A Glorious Accident (7 of 7) Coming together: We wonder, ever wonder why we found us here
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ส.ค. 2016
- In the Dutch television show A Glorious Accident (1993) six scientists talk about their visions on their work and the world. Journalist Wim Kayzer asks them: how far did you come in your understanding of our thoughts an actions? What did science really bring us at the end of the 20th century: knowledge or also understanding? In The Coming Together all the scientist get together: The British neurologist Oliver Sacks, the British writer and biologist Rubert Shledrake, the American philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, the British philosopher Stephen Toulmin, the British physicist Freeman Dyson and the American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould. The talk about the question what science has brought humanity. Order the dvd-box of A Glorious Accident here: winkel.vpro.nl/een-schitterend... In het tv-programma
![จังหวะนี้ - เม้ก อภิสิทธิ์ [ Official MV ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4gQRZCkRyiU/mqdefault.jpg)
This how TV should be, an instrument of enlightement instead of manipulation.
but then how would we sell hamburgers
you have internet. Forget TV. Go learn for free ... ;)
Gotta love the old school ways of debates
@Quantum Passport bc vvvvggttytggu
@@agnidas5816 9999999l9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999l9l9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999l89999999999999l999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999l9999999999999999999999999l9999999999999999o99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999l89999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999l99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999l999999999999999l99999999999999999999999999999l999999999999999999l999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999l89999999ll9l9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999l99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999l99999999999999999999999999999999l9999999999999999999999l99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999l999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999l9999999999999999999999999999999l9999999999999999l99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999⁹999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999l9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999⁹9999999999999999999999999999999999999999⁹999⁹999⁹999999999999999999999999⁹9999999999999⁹9999999⁹9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999⁹99999999999999999999⁹999999999l⁹9⁹9999999⁹999⁹999⁹99999⁹999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999⁹99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999⁹9⁹99⁹9⁹9⁹ö99⁹9⁹9⁹9⁹9⁹9⁹999⁹9⁹9⁹9ö9⁹999⁹9⁹9⁹9⁹9⁹9⁹999⁹9⁹ol
@1:00 Sharing memories from childhood @5:55 What is passion to philosophers @7:15 Moderator suggests starting from pre-universe @13:00 Laws vs habits @16:50 One guy really not liking another guy's idea @23:48 Same guy does not like the course of the discussion @28:00 Really they've just been debating the nature of the question; they disagree on the question's parameter. LOL. Only philosophers. @29:00 One guy's prediction to "how radically revolutionary is reality?" @29:50 talking about common evolutionary theory @30:18 One guy dissing the intellect of the general educated public, but also explaining why Darwinism is misapprehended @31:48 Darwin's theory simplified @33:18 Same guy challenging another guy @35:30 Western folk embody Pythagorean notions @36:25 Consciousness @44:35 Perfect example of how a scientist can harmoniously exist among religious ideas (such as God infusing souls into the evolutionary sequence) @47:04 New question: Do humans exist "just because," i.e., without the hand of cosmos or the divine? @54:08 One guy answers what a human being IS @54:30 They start talking about the role of nature in studying humans and one guy brings up Darwin's commentary on how god is not benevolent (brings up how animals are cruel to each other) and so nature is not adequate for measuring morality.
