The way Harari observes, analyses, comprehends and then explains human society and systems in general is mind blowing to me. What an incredible and enriching conversation.
Natalie was my first celebrity crush. Not only is she gorgeous but extremely intelligent. Yuval is one of my favorite authors. This conversation was amazing.
I find it amazing that people don't realise that most of our lives are lived within constructs--things we've agreed upon. We act like so many things are inevitable. But they're not. Every moment is pregnant with possibility. We need to create new constructs. I'm glad someone has communicated in a way for people to get it.
Claire Bearoness In a sense almost all is make belief. Culture, society, religion, money, economics , institutions, morals, and to an extent even our interpretation of science and history has an element of make belief and story telling to it. Its unavoidable...it gets more objective once u get to math but even there u have models in model theory and interpretation.
Excellent sit down discussion, excellent subject matter and interpretations. Natalie Portman was very insightful and beautiful; excellent video...Some of the subject matter reminded me of when I used to study The Family by John Bradshaw in the 1980's and 1990's. Very well presented... Thank you.
Didn't know Nathalie studied psychology, she made, in my view, the best questions to Yuval even more important and existencial than the same about AI that we always hear from Yuval, and Yuval as always with great answers simple and profound at the same time
T Clark why everybody should read his book? because it is a very interesting point of view of the humanity though our origins, our nature, the History... His book is a new perspective of the humanity, a big picture of our evolution... so interesting point of you that I’m curious to read his next book
Thanks for this. A great way to open the mind and look at the world as it is. Defining how to be human and that we need spirituality to move forward from this point.
Very interesting to listen to Yuval Harari despite the incompetent interviewer. It looks like Portman just didn't prepare her questions at all but Mr. Harari still could make sense out of them. He's just a very smart and interesting man!
Prof.Harari is giving a great PLOT to the film makers who Feel responsible to make a difference , kind of difference that never have happened to the societies of the world before.!
Yuv gone super star here...what's your story? what chapter will you write? what fiction will you create to guide us? Yuv got a great chance, a great responsibility, a great social capitol you may expend.....I watch with interest how you will use this power. Good luck Yuv
Natalie Portman is a distraction to the interview. Based on her questioning, she appeared to be unprepared or incapable of eliciting Noah's best responses.
I respectively disagree. I think she is distracting though because she is so hot. But I think she did a great job with questioning. It looks like she had no written script... Looking back at the video, it looks like she has a piece of paper. Still I thought she did a great job.
i'd have to disagree, there's qualities she brought to the interview that a celebrity well known interviewer wouldn't, candidness, genuine curiosity, i sensed a bit of vulnerability... to me the interaction came off more of a conversation which i at least preferred
Maybe she was a bit intimidated, sure, but I think she was a good part of the conversation as well. She was less equipped with historical narratives because her field was psychology. Harari's perspective is such mind blowing.
Natalie interviews like a student, even quoting her Professor (" I studied Psychology..."..) Looks like even Harvard degree does not prepare one for independent thought.....
Nathaly was very nervous. The last question about me too was too emotional. But I understand her. Think about these topics are too difficult and require a lot of thinking. Harari does this because it his job. So he was great.
Awesome interview, I love Yuval Harari's work. Natalie seems a little nervous in the beginning at least, but she eases into the role as it progresses. You can tell she's genuinely interested in the topics. Though, I guess, why else would she choose to do the interview?
Just a thought: maybe male dominance is the consequence of females "outsourcing" their economic means to males. Females had to stay in for extended periods of their lives (mainly during labor, nursing, etc.) when they were unable to perform hunting or gathering tasks. They had to rely on males to perform these tasks for them. This might have been the reason why there was a system of shared responsibilities. It was used by males centuries to develop their power system and cement their dominance.
I kept on thinking on this too, I was surprised he didn't know an answer to this. Men are born more competitive and enjoy problem solving while women are way less competitive and see problems as problems. This explains why there are so many male company founders and hardly any women. Women tend to choose easier studies as well which in the long run land them lower paid jobs. Instead men are not smarter than women but they aren't afraid of challenges and look for solutions instead telling his friends how difficult life is. I believe women and men have same capabilities of achieving the same results but the difference is how we use them and if we use them.
any interview with Yuval is just not fair! everyone looks uneducated and borderline off against him. his level of intellect, clarity of mind, and fluency of speech are unbelievable. his recent interview with the CEO of Facebook was cringeworthy. It was embarrassing. if you reads Sapiens slowly and understands it, you will be seeing life differently. also I suggest to watch his talk at central european university. earth needs more of him...
