on this matter.
Purpose is a function of intelligence. Intelligence is a function of organism-brain. Purpose without organism is, in my view, an oxymoron and unacceptable for any explanation. There is in world a natural order, regularity, developmental progression. This process can create remarkable things.
There is one fundamental in the universe which guides the form of any life in the universe to become similar and related. That fundamental is carbon. It is the properties of this element which enables the complexity of the chemistry which is essential for life. Why is carbon unique as the basis of life? Well there is only one periodic table in the universe and only carbon has the properties to support life. Of course there are a whole lot of other requirements before life can evolve but carbon is the only element which can form long chain molecules.
If there is "design" in biology then why didn't the designer us better, more durable construction materials. Stainless steel would do for teeth. There is some design of sorts, we design our offspring by the mates we select.
The brain is easy to fool: according to me certain folklore ( religion ) is accepted..luckily the professor was not born on papua New Ginea..probably he would wear a Koteka!
did i hear Michael use probability as an argument for something. He could use this rational argument in the fine tuning argument.....whats the probability of life from non life and something from nothing! Near zero?
Somewhat ironic and very predictable that someone that has his views about humans in comparison to other animals also is clearly highly religious even to the point in believing in the resurrection of Christ as a factual event. He doesn’t Even have a coherent argument for his case, he just clearly wants it to be that way so he puts forward vague arguments to support his belief. Interesting to see Michael‘s body language change about 2/3 of the way through when he realises that this guy is just another guy trying to disguise his religious beliefs as hard science.
I don't think this is the case at all. I think Morris, as a scientist, is treading carefully to avoid offending anyone or alienating anyone with his religious beliefs. He's probably been subjected to a lot of ridicule throughout his career being a scientist at a highly respected university. You could tell he clammed up during that part of the questioning, likely because he wanted to guard himself from attack. Shermer was generally respectful in his questioning, but I cant imagine how difficult it is to be a man of faith as well as an academic and scientist. Though I do wish he had gone into more detail about how his faith converges with his thoughts on human origins. I will say, Shermer was probing him quite hard and his questions did cast a wide net on topics, ranging from human origins, fossilized remains, anatomy and evolution of the brain and human consciousness. I also felt that Shermer was too eager to put a label on Morris. He wanted to put him in a box (you're a dualist; you sound like a fideist). Morris handled this 2 hour questioning very well under the circumstances. I liked him.👍
@@katherinemcraig5618 I disagree. Using science like it was in support of any religion is a falsehood. No religion has in their stories or texts that the evidence found will also portray the same story in meaningful ways. The fossil record itself for one. Somehow it has small and simple beginnings for life's start and as it turns out, the layers of rocks contain impressions of bones that get less and less complex over the hundreds of millions of years these layers represent. How does religion tell it? Oh, right. And the deity generated the animals in their current modern forms in succession based on the day and what they do(swim, fly, creep....) Why doesn't the fossil record support this narrative? It should if it were true.
Then don't listen. Close your mind cover your ears. Like the monkey. In the picture. And never question your own motives. Perfect bliss. As that saying goes ignorance is bliss,,
@@duaneholcomb8408 lots of arguments for design have penetrated my blissful ignorance, its just there aren't enough hours in the day to listen to many more. Although here in Shermer's beautifully rational videos it is hard to resist
@@wasATsea one need only to. To ignore design. And. And re envent. The wheel as a accident of nature. And that it has no intelligent. Pattern. It only looks that way.
Extraterrestrials just must be out there. And assuming that on the other planet Apes would also Evolved is even more ridiculous! The only thing He said I can agree it's about Neanderthals (there's so called Multiregional Hypothesis of Human Origin- so called because it ought to be stoped called merely a "Hypothesis" long ago as it is virtually proven)! But as to Aliens... Michael is polite but he's simply exaggerating and creating Christian Mumbo Jumbo.
@@jimmyjasi-anti-descartes7088 that's a fine opinion. But as they say every body's got an A. Hole like every body has an opinion. Just mumbo jumbo. As in I'm right and every body else is wrong. Fascinating. ,,,.
Persuasion is or at least should be based on proof, not the other way around. In other words, the degree of persuasion has no bearing on the degree of proof. You can't determine truth (proof) by counting noses (persuasion). C.S. Lewis: “Granted that reason is prior to matter and that the light of the primal reason illuminates finite minds, I can understand how men should come by observation and inference to know a lot about the universe they live in. If, on the other hand, I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole, then not only can I not fit in Christianity, but I cannot even fit in science. If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on bio-chemistry, and bio-chemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.”