@57:00 One guy says we CAN learn from nature, but then doesn't really explain "how" @58:45 Is nature non-moral? (question is re-asked) @1:00:45 why it's dangerous to view consciousness as either "on" or "off" @1:01:25 The division between the plant and the animal world (this guy really likes to take in the beauty of whatever landscape he finds himself in) @1:02:44 Aesthetics @1:05:20 One day we might know what it's like to be a bat @1:05:55 One guy tries to expand the conversation from consciousness of animals to consciousness of inanimate objects, like the sun @1:08:55 One guy explains why it's silly to think of the sun as having consciousness @1:11:20 discusses how A.I. has given new perspectives on animal motions @1:15:40 Consciousness in robots @1:19:15 better to figure out emotions before figuring out consciousness @1:20:39 sifting through the terms of "mechanism" and "mechanical" @1:25:00 One guy does not answer the moderator's question and instead answers another guy's comment about the term "machine" being anthropocentric. @1:25:50 same guy believes organisms are machines, or at least is open to that thought
@1:27:05 one guys explains why the human brain is not similar to a machine @1:29:19 why people might be uncomfortable discussing robots with emotions @1:29:50 What would it take to create a robot who cares about its survival @1:30:20 One guy discusses his thought-experiment of a homeostatic emotional word processer (This idea reminds me of one of my old Tamagotchis) @1:34:55 One guy changes the subject from robots and machines to dogs, which he had been thinking about during the robot talk. The discussion went off track after the "sun having consciousness" comment. @1:35:28 Do dogs have feelings? @1:36:18 An example of how philosophers have differing definitions of words @1:36:47 What is it like to be a herring? (They had been served herring, so naturally one philosopher considered the herring's emotions) @1:37:30 How can one have a relationship with a Giant African Snail. Also, homology and consciousness @1:38:55 Cognitive rules among birds @1:41:28 Moderator asks about the little men in our heads reduced to ants reduced to a machine @1:43:39 The importance of words! A linguist will like this part @1:45:00 "wonder tissue"
@1:50:00 anecdote about "consciousness" @1:51:00 Moderator asks a guy about his comment on immortality and belief that we exist in our brains, rather than having a soul. (interesting part) @1:55:46 Guy who has barely contributed brings back "wonder tissue" and brings in quantum mechanics @1:58:40 One guy reshaping what should be discussed by bringing in "criticality" and his "awakenings patient" @2:02:30 The new "artificial life" movement (bridging engineering and A.I.) @2:04:43 the need for variation and multiple functionalities of organisms @2:06:40 "neuro-robustus" @2:07:20 This guy never answers the moderator's question @2:07:54 Grammar joke! @2:08:05 Persons still maintain a sense "self" even in the face of mental diseases such as Alzheimer's @2:09:20 What is "fun"? also, pandas are the most boring animals in the world. @2:12:57 Otters have "fun" @2:13:59 Moderator calls out some members of the table for NOT sharing (the guy who I had previously mentioned wasn't contributing to the conversation) @2:14:35 Conversation goes back to consciousness, machine metaphors, and what was left out @2:15:58 The homing of pigeons to show how math and other philosophical theories do not explain peculiar human and animal behavior @2:25:15 moderator moves on from the fascinating pigeon monologue and asks "how has consciousness altered the world" (brings up human atrocities such as the holocaust) @2:27:43 one guy says human beings are rather peaceful @2:29:29 It's good that we even 'notice' violence @2:32:00 Beastly people @2:33:02 "The Origin of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt being the most frightening book to one guy @2:34:15 Yes! Parents are SO important! @2:34:34 Moderator addresses one guy's belief that the present order is DOOMED
PS
I had taken some screenshots of a very lengthy and detailed comment that had this table of contents. I don't remember the name of that person who had written this highly valuable information as a comment on the original video which was removed.
I don't claim to be the author of this comment. However, I converted those screenshots into the text that I have reproduced above. So credit is due to that person. Thanks to him or her.
Incredibly helpful. Now, if you will, please insert their names.
You legend
God damn! Thank you kind stranger!
Any more sugestions of vídeos with same kind of discussion?
Congrats to v pro for this work.
"True dialogue only hapens when we put our certanties aside in order to investigate together "
David bohm
I see some very intelegent people very atached to their ideas on most part.
Lost my sleep watching this.
Very gratefull.
@@prometheusrex1 your turn for some work
Toulmin: 🧐
Sheldrake: 🤔
Dennett: 🤨
Sacks: 😄
Dyson: 🙂
Gould: 👨🏻
Host:
Oliver bumbles along, like an amiable chap trying to remember a pleasant story, and then, BOOM! He soars.
Adorable.
Freeman Dyson sums it all up.... ' were not even close to understanding whats going on ' and ' we can't be sure of anything '.
This is the best discussion of philosophy of Science in English, so far.
It's interesting I'm surprised there not drunk...
in tv
What's the second best? Or is this the only one you've seen...
If I was to preserve one single video from the entire internet for the future world to see, this would be it.
Hell nah more like crazy frog
it's pretty good, but not that good, science can really only explain the physics of the universe.
@@darillus1 It's not just physics, though. Sheldrake's ideas have much deeper metaphysical implications than that of classical physics
Me and the boys during our lunch:
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣you killed me
@@alioswar;;;
@@alioswar 9
That's a long ass lunch
"is Fortnite actually overrated?"
The OG podcast.
