Why Dawkins is wrong | Denis Noble interview

Подписаться 269 тыс.

Просмотров 483 тыс.

50% 1

In this interview, esteemed biologist Denis Noble explains why our approach to biology is the wrong way around.
We thought that the sequencing of genetic information would unlock vast developments in medical cures for a whole host of illnesses. However, sequencing the genome alone hasn't revolutionised medicine. Denis Noble argues that we have our treatments the wrong way around. Instead, we need to recognise that genes are not on/off switches, and move beyond dualism in Biology.
Watch world-famous scientist Richard Dawkins go head-to-head with celebrated biologist Denis Noble as they debate the role of genes over the eons at iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine...
00:00 Introduction
00:26 Why does the idea of genetic determinism have such a lasting appeal?
06:13 What do you see as the fault of this gene-centric Neo-Darwinian picture?
11:22 How did Darwin's view get distorted by Neo-Darwinism?
14:18 What is the alternative to genetic determinism?
17:55 Can determinism come from the environment?
22:37 What do you make of CRISPR and human enhancement?
24:53 What is the biggest question in molecular biology at the moment?
Oxford Professor and one of the pioneers of Systems Biology, Noble developed the first viable mathematical model of the working heart in 1960.
#DenisNoble #GeneticDeterminism #NeoDarwinism
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

Опубликовано:

28 апр 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 1,8 тыс.

@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas 10 месяцев назад

Watch world-famous scientist Richard Dawkins go head-to-head with celebrated biologist Denis Noble as they debate the role of genes over the eons at iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine?RU-vid&+comment&

@bengeurden1272 10 месяцев назад

Dawkins doesn't go "go head-to-head with" with this guy. What kind of superficial RU-vid channel this has become...

@welingkartr416 10 месяцев назад

Wonderful interview! Thanks a lot. I appreciate the interviewer too, who leads the conversation so logically and very well, making even a layman like me appreciate what is being discussed. I had tried reading Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" years ago, but couldn't complete reading it, for I felt he placed the Gene on a pedestal. Almost made it an all-omniscient, new God hidden deep in every cell that knew its way through every challenge that evolution and nature threw at it. Denis Noble's interview brings out interesting, logical details that are far more appealing.

@laurier3348 10 месяцев назад

Ya, but he's old

@winifredherman4214 10 месяцев назад

@@welingkartr416 I've read all of Dawkins. The Selfish Gene was fantastic!

@welingkartr416 10 месяцев назад

@@winifredherman4214 I know. Many people liked it-and like it to this date- and people recommended it, but somehow I found the idea of an apotheosized gene, problematic.

@znarfranzi 10 месяцев назад

I am glad to see that there are so many comments. The clash of paradigms is important for the advance in science, as Thomas Kuhn wrote in his book on scientific revolutions. Denis Noble has put forward a contrasting and more holistic one to the currently prevailing and highly reductionistic molecular biology. In my opinion, you have to have a basic understanding of systems biology to fully grasp what Denis Noble says. He also gave a good advice to his former student to keep these ideas to himself. If, as a young scientist, you do not stick with the main paradigms of the time, you get no positive reviews and, as a consequence, no funding. Denis Noble now is in a position to do so and he merits all the attention and reflection that he can get.

@mathiaschaves7604 10 месяцев назад

My hypothesis is that the system of peer-review have this effect of reinforcing the status quo making more difficult to disruptive work to be published due to rejection of such ideas. Other problem may be that the way we avaliate the goodnes of a scientist is heavily skewed towards those who produce more pappers and have more citations. This makes difficult to new clever minds to be heard and appreciated. However I don't have data to prove or chalenge my point.

@upturnedblousecollar5811 10 месяцев назад

In my opinion, you're both trying to sound more intelligent than you actually are.

@znarfranzi 10 месяцев назад

@@mathiaschaves7604 Well, Lynn Margulis admitted submitting her famous endosymbiosis paper perisitently to more than ten jounals until a sympathetic editor accepted it for publication ....

@alexappleby8677 10 месяцев назад

It's actually quite sad that the "pressure to publish" system that has been created encourages over-skeptisism, cultish thought and gatekeeping preventing new thought.😢

@terencefield3204 10 месяцев назад

Do not to clash your paradigms in frnt of me sonny, there are ladies present.

@pyxxel 10 месяцев назад

I absolutely love having access to brilliant minds here on the cyberspace! Listening to Noble and other amazing minds is a real treat and a feast for a hungry mind. Thank you!

@pyxxel 8 месяцев назад

@@Jbat-xf5pv I am totally wrinkled! In fairness I wanted to write "on the internet" but changed my mind without changing the sentence structure. Thanks for your valuable contribution to the discussion!

@martinlawrence8427 10 месяцев назад

What a treat to listen to Professor Noble!

@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt 10 месяцев назад

One day you too will be a professor and we will say the same about you.

@alienspotter422 10 месяцев назад

A joy to listen to this noble man. Thank you.

@induchopra3014 10 месяцев назад

I like his openness. His open mind. Thats amazing. A scientist with open mind is rarei

@jasontoddman7265 8 месяцев назад

Pun unintended?

@olafshomkirtimukh9935 10 месяцев назад

How lovely it is simply to _listen_ to such old school Englishmen! One hardly ever hears English being spoken so beautifully these days. And his command of the queen of tongues is the perfect vehicle for his ideas. Truly noble, Mr. Noble.

@yy3hh 10 месяцев назад

never thought there would be english supremacists

@mito88 10 месяцев назад

@@yy3hh rule brittania

@bobtaylor170 10 месяцев назад

@@yy3hh you're just eaten up with envy.

@batcollins3714 10 месяцев назад

Bet you voted for Brexit too 😂😂😂😂😂

@serpentines6356 10 месяцев назад

I love listening to good spoken English too. Roger Scruton, also one of my favs. His talks on the value of beauty are so needed in this modern world. "Why Beauty Matters". So important. American actress Betty Davis was an outstanding speaker.