@@duaneholcomb8408 Religious bias will do that. Ahh, there's all this evidence to the contrary which opposes the beliefs we hold, ignoring this is the only way to stay a believer.
I saw ur debate on Joe rogans podcast. I just wanna know how you imagine you are a semi intelligent person. Do you do any actual research? I play with my self too but I don't act like that means I know shit.
Question: These two guys have the same brain volume as any other average Homo Sapiens (1400 cc or so). How can it be, that these two gentlemen by the way they speak are so intelligent, and others, so many others with the same sized brain, are so much less intelligent ?? With the same brain size !!
Human brain sizes are not identical. But the correlation of brain size to intelligence is not that high. Other things like connectivity and gray matter volume matter too.
Myths of evolution? Oh great a science denier apologist, like we need more of those. All done on computers that have progressively evolved from their inception to where current technology is today. Genius position you hold there. No, wait what's the opposite of genius?
@@Raydensheraj To say there are myths of evolution is a completely fallacious position. What's next, humans can biologically transition between male and female gender?
@David Draper I'm not a member of a Church, unlike you. The evidence that exists doesn't support the narrative's claims. It's just imposing something onto an evidence based model that works without presupposing a deity. Why I need to be a paleontologist is confusing, I don't need a degree to understand reality. Which can be objectively verified by multiple independent sources, unlike the bible (and/or the other cults texts), it's deity or the alleged events that are written of in these texts.
I always find it curious how certain obviously accomplished scientists are drawn to religion, particularly Christianity. There are many examples. Seems like cognitive dissonance. His arguments are no better for it that William Lane Craig or any standard sophisticated apologist, in other words, not very convincing and radically out of step with his otherwise fine scientific mind. Religion seems more a product of psychology than anything else, sorry to be dismissive, but I haven't seen any evidence for Christianity or any other religion that can't be better explained by the will to believe despite the evidence.
I think that is one of the most stimulating and fun interviews with Mr Morris and Shermer! Although it did not move my agnostic needle at all! Shermer did a great job on this one.
Yeah, interesting guy.
Morris does not have to move atheist needles, he is only on him by himself and by what he guides himself to its Creator 😊
How to find out if any Religion is FALSE?
Scientific Step by Step Guide.
In 7 minutes:
ruclips.net/video/Y7G6AhiYQkc/видео.html
Was interested for a minute …then Christianity… then falling asleep
I have all Simons books. They are all amazing reads and exceptionally thought provoking. Simon is well known for his quirky sense of humour. He is also well known for his brilliance.
Michael is very patient and kind with Christians. That takes a speciall skill .
Someone sounds bitter
Simon Conway Morris :
On Science: Reasoned, evidence based approach,
On Religion: "Ive got a hunch"
My preferred version of invisible supernatural superbeeing might exist...right???
Yes. His talent for rationality suddenly went out the window. He became an incomprehensible word salad when trying to defend his belief in christianity. It was truly odd and it shows how compartmentalized the mind can be.
@@elmoblatch9787 “Incomprehensible word salad”. Well put Elmo!
On religion: I've got a hunch that supports my holy book. And since my holy book is true, my hunch must true.
You atheists are so hilarious. So much preening and arrogance, it's kind of pathetic. The lack of humility puts even the most fundamentalist Christian to shame.
I think if there is any older intelligent life in the universe than us they would’ve taken evolution into their own hands would’ve been able to change themselves in ways beyond what this guy really engaged with.
The "direction" of evolution is determined by the environmental pressures on the population of a species, which changes from place to place and from time to time. Animals evolved in the sea and climbed on to the land, then moved back into the sea and presently there are amphibian which evolving to live on land. So much for direction.
Misunderstanding on purpose seems to be the only way to attempt the "evolution isn't real" argument.
Not like these science deniers have evidence that supports their beliefs, claims, position or their arguments.
Simon Conway Morris says it goes deeper than that. Evolution is constrained also by the laws of physics, which point towards a relatively narrow set of evolutionary solutions.
@@jrskp3677 The ability of humans to deceive and delude themselves is astonishing. People hold false ideas right up to the point of their own deaths. This is a deep flaw with the human species.