In terms of profundity of thought I personally felt that Oliver and Stephen Gould were in a league of their own in this discussion
What an absolute pleasure to listen to this, and the individual interviews. I initially decided to listen because of Dyson, Gould and Dennet but I discovered Oliver Sacks and I’m so glad I did. Not only a brilliant scientist but seems like a genuinely lovely person and I love his way of speaking
High caliber interviewer by day, Bond villain by night. Exceptional round table talk here. Thanks for sharing.
haha!
Awesome. These guys went deep. Courageous.
Thanks for sharing.
How on earth can such an iconic discussion with such brilliant minds have such low views?
We have discovered happiness" -- say the Last Men, and they blink
An intellectual Knights of the Round Table discussion! Wonderful!
I tip my hat to whoever put this group together in one place on the planet at one time AND got this on film. You are truly all gifts. Thank you for your time and effort. This might have been the most important talk of the 20th Century. I truly believe this. The fact that this has now been unleashed to the public will have a butterfly type effect that one can not even conceive. Sacks/Gould opened up so much. This was so enlightening. So glad I found it. Too bad I can not find out how to support more of this type of programming. It was not available on the link. When I saw this was a Dutch TV production I shook my head and said to myself 'only an open minded Dutch group of people would put this together in 1993'.
Rrrrtrrrripoppproirit rtrtqrrroottpipppotto Oo poipppiio poi yoiiptro a uoo it b
You’re welcome
Jjourrrrfetetrryrouuuuiu epuoryotoiroptueuity it etruytiyyuy Derek eyirt it tort it ruitit we Quito we euwytuiiy u puyeeiwiuwrrwwyyywtoe ieuiteoeutewu tewootoiirot at our yurt it ygtotttiuwtuoettrtyrittiutwu yes wtyituiyiuotiuy put outotooioiiteuporq eye with try irrywpiuywei the wittyytototeoeyyiuotwreearyqitewtiteyrytoyettaq
Its a really quite awkwardly put together programme, and alas quite prosaic. If you are profoundly moved by this mediocre 'chat'..then may I suggest you pick up a book..
@@RamblesBrambles yes, considering that they're just sitting around a table throughout the entire program, one can clearly see how it's quite "awkwardly" put together.😂
2:20:39 Genuine moment of happiness there from Mr. Sacks. I can't help but smile.
oliver sacks is delightful
Oliver Sacks: glasses, beard soft spoken, English accent
Stephen Jay Gould: Moustache American accent no glasses
Daniel Dennett: glasses, beard American accent
Freeman Dyson: glasses, no moustache no beard, says little knows much
Rupert Sheldrake: No beard, no moustache, no glasses, very English
Stephen Toulmin: Moustache and beard, no glasses, English.
1:07:46 "Trees with eyes will just be in despair" XD
1:11:29 Brilliant anecdote on robotics and evolution
If only QM and Metaphysics could dance for a night. Sheldrake and Dyson are still kicking. It would behoove you to bring them together once more.
Not anymore RIP.
I believe they have been dancing the whole time. The majority just didn't realize it.
Gould's eloquence is extraordinary
I remember seeing that very video 8 years ago and realizing I need about 8 more years to get back to it and try to understand some of the discussion.
Stephen Jay Gould is always so captivating . Such a well spoken intellectual .
Very good! ... Watched the whole video, and some of the other parts, and picked up on something new I hadn't considered before.
7:30 "what was there before the Big Bang"? in 2003 (ten years after this gathering), my three year old son excitedly answered, THE LITTLE BANG!!
So many insights. By all participants. All of them so very articulate, incisive. Yet, so interesting to see how differently their minds work.
What a kind and gentle cast of intellectuals casting their vast experience upon our minds. No stone unturned. Personal and science interlocuted nicely. Sweetly. They get to evolution almost immediately.
Very interesting to see again 27 years after I first saw this on Dutch television. Morphic resonance hasn't been accepted as a scientific theory. And while we don't have conscious robots, we certainly can see running robots now, as well as comfort robots.
Unfortunately four out of six the participants passed away. It would have been wonderful to have them reunite and reflect on the world in 2020. Wonderful television.
There is a lot of evidence for the Morphic resonance but science find it at odds with their beliefs but it still is a theory accepted or not.
@@paulukjames7799 Well, morphic resonance certainly did not reach scientific consensus. So, it's a theory, but not a scientific theory.
Science is not a homogeneous entity that holds a belief. If there is enough evidence for a theory, it will be adopted eventually, no matter how contradictory to established ideas. See quantum theory for example.