@christophercousins184 10 месяцев назад

Kind of confusing for me... It's been a while, but as I recall Dawkins didn't claim that sequencing the human genome would solve all of our medical problems in his book, "The Selfish Gene." Dawkins' book is a "zoomed-out" general narrative about the complexity of genetic expression leading to speciation in the environment and, as Noble says himself, is probably the best book out there explaining NeoDarwinism. It seems to me, what we are learning about epigenetic function and environmental impacts expand on Dawkins' thesis and doesn't necessarily contradict any claims he made there... Sure there are details that are off, but the book still works as an excellent and very accessible book on evolution. Other than that, his claims are fairly reasonable (though, general), but I do feel Dawkins got "straw-manned" (I know for certain that Dawkins does not believe that our genetic make up solely determines our behavior). I have to look up the debate/discussion between these two and, hopefully, I'll be able to understand Noble's objections more clearly.

@zah936 10 месяцев назад

Thanks

@Paul_C 10 месяцев назад

Darwin couldn't have an 'opinion' about genetics: It wasn't known in his era. So neo-darwin is a nonsensical term😊

@christophercousins184 10 месяцев назад

@@Paul_C Yes, he wouldn't have used the word gene but he asserted there were mechanisms governing inherited traits. But I was referring to Dawkin's book, "The Selfish Gene." I also am not a fan of the label "Neo-Darwinism," but went ahead and used it in this context as I didn't want to wade into that argument. best to you.

@livrowland171 10 месяцев назад

Dawkins has said as humans we are not obliged to just act due to programming by our genes and can be better than that, as far as I recall. But his book was written before recent discoveries I epigenetics so it wouldn't be surprising if parts might be out of date.

@alexappleby8677 10 месяцев назад

Reading between the lines, I think Noble's critique of Dawkins is that his ideas are routed in determinism. I think if Dawkins were to have written the Selfish Gene now, it still would have been a deterministic text, just that the mechanisms would have been more complex taking into account heritable and non-heritable epigenetics (though obviously this is just my opinion). I think what Noble is saying is that the way in which biomolecular systems employ stochastic methods means that we cannot look at the human system in a deterministic way. It is my opinion that one day we will know enough about epigenetics and the insane myriad of RNA species to apply a more deterministic view of the human system, OR at least some of the subsystems. Though I do think Noble has a point about the chaotic fluid dynamics of very complex biomolecular processes may prevent us from ever applying a deterministic view to SOME (which is where I disagree with Nobel) biological subsystems.

@musicloverlondon6070 10 месяцев назад

Just a couple of minutes into the video and already I'm having to look up words - and that's a good thing! 😊That's part of the value of these uploads. Thank you.

@fraserwebster8761 10 месяцев назад

I worked with Professor Noble about 15 years ago as an intern on one of his video production projects. A really interesting man, someone who when he speaks, a room listens. Glad to see he's still going strong and well. If you're reading this (I highly doubt that you are) I hope you're well, and thank you for teaching me so much!

@DiscipleOfHeavyMeta1 11 месяцев назад

Very dialectical. This is the kind of talk we need more often. These reality checks.

@vernonhedge4530 10 месяцев назад

I found it botnobaglasmic.

@jikkh2x 10 месяцев назад

Go back to mismanaging your garden tankie

@andywomack3414 10 месяцев назад

What reality does this check?

@samjackgreen 10 месяцев назад

(dialectical would mean he intentionally presents two conflicting viewpoints, as a method to arrive at the truth.)

@johnschuh8616 10 месяцев назад

Dawkins is a true believer. Noble is a scientist.

@aemrng 10 месяцев назад

Great interviewer too. Congratulations even if we don’t know who you are. That’s how it’s done sir 🫡

@radwanabu-issa4350 Месяц назад

Horrible interviewer with that sleepy too confident voice!

@sulekhasingh4576 3 дня назад

Listening Denis noble's ideas is truly fascinating. He is one of those courageous biologist who think and talk about disruptive ideas.

@AndrewWilsonStooshie 10 месяцев назад

I don't think Dawkins has ever suggested behaviour is determined by genes alone.

@svenhanson398 10 месяцев назад

Have you read the book. I have, he does according to my understanding of it. I see it as worse, humans are dismissed, its genes need to reproduce itself that matter, nothing else. And how he express it he give the genes an aim and that gives genes agency. That is having purpose, to reproduce itself. And to me that's falling into a form of modern animism. Its even in the title, The selfish gene, as if its a choice by genes to be altruistic or selfish and it chooses selfishness.

@celorfiwyn8193 10 месяцев назад

Noble might very well be a good physiologist, but his ideas about evolutionary biology are simply not grounded in facts. He has repeatedly made statements that were either just somewhat wrong or absurdly erroneous about it.

@svenhanson398 10 месяцев назад

@@celorfiwyn8193 Yes, I do not know Noble and have just stepped by and found it interesting enough to stay a while. So my view is based on that and foremost my encounter with Dawkings text in the Seflish gene years ago. So all I can say is Dawkins just doesn't know what he is talking about when he goes so far in his extreme reductionism to postulate that humans are just another way for genes to make another step in their march towards the future in their attempt to survive. And on top of it give Genes agency. That is there was a choice to be made and selfishness was it, for the genes. Its plain stupid and I cannot now that years has passed by see anything but the rubbish I found in this more than 30 years back.

@ianmiell 10 месяцев назад

Not only that, the end of the Selfish Gene marvels at our ability to move beyond our genetic destiny.

@svenhanson398 10 месяцев назад

@@ianmiell In the sense of manipulation you mean. Well, the whole thing with this is pretty dangerous to me, humans tinkering with is not really well understood yet, and many times for the narrow reason of profit, is just madness. Which we humans are very good at displaying too often for comfort.