@@dimwoo Indeed. It's great thing to have, imagination. It can lead to solutions to difficult problems. But a persons goes too far if they think their imaginings are actually true. What they need to understand is, their imaginings need to be tested by predictions that come true. It's called the scientific method.
@@dimwoo
Which laws of physics constrain evolution?
I’m only half way, they are talking about extraterrestrial intelligences but they didn’t even mention that UAP’s are undisputed. For anyone to say we don’t know where they come from, it’s true. But, we know they aren’t from here. These people just don’t want to say it out loud.
Really enjoyed this. My understanding is that the "Theory of Evolution" is not good language. Evolution is the established fact. The working theory, Darwin's, to explain the fact of evolution, is better called "Natural Selection."
Michael seems perplexed that smart people like Conway Morris might not automatically be atheists. I find that relatively simple answers to the religious questions that come into play somewhere around 1:23 are not that difficult to answer, stemming from an odd epiphany that came to me during a lecture while a student at Princeton. If I can get 10 people to request me to, here as a reply, I would be happy to explain what I mean on a certain blog at a certain time.
Make that twelve. But that won't happen, will it?
SImon does more bobbing and weaving than an Ali vs Frazier fight.
Why do atheists care about the beliefs of others? It seems like it is an affront to them that one doesn't agree with their position. Let it go. It is like the atheist is constantly looking for someone or indeed daring someone to convince them god exists. Believe or don't believe....and let others do the same and be happy in the choice either way. And the meanig of life is not universal but will be individual because we are not alike, we are individually unique. There is no one size fits all when it comes to belief. Our lives, experiences, perspectives and everything about each life (thank goodness) is different.
I think atheists are simply trying to understand how people can be so stupid. It genuinely fascinates them.
@@elmoblatch9787 I'm trying to figure out the same thing about atheists, and I've yet to find an answer.
@@tonyburton419 I'm not interested in discussing this with people who have no philosophical background, especially ones who parrot others' bad arguments.
@@tonyburton419 Psychological background? You mean I don't have a psychology? Haha, get lost, pal.
@@tonyburton419 Take your own advice, muppet.
Love it…… he has his own RUclips show and I only just finding out !!!! Dam.
Love Michael shermer………… he does need someone though…..not sure what it is. Maybe a nice warm piece of music at the start…..or a darker warmer background. Can’t quite put my finger on it . Anyway great show great host
Great interview. Spiritual belief seems to sometimes become a salve that is used to help seal cracks. I prefer accepting positional ignorance, and working towards knowledge - whether we will or even can know any particular group of ideas about reality. Sometimes when I hear experts in one area say something like, "we might be wrong," I wonder if they haven't read much about Quantum Mechanics, CERN, etc. Reality is nothing like we ever imagined it in any literary sense. Words cannot help us with the reality we discovered, beyond the shadow of a doubt, regarding Quantum Mechanics. On that topic, and regarding much of what Science has clearly demonstrated, words are moribund. Yet, there's some nebulous stories from the far past intimating that this or that - may have happened. Then a bunch of unschooled ruffians believed it. As far as reality goes, I'm staying with the men and women in white coats. Or perhaps, someone can show me the Schrodinger Equation, or Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, in... any ancient text. Given that Science has clearly shown that the reality we now know, was never described in any ancient text - in any reasonable way, then it's reasonable to question the ability for ancient texts, to define reality - at all.
'Accepting positional ignorance'-----this is what Shermer calls the Null Hypothesis in his fine book The Believing Brain.
Science doesn't define all reality. Science does not measure the values of goodness, beauty and love. However, goodness beauty and love are human attributes contributing to the quality of life - personal relationships.
Religion "ancient texts" upholds the values of goodness beauty and love, within humans relationships. Therefore, science does not define all of the human conditions.
@@steveflorida8699 Where did I imply that Science "all of the human conditions?" That was not my point. So, if you happen to be Christian, and the Old Testament does indeed say that you should stone unruly children to death, then do you think that is upholding "goodness, beauty and love?" Do you think when "God" told his chosen people to kill every single Amalekite and take their land - that was upholding "goodness, beauty and love?" When "God" demanded - human sacrifice in the form of himself/his son (it's confusing) was that upholding goodness, beauty and love? Humans are at one time good, beautiful, loving, gruesome, murderous, and torturers. We are the whole package. Ancient documents are clear about this. Do you disagree?