I disagree. Sheldrake has become a household name to internet thinkers tired of the science machine which pumps out economically successful products rather than novelty producing inventions. Medicine and mapping the genome has taught us that biology does not operate as a machine where you can simply replace certain chemicals to heal a body (Dennet's dream). You may think the men pictured here are giants but most at the table died defending their pet metaphysical idea and the only reason was personal ego and the reflection created by physical experience.
A most wonderful debate, props Holland for hosting.
What Oliver Sacks is talking about at 48:30 is what Robert Sapolsky would later go on to talk about in his 'Emergent Complexity' lecture - Oliver was scratching at something that would have offered answers about a good chunk of their earlier questions about contingencies and they all ignored him lol
any more discussion like this one?very interesting....and entertaining...
yes, the host (in eye patch) had a series of these discussions.
By far the best outro music. Bizarre yet captivating choice.
Thanks for this.
This is the definition of « The Boys ». Listen, chill and enjoy a ride that you only get to discover once.
It's so wonderful how Dyson gazes in a downward direction when he is contemplating what to say. Most of the other guys gaze upward when thinking hard.
Dank U , really enjoyed watching this series.
I watched the entire video over a couple of days. My two standout favourite parts were 2:15:00 (Rupert Sheldrake - for 10 minutes) and 2:57:38 (3 minutes - the comments by Freeman Dyson; horn-rimmed glasses guy). Bonus: 3:20:09 (Freeman mentions he felt the discussion was bereft of female and more youthful viewpoints).
Very good points. Especially with the Freeman point near the end BUT this was a discussion between men. There is a dynamic that changes when there are no women. I think that helped shape the conversation the exact way it was supposed to be and in my opinion many points were brought up because of absolute abandonment of ego that most of these men tense up even if just subliminally when a woman is around. I believe they skirt the subject without actual verbalization. This was magical. Let me know if you find something similar with both male and female. I am always looking for such great conversations
@@SAVEmeFROMtheANTS The idea that men inherently "tense up" around women is a very strange assumption. What type of tension are we even talking about here? Is it the fear of accidentally saying something sexist? Is it the tension that comes from different viewpoints clashing? Because the video is already ripe with that type of tension, it's what makes discussions interesting. Or is it some form of romantic tension you're implying, where you suppose that all these men will automatically try to impress the women in question? And are you implying that discussions in general are somehow better when only men are involved? I think Dyson's point of including a diversity of voices is absolutely valid.
And let's be clear, you really believe there's an "abandonment of ego" in a discussion between men of this type of intellect and high positions? On some level, this is absolutely an IQ-measuring contest. They knew that when they attended, especially since they did this in front of cameras. There's plenty of tension and ego here, and that makes it interesting to me.
@@dontpanic5278 agreed on a lot of your points. I am just saying a lot of these men were able to open up in a way they might not have with a women in the group. Not saying it would be any less intriguing but it would have been different. One day we will all get to a non gender specific role and realize we are all a mixture of male and female energies. Some males i know are exude more female energies then half of the women I know and vice versa. Great points tho
Rest In Peace Daniel Dennett (March 28, 1942 - April 19, 2024)
When my teacher asks what we're doing in the back of the classroom...
This was quite wonderful. It was truly interesting. Thank you!
That pigeon discussion is fascinating
Much better ! More enjoyable then the scientific and philosophical dance battles of the modern era !
So nice not to here boo's and cheers from spectators.
EXCELLENT
Philosophers are just something else. They’re consistent a step ahead of the scientists. Very underrated field.
we use the science presented to us to begin our process, any advancement is largely appreciated
1:28:15 I love how Freeman Dyson is getting a kick out of this discussion.
This is absolutely beautiful to hear . Im starting to think I need new friends
[2:51:21] Dennet says that we can hopefully "capture it all without any residue". This reminds me of the difference between lossless compression vs. jpg or mp3 and mp4.
Just finishing with this final part of the whole series, and what a fantastic idea it was to interview each individually and then in the round. Why does content like this only have (at lwast in the case of this final part) a mere 203 likes? Mindboggling!
Men have impinged on pigeon evolution by killing birds which return too slowly. The probability is that homing pigeons are guided by observation of rocks flying around in the skies , just as we are. It's just that we don't get killed every time to get things wrong.
Highbrow intellectuals chinwagging, blah and blah with lots of blather in between
@@stevenvankoutrik992you just described your comments on youtube
@@VoloBonja lol
24:30 intellectual tennis without a net 🤣👌
The pretense of knowledge!