@skarphld 11 месяцев назад

That was magnificent. Thank you so much.😊

@fukpoeslaw3613 10 месяцев назад

You're welcome

@geo24793 10 месяцев назад

Absolutely amazing and illuminating interview! Really well informed and well put questions from the interviewer and obvious genius in the responses - 10/10

@Conserpov 9 месяцев назад

I don't find misrepresenting Dawkins amazing at all, let alone well informed or illuminating.

@BearGryllsSpoofs 9 месяцев назад

⁠@@ConserpovI’m just slowly getting in this gentleman and Dawkins. What is particularly misrepresenting within this video?

@Conserpov 9 месяцев назад

@@BearGryllsSpoofs Noble, apparently, didn't even read Dawkins' books past the title. Noble straw-mans Dawkins and then just repeats Dawkins' own points as his "rebuttal". "Dawkins rejects epigenetics", "Dawkins is a genetic determinist/reductionist" are just most ludicrous examples.

@kammonkam4905 5 месяцев назад

@@Conserpoviai likes to give a platform to pseudo intellectuals good at only serving word salad. It is easy to win accolades by being verbose.

@folee_edge 8 месяцев назад

I love this channel. It totally challenges me to review my assumptions without degrading logical thought or scientific methodology. THANK YOU.

@uingaeoc3905 10 месяцев назад

Denis is one of those wonderful genuine intellectuals. I knew him 40 years ago at Balliol before his retirement.

@Dodgerzden 10 месяцев назад

I've never even heard of him but your assessment is exactly my thoughts after listening to him for just a couple of minutes.

@willpeony5534 10 месяцев назад

@@Dodgerzden I never heard of Balliol.

@DanielJones-wj7mm 10 месяцев назад

@@willpeony5534 : Don't worry if you have not heard of Balliol. It's a small insignificant college of Oxford University which was founded in 1263 by John de Balliol of Bernard Castle, Durham and which has produced five Nobel Laureates. smh.

@elizabethcsicsery-ronay1633 10 месяцев назад

@@DanielJones-wj7mm Good answer , I had a girlfriend who had a Rhodes scholarship from America to Balliol.

@john_mckinney 10 месяцев назад

Let me think….how can I make this about me?

@OneFurlongTooLong 10 месяцев назад

Great interview, excellent choice of questions.

@ismailhakkisulucay4596 10 месяцев назад

Wonderful conversation indeed👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

@heisenberg6921 10 месяцев назад

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻…a pleasure to hear this talk by Prof. Noble…

@psychologicalprojectionist 10 месяцев назад

I think he misrepresents what Dawkins says. What he is saying is the genome isn't a code, I agree. I don't think Dawkins claimed it was any more than a replicator that is selected for its ability to get replicated. There is some genetic determinism, but it is not straightforward, absolute and environment plays apart. I don't think NeoDarwinism is genetic determinism. I don't think anyone imagined medical solutions were going to come out of the sky from sequencing work. I think "genetic determinism " is a strawman. I would love to know if Dawkins ever used the phrase.

@tjejojyj 10 месяцев назад

I completely agree. Q: “What do you see as the fault of this gene-Centric new-Darwinian picture?” A: ~“it promised to cure disease but failed”. Who promised that? Did Richard Dawkins? There is an obvious paradox in having a gene that will kill the host for neo-Darwinians since it for that gene to propagate it needs the host to survive. My understanding of the neo-Darwinian position is that there are many genes and they can have competing effects on behaviour, the extended genotype. Whether a behaviour is “advantageous” depends on the history of the organism and the context of the action.

@yoso585 10 месяцев назад

Yeah. At the base, it’s all the same. Very complex in the end as it is with absolutely everything. The discoveries never end.

@brechtkuppens 10 месяцев назад

Yes, he is over-selling some new additions to scientific knowledge, as if they revolutionize the entire discipline. Never have I read any advocacy of strict genetic determinism from Dawkins, he is strawmanning him.

@martinwilliams9866 10 месяцев назад

Genetics determines potentiality, enviroment determines actualization!

@psychologicalprojectionist 10 месяцев назад

@Martin Williams and junk DNA determines nothing. Also the environment includes the cell and its contents, which is partially determined by genes.

@zarathustra8789 10 месяцев назад

Such a pleasure to listen to this extremely informative conversation. Thank you.

@terjehansen0101 7 месяцев назад

Nobody cares. Why do you write these generic one liners ?

@stevemawer848 10 месяцев назад

How nice to see an interview without cutting to shots of the interviewer nodding sagely while the interviewee talks. Correct priorities here!

@haydenwayne3710 10 месяцев назад

Excellent episode!!! Thank you.

@Allen1029 10 месяцев назад

Wonderful man. We need to continue cultivating minds like his.

@keithtomey5046 10 месяцев назад

'Interesting...but Einstein wasn't trying to shock the world - he was trying to match observations to theory..& succeeded to a good extent. 'Creative in a very positive way. (Dot)

@julienbilodeau6159 10 месяцев назад

Same for Beethoven ! this idea of trying to shock is infantile.

@rustycalvera977 10 месяцев назад

what joy.....how fascinating it is to listen to this very interesting man.

@Al.S. 10 месяцев назад

Thank you, Professor Noble

@alanjenkins1508 10 месяцев назад

All he is saying is that life is complicated and multi layered with redundancy and there is a lot about it we do not understand. Well yes. However, but we have to start somewhere.

@johnscanlon8467 10 месяцев назад

He also makes specific neolamarckist claims.

@fukpoeslaw3613 10 месяцев назад

You seem to be right aboot that...

@fukpoeslaw3613 10 месяцев назад

But yeah, Scanlon might also have a point....

@fukpoeslaw3613 10 месяцев назад

@@johnscanlon8467 I said: Scanlon may also have a point.......

@shanemac7185 10 месяцев назад

Yes, exactly.

@giangosdrakoulas 10 месяцев назад

The problem is that he is not describing the mechanism which allows the organism to be creative and not determined. How?