I never said, "Science covers all of human reality." Not once. It has discovered the basis for large chunks of reality - regardless of our attitude, and relationship towards it. For example, with Quantum Mechanics. And, and again, what it has discovered was not contained in any ancient books. The ancient books were wrong about the reality - that Science discovered.
Sure, sometimes there's beauty love and goodness in ancient texts, but there's also the stoning of children, murdering entire cultures, and human sacrifice. To be honest, don't you have to take the good with the bad?
@@kencreten7308 "reality we now know was never described in any ancient text" your statement.
Love and goodness has been and still upheld by religions for personal growth and social peace. Those ancient texts aspire ones to achieve those uplifting traits.
Traits modern science and the scientist does not have tools to measure the values of said uplifting traits. Therefore, science has limitations concerning all things of the human condition. And love and goodness are important for the well being of humans and culture.
And I never ascribed to being an apologist for all the religious writings.
@@steveflorida8699 Your appears to be a modified "God of the Gaps," argument. How do you know "Science" cannot comment on morality? How do you know that morality is not completely determined in a materialistic way? What is your data evidence? No one knows, yet. Period. We do know a lot about the brain and it's functions. Ancients did not have the tool of Science (Scientific Method = tool). You did leave out the horrible and torturous history of humanity. You cherry picked love, and goodness from ancient texts. Love and goodness did not come from "ancient texts," they came from people. As did torturing people for wrong ideas and literally burning people at the stake for the egregious sin of translating the Bible into native tongues. I'm guessing that is not the kind of "morality" you are talking about? Are you positive you want to base morality on ancient texts? If you want a cohesive argument, you cannot cherry pick. Science, so far, is our best chance to understand humanity, morality and consciousness. Words, however fine they appear, are bankrupt in attempting to describe "human morality." Unless you want and unending debate about the topic of morality and truth - words cannot help you.
James Stewart was a pilot in a B17 and was tortured by the awareness of what his bombs had wrought. In short, he had PTSD, and perhaps had suicidal ideation. The movie was autobiographical to that extent, I understand.
Regarding the use of the words ‘teleology’ and ‘purpose’:
The universe seems governed by physics and a finite number of atoms and heat source. These characteristics may have limited inter-reactive possibilities, but not consciousness.
Shh, some science denier apologist may be listening, not likely they'll understand this or actually "hear" the point you've made.
That would take honesty, integrity and honor of which they lack in these situations really.
Yet consciousness exists.
@@jrskp3677 He didn't make a point, just an assertion.
@@dimwoo
Yes, consciousness exists.
Is there some evidence that supports consciousness existing comes from a deity?
@@jrskp3677 I trust I can bear their wrath in defense of rational analysis. Thank you for your reply.
I've read most of Gould and appreciate him, but prefer Lewis Thomas, who remarks that the notion of progress is currently unfashionable in science. A good distinction, I think.
Excellent talk Michael
Well done
Interesting conversation..we certainly seem to be missing something..however, we can feel it
There is a sense in which one could say species is "becoming"; if the evolutionary algorithm has yet to reach the optimum adaptation of a particular niche, the fossils would then show a snapshot on the way to such a minima. I don't know enough to say if the brain development in Lucy would be such an example - unlikely
19:40. Where he says 'heavy lifting', could be 'research and development'.
The Platonic Form seems a constant undercurrent in Conway-Morris' ideas.
Purpose, in my mind, presuppose need or desire. Need or desire presuppose life. Life presupposes many things, two of which are an origin and a context, i.e.,an environment.
It’s good to have you screen this kind of crap to help us avoid wasting time. Thanks Michael. (TLDR- Could have been half the length to save even more. It didn’t even put me to sleep…)
I would love to meet this fellow. How brilliant and humble can one be? Imagine a version of him in ten thousand years; sadly it would be the same chat with just a change in environment.
If Kurt Godel taught us anything, is that there can be no absolutes. Humans just cannot process that, Just as an ant can't do quantum mechanics.
- despite his brilliance, he too has an absolute.
Ideaists have consciousness or decoherance, materialist have entropy, and theists have God.
Our search for an absolute is akin to the importance of an ant colony building an ant-hill in the grand scheme of things.
The illusion is that we are convinced of progress, but it's just fractals changing shapes.
Just as an ant can't do quantum mechanics.