Pretense? What do you mean?
From Gayling’s “History of Philosophy”:
“Something that anyone reading these pages might cherish in Xenophanes is his account of a dinner of philosophers, in which he writes, ‘The floor is clean, so are our hands, and so are the cups . . . a mixing bowl stands by, and another bowl of gentle flower-scented whine . . . there is cold sweet pure water, golden loaves of bread, and a magnificent table laden with cheese and rich honey . . .’ The ‘cheerful men’ (always only men, alas) pour a libation pledging alway to ‘do acts of justice’; the drinking is continent, just enough to allow everyone to get home afterwards unaided; and the talk is not of myths and wars, but of ‘excellence’ (arete).”
2:15:40 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoreception
_Further experiments with magnets attached to the backs of homing pigeons demonstrated that disruption of the bird's ability to sense the Earth's magnetic field leads to a loss of proper orientation behavior under overcast conditions._
Sheldrake manages to cover my entire list of wu-positive escape hatches. This is is inference from ignorance (alternative: inference from stuck). But "stuck" is just a fat tail, and I don't think we really are stuck on most issues. In other cases, the problems are very, very hard for reasons you can apprehend well enough in the first hour.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpropagation
_In 1993, Wan was the first to win an international pattern recognition contest through backpropagation._
Right while this talk was taking place. But this would mostly languish for another twenty years, as other parts of the puzzle came together (mostly a vastly larger scale of data and data processing).
And then one day, Go has fallen, fifteen years earlier than most experts predicted. Progress is a funny business, and even hindsight takes a long time to converge on 20-20.
Terrific upload! I wish there were more long discussions like this. I tend to agree with Gould on these issues, but there's a lot of interesting discussion, especially from Sacks and Toulmin. Dennett...sigh. A clenched mind -- mostly agree, but a clenched mind.
Yeah, I think Dennett was too confrontational. Although, with Sheldrake at the table I can't fault him too much
Glad to see Slade Wilson has got his act together.
It's interesting to watch Sacks be the mediator between Sheldrake and the more conservative philosophers
Hahahaha - Wonderful. Rupert Sheldrake meets Freeman Dyson meets Stephen J Gould and more. Lovely just lovely.
TH-cam had the full video just a few months ago. They took it down. Probably because I was watching every freaking day while working from home. Kinda like a background "noise".
EDIT: the video is back =D
Ive watched this video 6 times now
Only the beautiful ppl can see dsame beauty of other, thank you
A very sharp barb to ask if Sheldrake observes constants.
But do we observe them?
o my Lord. gold.
1:20:00 Sachs on the octopus as an "exploratory computer" is brilliant. And it really holds up well with the modern theory of emotion.
I love Rupert Sheldrake. He makes them all so nervous, but he's the only one moving the conversation into interesting spaces, while they all would have been there content to scoff at Kayzer for asking them questions.
+Benji R. III
There are three favourite ideas with multiple connexions I follow, that you might find interesting Benj.
1. Sheldrake and Morphic Resonance; consciousness and awareness beyond physical matter, the bran,
2. The Electric Universe, The Thunderbolts Project; David Talbott, Wal Thornhill & many other scientists and electrical engineers, re-interpreting ancient history, Saturn, our place in this solar system, and before; electricity as our driving force, not gravity; life beyond our solar system~science based, balancing BBT/BBH
3. Ancient History re-interpreted: Graham Hancock.
Namaste and care,
mhikl
Hey Mhi Kl, thanks for the recommendations! I've been in possession of Morphic Resonance for awhile now (and like to slide it into conversation from time to time), and have been aware of Thunderbolts Project as well. Really amazing stuff to think about, as far as how our myths revolve around the exact basis throughout history, and thereby culture. Graham Hancock has been mentioned to me before, but I've never actually looked into his work, so I'll probably start there after I finish these Erich Fromm books I'm into at the moment. Either way, always nice to run into a likened mind, if you have any more recommendations, by all means please send them by.
Peace ^^
Benji
Benji, likewise for sure. I shall check out Erich Fromm (sort of rings a bell, but may be another Fromm); and the little grey cells are not quite up yet; so shall pull together others I find of interest as I can.