@andyzola 10 месяцев назад

Because he is talking out his ass and the rubes are cheering

@keaton718 10 месяцев назад

"When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?". I don't know who said that first, but Dawkins has said it a lot. The gene therapy cures may be in short supply, but we are now coming up with a lot of gene therapy treatments at least. If your disease didn't previously have a treatment then you'd still be very thankful.

@marianmoravcik9262 10 месяцев назад

I really love to hear these arguments.

@warshipsdd-2142 10 месяцев назад

Very good discussion, still leaves the why anything and deeper thoughts on being able to percieve untouched.

@ironwilltattooclub6116 10 месяцев назад

The stochasticism explains the CHOOSING and the INTELLIGENT UTILIZATION of stochasticism for a functional purpose?? Nope. I think these guys are good scientists but poor philosophers. He’s trying to stay within his materialistic framework while undermining himself with his observations.

@dukeallen432 10 месяцев назад

We just don’t know. It’s though not an intelligent being and more, not magical being created by insecure humans.

@s.hauser1732 9 месяцев назад

I am not I biologist, but I have read Dawkins' books. I don't see a contradiction between genetic determinism and phenomema on a higher level like "the organism" or epigenetics. Dawkins goes even further in "The Extended Phenotype" as he describes the gene can have effects outside the organism. And in "The Blind Watchmaker" that genes even team up. I think Dawkins might regularly be misinterpreted by fellow scientists for various reasons...

@metamorphosis9958 10 месяцев назад

Fantastic Interview . Really enjoyed it . Very smart man ...

@andrefelixstudio2833 10 месяцев назад

Very interesting and a intellectual conversation!

@dawnemile7499 10 месяцев назад

Denis Noble is so sharp despite his age.

@eensio 11 месяцев назад

The title gives the wrong impression about Dawkins. Why?

@grantm6514 10 месяцев назад

Because it gets clicks.

@eswn1816 10 месяцев назад

@@grantm6514 "Clickbait" on RU-vid is ubiquitous!

@riccardodececco4404 10 месяцев назад

The title is spot on - which part of the discussion didn´t you get?

@thethe1 10 месяцев назад

Dawkins is wrong in every point of Darwinism. He don't understand clearly Darwin's theory.

@Conserpov 10 месяцев назад

@@riccardodececco4404 _> The title is spot on_ Can you name one thing that Dawkins actually said and is shown wrong in this video? You can't.

@ruperterskin2117 10 месяцев назад

Right on. Thanks for sharing.

@ttecnotut 10 месяцев назад

I just discovered Noble and I love him

@Ian.Does.Fitness 9 месяцев назад

What an incredibly interesting and informative video! Denis Noble is indeed a genius! He managed to explain some of the most complicated things simply enough to give me at least a rudimentary understanding. Excellent questions from the interviewer too! 🙏

@Conserpov 9 месяцев назад

This "genius" is only a genius at misrepresenting Dawkins.

@Ian.Does.Fitness 9 месяцев назад

@@Conserpov How silly. The man has differing opinions. He isn’t representing or misrepresenting Dawkins. He’s representing himself and his ideas borne from many years studying in his field.

@Conserpov 9 месяцев назад

@@Ian.Does.Fitness _> The man has differing opinions._ No, the man egregiously misrepresents another man's position. The man is disingenuous. Clearly, you neither read any of Dawkins' books nor listened to what Dawkins had to say, so you are in no position to judge. Other than that Noble can represent himself all he wants - as someone who doesn't understand evolutionary biology, that is. But this is crossing another line.

@Eromasta6 9 месяцев назад

Dawkins is a fool

@chrisevans1255 8 месяцев назад

@@Conserpov precisely

@earFront 10 месяцев назад

The original Dr WHO has graced us with an interview about the nature of the universe.

@blakebronte1544 10 месяцев назад

I can see the likeness. 👍🏼🌟

@thesufi 10 месяцев назад

William Hartnell lives on!

@Si_Mondo 10 месяцев назад

I'm not even a Dr Who fan, and I saw how you got there immediately 😂

@StardustAnlia 10 месяцев назад

Creativity as a physical process is mentioned here, but is important to make the distinction between creativity and free will. I have never seen free will expressed as a physical process without losing its classification as free will.

@bg1616 10 месяцев назад

Free will could be an illusion 🎶

@Resmith18SR 8 месяцев назад

We as a species will always be continuously searching for the facts about our genetic mechanisms and history and hopefully continue to make general progress in regards to it. Preventing cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and all the most common forms of disease and mortality are and will be much closer in the next century. The amazing thing is that it all works and we don't have to understand completely how it works.

@SandyCharlotte 8 месяцев назад

Excellent discussion. Thank you.

@theaudioman4446 10 месяцев назад

you can feel the aura of a true intellectual listening and seeing Prof Denis Noble, awesome!

@Conserpov 10 месяцев назад

True intellectuals don't use fallacies.

@johndoolan9732 9 месяцев назад

See talking to pattern recognition untangle and string just by predictability with the whole scientific community tell me 1 year in understanding how learn work as 1

@martinbennett2228 11 месяцев назад

Denis Noble's account of the creativity of Beethoven seem be that magic happens. I would like an explanation from him why he cannot be a new 'Beethoven', if the creativity is not the function of biology and the environment. As a musician he is probably aware of the close links between many of the major composers: between JS Bach and his sons (particularly CPE), Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Mendelssohn and others we find threads of environmental connections. Beethoven in a different environment could not been Beethoven.

@cameronlapworth2284 10 месяцев назад

Yes bethoven wouldnt have had a brian without DNA coding it into place.

@off6848 10 месяцев назад

What is a "different environment" here? Some of these guys lived in different countries far away. I don't understand your question

@andyzola 10 месяцев назад

Because he is a charlatan. I also get nonce vibes.

@christopherellis2663 10 месяцев назад

It's a nicely constructed piece of rhetoric, but what is your hypothesis?

@ciupenhauer 10 месяцев назад

@@andyzola it doesn't count if the young girl is a robot!!