I bet that if Professor. Morris has a pet ant, that it can in fact do quantum mechanics, though I could be mistaken.
Great discussion. Conway Morris was a bit vague, perhaps even evasive, when asked theological questions though.
What an interesting guy - thank you. He's bright enough to come to my fantasy dinner party! Top notch. D.A., J.D. NYC
Seems that Conway Morris never heard of Ockham's razor... Everything is easy explained with Evolution Theory, there is no need for the extra speculations which he offers.
Loved this interview.
I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion.
there is this very profound gap
1:10:39
and i think it is because effectively in contrast to the receive wisdom with regard to consciousness and the mind is
1:10:46
actually what we choose to call our consciousness um it is something much much odder than
1:10:52
it's not a material it's not entirely material
I so love your show. Amazing personality. Great content. So professional. Yet…I find myself yawning on so many of your recents. Two hours? So much rambling and rhetoric. This is the attention span of 2022. Have some direct, intelligent discussions and wrap it up < 40 mins.
That’s your vision of 2022. Others may disagree.
Disagree!
Carl Sagan was actually pretty bad in certain areas. He had a sketchy understanding of History. He adopted the priest role more than an actual scientist.
You have not taken into account the human physiology which is extremely important.
Morris is a wonderful interview and clearly brilliant. However, it's truly astonishing, even uncomfortable, to hear how powerless he was to explain his belief in christianity. He simply would not and could not directly answer Shermer's inquiries on this matter.
Purpose is a function of intelligence. Intelligence is a function of organism-brain. Purpose without organism is, in my view, an oxymoron and unacceptable for any explanation. There is in world a natural order, regularity, developmental progression. This process can create remarkable things.
If a deity exists, it is a point-like singularity.
There is one fundamental in the universe which guides the form of any life in the universe to become similar and related. That fundamental is carbon. It is the properties of this element which enables the complexity of the chemistry which is essential for life. Why is carbon unique as the basis of life? Well there is only one periodic table in the universe and only carbon has the properties to support life. Of course there are a whole lot of other requirements before life can evolve but carbon is the only element which can form long chain molecules.
Religious is bias dear Mr. Morris. Either way, nice conversation.
If there is "design" in biology then why didn't the designer us better, more durable construction materials. Stainless steel would do for teeth. There is some design of sorts, we design our offspring by the mates we select.
Not that many views for that level of quality content...
The brain is easy to fool: according to me certain folklore ( religion ) is accepted..luckily the professor was not born on papua New Ginea..probably he would wear a Koteka!
How is this not creationism?
did i hear Michael use probability as an argument for something.
He could use this rational argument in the fine tuning argument.....whats the probability of life from non life and something from nothing! Near zero?
Somewhat ironic and very predictable that someone that has his views about humans in comparison to other animals also is clearly highly religious even to the point in believing in the resurrection of Christ as a factual event. He doesn’t Even have a coherent argument for his case, he just clearly wants it to be that way so he puts forward vague arguments to support his belief. Interesting to see Michael‘s body language change about 2/3 of the way through when he realises that this guy is just another guy trying to disguise his religious beliefs as hard science.
Wouldn't matter is the argument was compelling, there wouldn't be a shred of good evidence that supports it.
I don't think this is the case at all. I think Morris, as a scientist, is treading carefully to avoid offending anyone or alienating anyone with his religious beliefs. He's probably been subjected to a lot of ridicule throughout his career being a scientist at a highly respected university. You could tell he clammed up during that part of the questioning, likely because he wanted to guard himself from attack. Shermer was generally respectful in his questioning, but I cant imagine how difficult it is to be a man of faith as well as an academic and scientist. Though I do wish he had gone into more detail about how his faith converges with his thoughts on human origins. I will say, Shermer was probing him quite hard and his questions did cast a wide net on topics, ranging from human origins, fossilized remains, anatomy and evolution of the brain and human consciousness. I also felt that Shermer was too eager to put a label on Morris. He wanted to put him in a box (you're a dualist; you sound like a fideist). Morris handled this 2 hour questioning very well under the circumstances. I liked him.👍
@@katherinemcraig5618
I disagree.
Using science like it was in support of any religion is a falsehood.
No religion has in their stories or texts that the evidence found will also portray the same story in meaningful ways.
The fossil record itself for one.
Somehow it has small and simple beginnings for life's start and as it turns out, the layers of rocks contain impressions of bones that get less and less complex over the hundreds of millions of years these layers represent.