I do think Judy Wood is a wonderful thinker, a great teacher: she has helped me come to better understand, question and analyze scenarios. I have a number of her latest talks (one from Toronto) where I am going through it with a fine comb, listing off her method to true analyses and scrutiny. Overcoming indoctrination is not easily done; but it wakens the mind, freeing spirit. She is a great teacher, a little shy and awkward; but a stalwart for sure.
It's more like frustration. Gould's right: there's nothing to talk about, scientifically speaking, with Sheldrake's word-games. That said, I also don't dig Dennett's typical New Atheist stuff (I'm a lifelong atheist, btw), in which he gets visibly anxious -- or bitchy -- at the mere hint of anything unexplainable, let alone mysterious, so eager is he to banish what he takes to be irrational. Me, too -- but it's an intellectual/personality tic that's deeply unhelpful. And there is mystery, probably permanent mystery. Can't see how that hurts a rationalist view -- it's demanded by that view, actually.
Exactly! I'm an astrophysicist (who also studied mathematics) and surely, Sheldrake throws in the most interesting openings. I haven't heard of him and his ideas before watching this show by (glorious) accident today.
But ... Gould does have a very good point, except he delivers it quite aggressively I think. Sheldrakes ideas, cannot be ruled out by our current scientific understanding, no, but he needs to bring more than that to the table, if his ideas are to be more than just that: ideas. Something that could be tested and falsified by experiment. Something that inspires scientific progress. It is easy to discuss ideas, because you are not constrained by factuality. I guess that is why most people deosn't even discuss science in daily conversations. It is boring and gets you nowhere. Science is done in labs, in deep mathematical calculations, building models, not by casual conversation. Casual conversations can inspire sometimes, but they cannot give us new scientific knowledge.
I appreciated Dan's perspectives here. Of course that may be, because of the current technological time we live in w/AI expected to disrupt.
My favorite series ever...yet why is it so hard to find? No dvd's, etc, not available for steaming either. Only TH-cam?
Internet Archive
My IQ increased by at least 40 points in the first 10 mins....
Although certain interlocutors were clearly reductive, mechanistic, closed-minded blockheads, this was nonetheless a fascinating dialogue thanks to the intellectual fortitude displayed by Rupert Sheldrake.
@1.06.10
*_Sheldrake, ''I'm finding this discussion rather provincial. What about the consciousness of the sun for example?_*
Internal cringing, groaning and facepalming for all the other participants, who then firmly tell him to come back when he's got the tiniest hint of a hypothesis.
That moment made me chuckle
I'm here after seeing the post on my facebook
Podcast before podcasts :)
This was my friends and I back in high school drinking coffee at a diner at 1 am
19:27 It's probably both:
1.) Us discovering it
2.) Us constructing it to our reality.
4:32 That moment when someone looks just a _tiny_ bit like Robin Williams _(Awakenings_ awakens).
1:29:00 They've wandered into computer chess, and here the conversation does *not* seem modern, because it's now conceivable that there could be some fundamental similarity between neural network chess algorithms and the human cognitive process (though it would still be distant, it might not be _entirely_ alien).
Much of this conversation can be viewed as obsolete (or, at least, ground that has been covered in discussion over and over again). Nonetheless, this discussion is valuable for many, many reasons.
Should’ve had Noam Chomsky on the panel. Would’ve resolved that topic a lot faster
Especially in the beginning, when Rupert tries to lead the pack, I thought this was mostly unnecessarily heady and forced. It didn't seem sincere, in the way that everyone seemed to act mostly on trying to defend their intellectual authority rather than focusing on having a human, passionate discussion. An ego is a funny thing, isn't it? It can really separate us from one another. Of course the tension went away after a while and I love this video in general.
I noticed that as well.
Rupert was the 'irratability entity' in which I believe all the men here dealt with well. He was did not belong in this conversation yet at the same time was needed in this conversation for the other men to have a bonding force against one certain individual which enables even more 'opening up'. Putting this talk together took just as much thought as the actual conversation
Rupert Sheldrake is the wild card.
He made an insightful observation and they shot him down instead of trying to consider its implications. For the rest of the talk I wanted him to build on that but of course he didn’t even want to speak to this crowd unless being called upon.
They acting as if he tries to dismantle math and science thereby need to defend. He simply introduced a change in perspective. They missed the point and ridiculed his position.