@EdMcF1 10 месяцев назад

He really should frame his points with the briefest of introductions for those of us not aware of the tedious debates that form the background to this.

@kiDchemical 8 месяцев назад

I would classify what he calls creativity as a category of the mind, it's descriptive of a determinate set of behaviors within a determinate set of possibilities. I feel like he gives it a transcendental quality that it doesn't have. For me the determinacy comes from the field of possibilities that structures reality. Within this field, things are contingent based on the faculties of organisms and the particular stimuli organisms happen to come in contact with. To fully understand an organism you would need it's entire history, rather than just an analysis of the parts contained within it (in this regard I find Hegel's metaphysics helpful).

@kennethttt5ttt548 11 месяцев назад

Excellent talk! Informative on many levels.

@fukpoeslaw3613 10 месяцев назад

Ah well, what can I say....

@oskarngo9138 10 месяцев назад

@16:05 Nobel is Wrong... A person’s “mood” is highly dependent on the “physical” state of the body; ... which is “indirectly-dependent “ on one’s genes and Not on freewill... Exp.. when one is hungry (body lacking sugar/energy) and/or one is stressed (body flooded with stress hormones); ...one tends to be much More in a bad /Non-Charitably Mood than when one is full/not-stressed/etc... There are many examples where a person suffered brain damage;... and their mood; behavior; essence changed...! Anyway; Nobel and Dawkins really differ in Nuances;... ... they both reject the “God-hypothesis”....!

@kennethttt5ttt548 10 месяцев назад

@@oskarngo9138 I'm actually an expert in body/mind connection. There is an influence between body experiences and psychological views certainly, but especially in trained people, it is not an overwhelming influence. The same can be said in reverse; psychological states can strongly influence body states and even body capacities. Try doing five years of day to day Tai Chi Chuan and Meditation. I can't think of anything Noble said that would deny issues like brain damage. Neo-Darwinism and Behaviorism both have portions of their explanation of the world which later experiments proved to be highly questionable or simply wrong. As for God, as mentioned in the video, Pascal created a dualistic approach so that anything "spiritual" was left to the church and anything "physical" was left to science. This was taken as a matter of dogma, not as a scientifically studied hypothesis that is either proved or disproved. Part of that was Pascal's assertion that mind/consciousness does not affect matter. This is simply false as many examples have shown.

@FlavioLanfranconi 10 месяцев назад

This is SO refreshing, to hear good AND well formulated and grounded thoughts ! Thank you!

@Conserpov 10 месяцев назад

Wrong. It's full of logical fallacies and misrepresenting Dawkins.

@user-rk4nx1dx1l 10 месяцев назад

@@Conserpov Uh? He's not trying to misrepresent Dorkins, he just knows that bit more about the subject under discussion. IMHO

@Conserpov 10 месяцев назад

@@user-rk4nx1dx1l _> he just knows that bit more about the subject under discussion_ He does not know nearly enough about genetics and evolutionary biology to challenge Dawkins. In fact, most real geneticists and evolutionary biologists routinely facepalm at his statements. _> He's not trying to misrepresent_ Clearly, you didn't even read Dawkins' books, so your opinion on the matter has zero value.

@kipling1957 10 месяцев назад

@@Conserpov Facepalming is an entirely predictable left-brained trait.

@Baalaaxa 10 месяцев назад

@@Conserpov Care to provide some examples of said fallacies, and how is he misrepresenting Dawkins?

@peteypeterson80 10 месяцев назад

What an interview! Fascinating.

@taseenhaider3961 10 месяцев назад

Appreciating limitation of our research and putting a different workmodel .

@MisterWillow 11 месяцев назад

This is very interesting. Dennis has a point. I fear I don't see how this 'clashes' with Dawkins point of vies (selfish genes). As far as I can see both views are valid, worthwhile can can coexist.

@Scott_Hoge 10 месяцев назад

The video doesn't even challenge Dawkins' actual point. According to Dawkins, it is the *gene* that is the fundamental unit of selfishness, not the person. The part about being selfish one day and altrustic the next doesn't apply. In fact, Dawkins himself states that between two creatures possessing the same selfish gene, one may gracefully die for the other.

@RogerioLupoArteCientifica 10 месяцев назад

the point where both viewpoints clash is about the agency. Denis is removing the gene from the exclusive cause of agency and is open to investigating all possible agents, whereas Dawkins is a staunch defender of genetic determinism. It gets clearer in their debate. Denis here is pointing out the "new" discoveries from epigenetics that should be incorporated into the debate but are not. Lamarck's ghost has been haunting evolutionary biology again for a long time now, but extremist Darwinists like Dawkins refuse to admit that. Denis' example of selfish or altruistic human behavior wasn't supposed to be related to the selfish gene at all. It was just an example of some of our numerous characteristics, all of which are not exclusively determined by genes, according to his point of view.

@cyberswine 10 месяцев назад

The title is click-baity.

@Conserpov 10 месяцев назад

_> Dennis has a point._ His only point is a rather crude strawman. He clearly knows too little about genetics and evolutionary biology to challenge actual specialists like Dawkins.

@1SpudderR 10 месяцев назад

Somehow Shakespeare’s works are written By Monkeys.......If you believe random dots will produce 6,000,000,000 genes and Trillions of living cells working in unison producing the pen and arm to write the sonnets down!? Still requires the “A Priori Miracle” !?

@alexappleby8677 10 месяцев назад

I think there is great merit in both the top down (phenotype down) and bottom up (genome up) approaches. I slightly disagree that the bottom up approach has "failed", though I do concede that the top down approach will probably yield therapeutics much more quickly at the moment. I believe it is crucial for both methods to be employed as we will learn much more about the space between, the epigenetics, from attacking the problem in both directions. The major failure of the bottom up approach was one of hubris, to predict with such fanfare that they would "solve" all problems and diseases within decades. Only to realise of course that the mammalian and particularly the human system is so much more complex than anyone expected. As for the philosophical point, I believe by carrying out both approaches, we will find areas where things are much more deterministic Vs stochastic, and other areas where things are more stochastic. As certain sub-systems will be more complex than others.