How does religion tell it?
Oh, right.
And the deity generated the animals in their current modern forms in succession based on the day and what they do(swim, fly, creep....)
Why doesn't the fossil record support this narrative?
It should if it were true.
Probably should but will not be listening to this because I'm getting a bit tired of Christians being scientific. It's annoying 🤔
Then don't listen. Close your mind cover your ears. Like the monkey. In the picture. And never question your own motives. Perfect bliss. As that saying goes ignorance is bliss,,
@@duaneholcomb8408 lots of arguments for design have penetrated my blissful ignorance, its just there aren't enough hours in the day to listen to many more. Although here in Shermer's beautifully rational videos it is hard to resist
@@wasATsea one need only to. To ignore design. And. And re envent. The wheel as a accident of nature.
And that it has no intelligent. Pattern. It only looks that way.
Extraterrestrials just must be out there. And assuming that on the other planet Apes would also Evolved is even more ridiculous!
The only thing He said I can agree it's about Neanderthals (there's so called Multiregional Hypothesis of Human Origin- so called because it ought to be stoped called merely a "Hypothesis" long ago as it is virtually proven)!
But as to Aliens... Michael is polite but he's simply exaggerating and creating Christian Mumbo Jumbo.
@@jimmyjasi-anti-descartes7088 that's a fine opinion. But as they say every body's got an A. Hole like every body has an opinion. Just mumbo jumbo. As in I'm right and every body else is wrong. Fascinating. ,,,.
Persuasion is or at least should be based on proof, not the other way around. In other words, the degree of persuasion has no bearing on the degree of proof. You can't determine truth (proof) by counting noses (persuasion).
C.S. Lewis: “Granted that reason is prior to matter and that the light of the primal reason illuminates finite minds, I can understand how men should come by observation and inference to know a lot about the universe they live in. If, on the other hand, I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole, then not only can I not fit in Christianity, but I cannot even fit in science. If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on bio-chemistry, and bio-chemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.”
Yes in part. I think thats true. We use. Some evidence and form an idea or theory. But we don't all come to the same conclusions.
@@duaneholcomb8408
Religious bias will do that.
Ahh, there's all this evidence to the contrary which opposes the beliefs we hold, ignoring this is the only way to stay a believer.
Well i made it to the 80min mark so not terrible but far from the best talk
I saw ur debate on Joe rogans podcast. I just wanna know how you imagine you are a semi intelligent person. Do you do any actual research? I play with my self too but I don't act like that means I know shit.
🤔👽
I wasn’t speaking for anyone but myself. Why did you speak for someone other than yourself?
Question: These two guys have the same brain volume as any other average Homo Sapiens (1400 cc or so). How can it be, that these two gentlemen by the way they speak are so intelligent, and others, so many others with the same sized brain, are so much less intelligent ?? With the same brain size !!
Human brain sizes are not identical. But the correlation of brain size to intelligence is not that high. Other things like connectivity and gray matter volume matter too.
Myths of evolution?
Oh great a science denier apologist, like we need more of those.
All done on computers that have progressively evolved from their inception to where current technology is today. Genius position you hold there.
No, wait what's the opposite of genius?
It seems you don't know who Simon Conway Morris is? To say he is a science denier is like saying Dawkins is a science denier.
@@Raydensheraj
To say there are myths of evolution is a completely fallacious position.
What's next, humans can biologically transition between male and female gender?
@David Draper
I'm not a member of a Church, unlike you.
The evidence that exists doesn't support the narrative's claims. It's just imposing something onto an evidence based model that works without presupposing a deity.
Why I need to be a paleontologist is confusing, I don't need a degree to understand reality.
Which can be objectively verified by multiple independent sources, unlike the bible (and/or the other cults texts), it's deity or the alleged events that are written of in these texts.
I always find it curious how certain obviously accomplished scientists are drawn to religion, particularly Christianity. There are many examples. Seems like cognitive dissonance. His arguments are no better for it that William Lane Craig or any standard sophisticated apologist, in other words, not very convincing and radically out of step with his otherwise fine scientific mind. Religion seems more a product of psychology than anything else, sorry to be dismissive, but I haven't seen any evidence for Christianity or any other religion that can't be better explained by the will to believe despite the evidence.
Michael's podcast gets no views. What a waste of time.