@ma lama 'too many'* And no there aren't enough of them. Just look at the level of absurdity feminism has lead to in the US, EU and the former soviet union and tell me you want more of That. If you want to resist the extreme of one side you must stand your ground as a centrist. otherwise you are part of the problem.
Nah, there are much smarter people than him in the Knesset & public figures here. I'm skeptic because he's מכיל ולא תקיף And because he's too big picture focused, it means his personality is oriented to think that way, he misses the current reality, like Moshe Feiglin who is like him, a visionary, but disconnected from the "here and now" Very easy to realize that on both, they do not fit to such positions, BUT, the best personalities for counseling, no doubt.
When cherry picking in religion, you`ve to see the tree including its roots. It is holistic, the new paradigm. Meditation you`re about to touch is great help that leads to enlightenment.
I got a story, One time Natalie bought me a Nintendo 64. I met Natalie at a child talent event.I Also recruited Chuck Palahniuk to fight club and took a knife to his throat and told him to write the book. I suffer from amnesia and I'm also a professional. I have writing and production credits on allot of mainstream film, music, and literature. I like the internet. The I phone was my brainchild. I convinced Steve to build it. I would speculate that the next frontier of enlightenment is geometric problem solving. Mechanical Computation. Socializing is a process like sailing a ship. Inner dialogue is more like geometric problem solving and mechanical computation. Elite self programming. Everyone has a superior narrative and everyone has a shitty self concept. Give someone a smart phone and it shapes self concept. I would be interested in a user interface developed by Natalie. She should brainchild a concept and get a computer engineer to build it.
@33:34 - Females are probably more empathetic, and better able to read subtle social cues, and what not -- but male coalitions are very cohesive as far as focusing on certain sorts of goals ... particularly goals that require for their accomplishment not giving a damn about other people's emotional states.
How much water Natalie drank, that's why she left scene so fast? ;) I knew what to expect from Harari after reading some of his books but that's interesting to hear real Natalie's opinions and thoughts.
This dude is equating instinct as freewill. Desire is coded in our DNA, we seek food and drink and sex. The HOW we get to those things require cognitive function, but since we live in a society of culture and emotions we have consciousness and consciousness is laid upon a bedrock of moral and ethical responsibility which are the amalgamation of both instinct and historical facts which define said morals. That is freewill because we can choose to go against the grain of our instinct. That is consciousness. That is freewill.
@@charliechaplin7959 yes... they are actually going to cross humans in only few years. Perhaps you don't follow tech news about Artificial Intelligence n ML.....👨
yes if you can generate a machine that recognize holisticly data and make choices based upon a sensitive intuit to average probabilistic "good art", it means you would have created a sentient being that understand the relativity of concept and feeling in the context of his current society. And a thing that can perceive the futur and talk to others minds. of course it's possible, and when it's done, it's not art that is "finish" it's the whole race LOL
@@LoveUnityUnderGod It will be done earlier than people assume, as AI machines can share data of mistakes and learning and can upgrade Mind of all related units in no time. Era of Humans is Over ....😶😶😶
A brilliant man I loved "Sapiens", which is essentially a rewrite of Genesis, knowing what we know now. And originally written in Hebrew, no less. This guy is brilliant, and a decent human being. Those qualities don't always go together.
T Clark, get back to me when you’ve written your book about the history of humanity. Or perhaps you could supply us with a criticism of his ideas. But I have to tell you that I regard the fact that he’s not a member of the Yahweh cult as a plus.
I was thinking it was a bit strange that Natalie Portman this sexually desirable hollywood actress was asking this intellectual about erotic female images at the 11min mark. Now that you've revealed he is gay her very open approach is considerably more understandable.
The evolutionary foundations of the comparative roles ("values") of men and women in society is, in my mind, rather easily explained (not justified, explained). Many animals figured out that eating other creatures resulted in higher concentrations of energy than when eating plants. Thus carnivores could could go longer without eating - either to bridge food availability or to allow other activities. And, eating other animals involved conflict (the ones eaten did not go willingly). Males were physically stronger and also did not become pregnant. Thus, males were more suited to hunting. And, bringing back "the bacon" resulted in esteem among the group (e.g. tribe). Thus, food capture can reasonably be argued as the foundation for the comparative leadership and esteem that has been afforded males. However, that was then, this is now. The old perspective is no longer a valid reason for the comparative values. Our evolving recognition of sex equality derives now from the perspective that either women or men can be the core support of the family. We still tend to believe, for evolutionary reasons, in placing higher value on whoever "brings home the bacon"; but, our recognition of what that means is now changing.