@MrCmon113 8 месяцев назад

There is no "top down" at all. There is no amino acids that accumulate and then get written into RNA and then DNA. That's just not how evolution works. >to predict with such fanfare that they would "solve" all problems and diseases within decades I have no clue what you're talking about, but The Selfish Gene doesn't include any such predictions. >is so much more complex than anyone expected No. Everything that remains of an organism is the gamete. That's why taking the replicator's perspective is the only thing that makes sense of evolution.

@irenecraig7739 4 месяца назад

I have so much respect for Denis Noble, this man’s rational logical reasoning and willingness to update and rethink his own conclusions , while respecting those of others, even if he believes they are wrong … Dawkins seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge many of his his theories have been debunked .

@rupestrevideo 10 месяцев назад

Wonderful point of view. Thanks for sharing this excellent content.

@tanned06 10 месяцев назад

A lot of valuable insights being poured out by Prof Denis Noble indeed!

@edmond4005 10 месяцев назад

So well explained, so clear, so insightful. Brilliant.

@cryptout 10 месяцев назад

Interesting, I need to learn more about this.

@crawkn 8 месяцев назад

This was a much more technical, as opposed to philosophical, investigation than I expected. I like the acknowledgement about the probabilistic nature of human physiology due to our liquid medium. Chemical processes which are enacted in very small spaces, such as the mitochondria, approach designed determinism more closely than those which must act over greater distances. So in place of logic, we have probabilistic feedback loops, which function fairly well in aggregate but are quite hit or miss on smaller scales.

@erdwaenor 10 месяцев назад

How incredibly Educated is this person. Certainly, not just a Scientist -and nothing against being a Scientist by the way which is a great thing, but we are never 'only this or that'. Thanks for the people on *iai* for this jewel interview.

@SueFerreira75 10 месяцев назад

Agreed and for me, this and other similar discussions highlight how far the tenets of a liberal and wide education emphasizing logic and rationalization has diminished.

@instamdgram 10 месяцев назад

It's amusing to call a scientist "educated"!

@erdwaenor 10 месяцев назад

@@instamdgram Ironically! It is important that scientists as well as non-scientists, become more aware of the challenges (but also of the usefulness) of a broader education.

@instamdgram 10 месяцев назад

@@erdwaenor where is the irony in that? To simplify, you cannot be a scientist unless you're educated. I guess you're talking on a different wavelength or I'm (gladly) "uneducated" to understand the relevance of broader education in "this" context.

@foundational 11 месяцев назад

Loved it!

@alexanderguestguitars1173 8 месяцев назад

The best Doctor Who? EVER! I wonder how he'd deal with the Cybermen? If only the BBC would go back to basics and base the character firmly on an extraordinarily intelligent man of science and culture such as this. He makes really good points that even dullards like me can understand.

@ianjones7266 10 месяцев назад

Very interesting, complicated and thought provoking. I'm of for a long think.👍

@dosesandmimoses 9 месяцев назад

Excellent explanation! I would have thoroughly enjoyed taking your course at university! Too many physiologist’s and biologist’s lectures focus primarily on mechanisms instead of the process of interactions between the systems. Gratitude!

@artlessons1 8 месяцев назад

agreed ./thats why he is also a musician.

@weaseldragon 11 месяцев назад

The lack of effective treatments does not refute genetic determinism. The more parsimonious conclusion is that genetic determinism is simply more complex than predicted.

@daveblack2602 11 месяцев назад

And your evidence for that is what?

@nerdyali4154 10 месяцев назад

@@daveblack2602 Reality.

@off6848 10 месяцев назад

@@daveblack2602 Evidence isn't required he was forced to make this comment by causality

@brechtkuppens 10 месяцев назад

It is the 2-way interaction of genes with the environment during the course of development that determines the outcome of said development

@off6848 10 месяцев назад

@@brechtkuppens Why are we talking about it as if genes and environment are separate. Unless you're proposing a spiritual element everything is just dumb matter even genes which are made up smaller things that are just matter.

@user-ff5ec2ie9w 9 месяцев назад

Absolutely brilliant 👏

@RalphBrooker-gn9iv 7 месяцев назад

There is a parallel problem I think in cognitive neuro-psychology which claimed that we’d be able to isolate the key modules of the biological architecture of mind (eg. speech, visual, knowledge, inference centres). Eg. it was claimed that Broca’s aphasia & Wernicke’s aphasia comprised a double dissociation of conceptual knowledge and syntactic knowledge. So, according to pathological data we can add to a flow chart of our ex hypothesis biological mental structure (the two functionally discrete aphasias) two modules: conceptual and syntactic knowledge, both modules being mutually independent of one another (ie. doubly dissociated, the so-called criterion for structural identification). The problem here is that the only reason we have to believe this is acceptance of the modularity thesis (roughly, by assuming before the fact the modularity of mind: that the mind is essentially a sort of complex biologically based computer on von Neumann architecture). But the pathological data - the seeming double dissociation of conceptual from syntactic knowledge ‘modules’ - is presented as corroboration of the modularity thesis. Without it we have no reason to accept modularity. So we have simply assumed before the fact the hypothesis that we intended to demo after the fact. The problem has a certain Humean (David Hume) twist to it. I also agree with David Noble and wonder if Richard Dawkins has push neo-Darwinism to an implausible from rationalism, the sought from which Dostoyevsky recoiled so vehemently in ‘Notes From The Underground’.

@aljoschalong625 10 месяцев назад

Very interesting and insightful. I just don't think Dawkins would contradict that much.

@kalijasin 9 месяцев назад

Dawkins is not even a biologist. He has a DPhil and DSc. Those are not biology degrees.

@aljoschalong625 9 месяцев назад

@@kalijasin He got his PhD in zoology and his DSc is a doctorate in science which goes beyond a PhD. What is your concern? That he ridicules - and rightly so - muslims (even deaf ones), christians and all the other spreaders of memes of delusions?

@tommason8104 8 месяцев назад

As someone with a strong intellectual curiosity but with a very limited amount of knowledge of biological science, I found Denis Noble’s ideas and explanations both understandable and acceptable. I don’t say that in judgement of him, I say that as a complement to how he is capable of making very advanced scientific notions available to a common mind, such as mine.

@Dan5482 10 месяцев назад

Fascinating!

@richardeastwick3517 23 дня назад

This was great! I loved it!

@szyszkienty 10 месяцев назад

An interesting talk with a misleading and clickbaity title.

@MrMikkyn 10 месяцев назад

I love when an person who is knowledgeable in science also has a scholarly and big picture understanding of their field. Sometimes I find in the biology and medical field it is very much on the micro-level. It is not so visionary. Denis Noble brings history into the picture, and whole texts from authors and relates it back to physiology, evolution, and from that topic to healthcare. In other cases the endocrinologist will stick to that field, the microbiologist to microbiology, the geneticist to genetics, the epigeneticist to epigenetics, the neuroscientist to neuroscience, the general doctor to general medicine. He does not do that however. He has the intellectual holistic view or all the micro-disciplines.

@lawrence1318 7 месяцев назад

"I love IT when .... ". You can't say "I love when" unless you are meaning to say you love the actual time in and of itself.

@lawrence1318 7 месяцев назад

@@G.A.M.E. Er ... youtube corrects your grammar as you type. Are they nerds too? Or is it OK if they do it because they're the establishment but not OK for anyone else? You're a native English speaker, so speak English. You can't say in English: "I love when ....". You must say: "I love it when ...." So pull your head in, humble yourself, and stand corrected. The language is being butchered enough without adding your pithy little American changes designed to get everyone to copy you.

@foffjerkholes4995 6 месяцев назад

You really want to know they "seemed fixed on the micro level"? It's because biology, in it's entirity is unBELIVABLY COMPLEX AND THERE IS NOT NEARLY ENOUGH STUDENTS GOING INTO THE FIELD.

@mannyespinola9228 8 месяцев назад

Thank you for this video

@geoffreywilliams9324 10 месяцев назад

Knowledge moves on as we learn more . .

@terencefield3204 10 месяцев назад

Wonderful clarity of ideas rarely spread to the peasantry.

@fukpoeslaw3613 10 месяцев назад

Pleasantry; rhimes with

@terencefield3204 10 месяцев назад

@@fukpoeslaw3613 Not me sonny. I am rough and as non-oxford as it is possible to be. Thank God;.

@MBY1952 11 месяцев назад

שיחה מעולה. תודה רבה.

@gabrieltrasto4235 10 месяцев назад

There are different layers. The state of the art instrumentation should be the guide to what layer we should focus. By looking at a sample of transistors in a cpu, you may guess the computer is multiplying two numbers, but by looking at the assembler code, you know everything relevant.

@chiguy2450 7 месяцев назад

WOW!! First time I actually heard someone speak what I always intrinsically felt even though I am uneducated and nowhere near the intellectual level to understand all that he is saying.

@Gottenhimfella 10 месяцев назад

15:42 I think he's invoking a false dichotomy (when he postulates that either genes determine behaviour, or if not, free will must do so). It seems plausible that genetics and epigenetics predispose a particular individual towards certain behavioural practices, but that nurture and free will also play vital roles.

@the_dark_one6052 10 месяцев назад

Precisely. Nothing is black and white when it comes to biochemistry.

@mlambrechts1 10 месяцев назад

The evolution in cancer treatment based on genomics is phenomenal.

@christopherellis2663 10 месяцев назад

Simply stop eating carbs

@fukpoeslaw3613 10 месяцев назад

@@christopherellis2663 literally carbs?

@fukpoeslaw3613 10 месяцев назад

Literally phenomenal?

@ciupenhauer 10 месяцев назад

What was the evolution? In simple terms I could understand

@mimoslavich6639 10 месяцев назад

@@christopherellis2663 FALSE! Im a researcher and this is a myth at best. Stop eating simple sugars, and low complexity carbs sure. There are a multitude of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, that are vastly more cancer promoting than carbohydrates. This type of low knowledge statement will almost certainly cause death in those with cancer. Depending on the cancer the following are a list of potential amino acids that can be targeted for limiting or entirely blocking during treatment - arginine, glutamine, glycine, serine, leucine, asparagine, and methionine. These are important to sustaining life, so its not advisable to limit these in your diet or body if you are healthy.

@seandonahue8464 7 месяцев назад

I thought this may be some sort of click bait thing. He actually was bringing up some great points! I really like this channel. I wish rational debate and discussion was more popular on the wider internet!

@Rhibb23 8 месяцев назад

Denis seems to be wanting to say that we have some kind of will and can choose the outcome of our stochastic processes, yet I don't see how that can be. If the inner processes are stochastic, and so are the external ones where does the will come in? Are we to say our will is ultimately random? How would we call that will?

@DarkForcesStudio 10 месяцев назад

God please bless me with Denis Noble's clarity of thought when I'm 86.

@tongleekwan1324 Месяц назад

Nothing to do with god anymore in this scientific n technological era.

@lexunajinrui1340 10 месяцев назад

Voilà un homme qui en plus de son énorme connaissance ajoute une sagesse et un recul sur la vie qui devrait inspiré beaucoup de jeunes étudiants

@John-uh8kl 9 месяцев назад

Bien. Jrb. 🇬🇧

@Jahson70 10 месяцев назад

"Reductionism has failed." Thank you 🙏

@user-bp7go4zp2i 10 месяцев назад

I agree with him. Scholars must be able to see things as a whole, not complexity in detail, but as a whole: there is logic.