@M T A mean comment. Humans come with wiring that is not by choice but by happenstance (spoken as a neurologist, which I am). He is adding something positive to the planet. Are you?
Oliver Sacks is a neurologist. And, his stories are examples of neurological malfunctions. They are only open to scrutiny as "rational" or not under the framework of what happens when a brain is malfunctioning.
we should not see things on the lens of a word like religion. think of what is a cult, a social group, and what define a social idea/cult/group/religion/society : the root code is very close. we all know that religion is bs. But why does the mind operate on the idea of religion, humm that's a good question
To the question whether art is about inspiring human emotions - ok I will agree to that. But the point of art is not to give you what you want.. That would be entertainment. Art, I would say, might surprise you by docking onto emotions you didn't know you needed to engage with. Also, abstraction that is poetic is intuitive, I find it hard to imagine an algorithm could find a way replace that in the long run....
The very notion of objectivity comes from our consciousness, whose only proof of validity is our own subjective experience. Science, objectivity, natural methods of acquiring knowledge all depend on the premise that consciousness exists; and the premise that consciousness exists depends solely on personal, subjective experience. *There is no proof that we are conscious other than our experience of it.* And yet, consciousness is the source of all "objective" data. Therefore, by categorically denying the reality of all that is subjective, personal and based on experience; he contradicts himself, denies the validity of his own argument. Claiming that free will is an illusion is a also contradiction in itself. Saying that 'the way people believe to live lives solely based on choices made by their free will is a dangerous thing' is one thing, saying that 'free will itself is an illusion' is another. If one has no free will, then they can not have doubts or an acceptance on whether or not they have a free will. *The very fact that we're capable of questioning if we do things based on our own free will, is proof that we have free will.* The existence of people who do not use their own, doesn't change that. With the term "religion" he means all worldviews with a belief of "divine", and there's a problem here. He falsely categorizes all kinds of beliefs in a divine as the same and makes no distinction between them, he also doesn't seem to care for the fact that the belief in a "divine" is much more than just theological, philosophical, abstract notion that takes place in a person's mind. This is a common misconception in the religious and secular mindset. The fact is, all people believe in a divine. *All people holify something and live lives based on what they deem to be so important. But there is a distinction between beliefs and ways of life that are dogmatic, irrational, evil, and those that are not. There's a difference between false sacreds and the true one.* Belief in The God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Independent, the Originator of all that exists, is not a religious dogma; it is the truth attained by reason, conscience and consciousness. But, in fact, *his denial of the objective standard for truth and goodness, is a dogmatic religious belief: the belief that the human being is the ultimate standard of them.* The belief that, individuals, somehow, *create* their own norms, their own truths. That they are themselves some kind of gods. *Any idea, any worldview that says morality is subjective, that the search for ultimate truth is unworthy, that we are not the masters of our own destiny, is yet another lie told by false gods whose desperate struggle is to rationalize and justify their tyranny over humanity.* They want to make the current, relative condition of human suffering that is called "life" - or one period of history - appear to be the only possible reality of our existence; they want to make us believe that, in such a world, true justice can not exist, that "maintaining our humanity" is a lost cause, because there is no such thing as goodness, conscience; there is no right or wrong... The tyrannical powers who utter these lies have always existed, and they always will. That's our test. *It has been our test 70 thousand years ago when we lived in caves and hunted to survive, and will be so millions of years from now, no matter what we evolve into, for it is the nature of the conscious, sentient, self-aware creature.* And when it all ends, we will face the ultimate judgment of The God our Owner, and answer for the atom's weight of good we did, and the atom's weight of evil we did.
it hurts what, to see that your "bullshit religion style story" isn't the real meta narrative ? Maybe there is no "collective consciousness" ? it's all a tabula rasa? post modern is not an idea, it's rationality. But post modern would never call themself post modern, this choice of word is it self relative and bullshit by definition.
@@LoveUnityUnderGod Whatever he is and he called Yuval post modern but you definitely belong in the stone age with that kind of language used in the comment. Chill out.
Just a point. Dr. Oliver Sacks was a psychiatrist and professor of neurology. Interesting that he would say that his stories about himself and his patients and their brain "injuries" would be to make a point and were not real. The person who passed on the info to Portman and profs was probably telling a story too. None of those stories were invented. That is what makes them so fascinating. The brain is so powerful; and, this is something that is difficult to perceive when it's not your brain that is trying to deal with this here and now.