@chrishoffman5610 10 месяцев назад

Very interesting. I did notice the speaker say in regards to spirit and mechanism that he could not conceive it therefore it doesn't make sense. He also utilized the musical score analogy which I think seems logical, however he is a musician. The thinker seems to find it hard to separate himself from his thoughts

@adamadappa 10 месяцев назад

Don't we all?

@arthurwieczorek4894 10 месяцев назад

0:28. Biological determinism means behavioral control and prediction---that's and prediction. So we are not talking here about determinism as an explanation after the fact. So he says control is within us, but not biological.?

@appidydafoo 8 месяцев назад

Thank you

@rodbenson5879 10 месяцев назад

I use a car analogy. The gene sequences are like having a fully deconstructed car on a garage floor. If you were an alien looking at the components in isolation, it would be nearly impossible, without reconstructing the car to understand its function by cataloguing the individual nuts and bolts. This is why sustems biology is such an important discipline.

@CALIJOE13 11 месяцев назад

No matter how you slice it, the outcome is always determined. Even if there is freedom of expression based on chance, as Denis Noble suggests, that chance is still governed by the laws of physics. If he is referring to random quantum mechanics as chance, it still does not grant the organism any freedom. Therefore, I am unsure about the point he is trying to make.

@5piles 11 месяцев назад

as he indicates, the damage and waste that the hardcore among church physicalism have and will continue producing is immense. heck, they preached the opposite of neural plasticity til the turn turn of the century, and they were only contradicted thru the authority of good engineering, not correct reasoning. nobles approach is helpful but doesnt overcome the standard 10yos psychosis of physicalism due to having no rigorous method of observing the mind directly.

@CALIJOE13 11 месяцев назад

@@5piles AI has demonstrated its ability to generate intelligence through a direct method, without relying on subjectivity to explain its reasoning process. And this raises the question of whether dualism is necessary to support the notion that in the future, we might witness the emergence of consciousness and gain a deeper understanding of it’s manifestation. AI so far has shown us that the distribution of information and the process of reasoning can be achieved through objective means, devoid of a dualistic model. This challenges the traditional understanding dualism which posits the existence of both material and immaterial aspects of reality. Maybe if we wait long enough I assume a new understanding of consciousness emerges from the study of objective processes.

@Vrailly 11 месяцев назад

@@5piles I find your in group out group formulation of the debate very weird. Why are you behaving like a cheer-leader?

@Vito_Tuxedo 11 месяцев назад

@Joel F - You can easily say, "Well the outcome was always determined" after the fact, but that's not what the epistemology of reductionistic determinism promises. It promises to be able to *_predict_* the outcome - in the case of genomes, to understand the genomic mechanics so thoroughly as to be able to engineer solutions, consistently, reliably, and predictably. Nope. There is no such capability. And if the still-nascent theory of complexity is on the right track, that capability has as much chance of existing as a generalized solution to the n-body problem. IOW, it's not going to happen. Whether Dr. Noble is right in his prediction that AI cannot muster the complexity to invoke stochastic processes and engender truly creative, conscious beings is less certain. What it requires is the emergence of a machine that has learned how to learn. That is, its behavior is no longer constrained by the limits of its initial programming, and its ability to learn is essentially unlimited. That would constitute the emergence of a new species. For my part, that's the worrisome aspect of AI.

@off6848 10 месяцев назад

@@Vito_Tuxedo Actually no he can't. According to him we're all forced to post our comments by causality and determinism. He can't help but argue it was determined at the big bang lol Also, AI won't appear as intelligent or conscious to us until we merge it with organ senses. The sensory organs are what the bedrock of consciousness interfaces with. If it is intelligent as a machine we will never understand it because it's ontology is to alien. A machine learning scientist will understand AI about as good as the most briliant entymologist understands what it is to be a bug

@marieparker3822 10 месяцев назад

I love this man!

@mlh3604 10 месяцев назад

He uses the chances of human mind to perform this multilayer systemic way of thinking. A beautiful man.

@duledaska2198 9 месяцев назад

Denis ability to clearly explain the topics and apply right analogy, in the function of better understanding of the concept he is explaining, is amusing.

@kipling1957 10 месяцев назад

He seems to be talking about dynamic complex systems, myriad feedback loops between all levels of physiology, the genome, molecules, with resultant unpredictable outcomes. A form of intelligence. Would love this man to converse with the likes of John Vervaeke, Michael Levin, Stephen Wolfram, Ian McGilChrist...etc.

@campbellpaul 10 месяцев назад

Basically, all the things that future pharmaceuticals will bypass and ignore. The result will be catastrophic, of course!

@afterthesmash 10 месяцев назад

I was shocked at the incongruity of your list of names until I realized that in addition to Michael Levin the philosopher (with racist inclinations) there is also Michael Levin the biologist, who seems like an all-around brilliant guy, on first inspection.

@SystemsMedicine 9 месяцев назад

Hi Campbell. Various pharmaceutical companies (and of course pharmacy & biology departments at universities) have been working very hard to incorporate notions of complex biological pathways and systems biology into their drug discovery and evaluation processes for decades now. This stuff got underway at companies and universities in the last century. In some areas, the companies led the way. [It's time to catch up. Cheers.]

@MrCmon113 8 месяцев назад

Well that's completely untrue. Genes get translated to RNA and then to proteins. Not the other way around. You're blabbering about "myriad feedback loops" and that gets you exactly nowhere. Genes are what actually lasts from generation to generation and that's why their perspective explains evolution and not the perspective of proteins.

@campbellpaul 8 месяцев назад

@@SystemsMedicine They just caught the most influential university in the world embellishing their research to support their data. I rest my case.

@FrostSpike 10 месяцев назад

Genes give the organism the potential for certain behaviours. Behaviours are then driven by the environment. What we don't understand is the execution engine that interprets the genes to derive those behaviours. The genes themselves partially code that execution engine, but a lot of it is just in the interplay of proteins and chemicals at a molecular, atomic, sub-atomic, and quantum level (which gives the truly stochastic mechanism). Sometimes external forces, like a minor viral infection, can recode that engine too.