@@MugenTJ his position deserves to be ridiculed. Where his hypotheses are testable, they are disproven, or at least continuously not confirmed. Where they aren't testable, they aren't scientific. Although Sheldrake is an educated man, he doesn't belong at this table, as the original post points out. Most of the people here were or are titans in their fields, whereas Sheldrake is notable for his unusual, pseudoscientific hypotheses.
Don't delete the other version though guys!!! (They have cool comments)
What other version
I don't get why the same video with many more views disappeared? Was it deleted or something?
I remember how funny the comments were in that video because everyone got it in their recommended.
Could you please enable CC? Thanks!
I mean thank you! Amazing, etc. I really love this.
If you’re interested in bird intelligence, please check out “The Genius of Birds” by Jennifer Ackerman. Here Ackerman defines intelligence vs cognition, language, bower nest making, cognitive map making. Extraordinary insight into intelligence unlike our own perspective
R.I.P Daniel C Dennett
March 28, 1942 - April 19, 2024
baseball in Dutch is honkbal? thats brilliant :D
What i feel is its like all is connected
20:00 Dyson on models, and - if I may - it makes me ask if models are what science is about, in our drive to understand. Evidence and facts are pre-model data points, leading to attempts to construct a framework, an understanding of what the data can mean - and can it somehow be used. This is my idea of what Plato and Aristotle were trying to get to. And Sheldrake (a touch earlier) is perhaps correct that the ability to model fractals and chaos theory are enhanced because (even in 1993!) we were able to model things.
I accept that Sheldrake is far and away the most woowoo of the gentlemen attending. A good counterpoint. 140 years ago mysticism was an accepted avenue of inquiry. When Houdini outed some seance guides of sorts, mysticism was given a bad name. And that avenue of inquiry was persona non grata. I was a design engineer who to this day accept both sides as valid avenues, but I am way in the minority on that. I can at least understand why such things were worth looking into for so long in our history. And still occupy many. I went there, looked around for a good length of time, and ended up preferring solidity in subject matter. But that is in my mind still, perhaps forever. Our more modern view has sizable amnesia about what is real, though, I am finding, as I pursue a line of inquiry that necessitates reading what scientists thought 140 years ago. Some is discardable and some shows insights long lost. It is a new education. I sit listening and fascinated by the topics and views expressed in this roundtable. A terrific kaffeeklatsch. Something we may be due for again, here 28 years later.
40:07 Sheldrake finally making some sense, but still with heavy Freudian drapes.
Sacks died last year and I believe two out of the group are still living.
It was Alfred Wallace who surpassed Lamarck, on paper… he wrote it in Indonesia, and sent it to Darwin. Darwin never evaded Lamarck… Wallace’s essay was bolted to Darwin’s work and published without his permission… Wallace’s was first to construct the crane of thought in writing, see his ‘the ternate paper’…
Sheldrake: _But what if..._
SJG: _No._
I go back and forth on who im going to (hypothetically) marry at the table. Right now its Toulman ❤️
why this has only 54.000 views?
While I love this concept, I fear the group was just too large for it to be a real conversation, especially with topics so complex. I would say about four people would be ideal, maybe five.
regarding pigeons in some newer documentary about quantum mechanics they said it has to something to do with quantum mechanics.. that they have some particles in their brain or what and it somehow works so they navigate
This is the philosophers version of a Bruce Lee taking on a dozen opponents scene
If one used the magic of AI and CGI to remove their heads
so that only their spinal cords and brains were visible,
I think the six in this video would look very much like a group of identical aliens
having a discussion.
If one replaced the audio with a track of the voice of just one person
lip syncing the words of all of them
through a synth giving a slightly synthetic sound to the speech
then the alien effect couldn't help but be even more dramatic.
In fact I'll bet despite the visual prominence of the individual and separate bodies,
it would seem to we viewers that only one mind was present and that
that mind was mulling thoughts
we could hear with our ears.
My confidence that language is essential to
the coming into being of the conscious process
is growing stronger the more I watch this.
Peace love respect Unity dignity beauty God. This is the perfect life
Also, don't get bogged down by the illusory material of metaphysical paradigms; they hold fertile fallacies you all cite.
I don’t need ppl to believe, And I don’t even asked this, the money or d abundance , just give it to charity, just give me the moral and respect thank you
Clearly, Dennett misunderstood Nietzsche since, contra Dennett, the idea of the 'eternal recurrence' was put forward by Nietzsche in order to affirm life despite its horrors!
Sheldrake goes IN
Wim has the accent and looks of a Bond-villain.
Almost 30 years ago, wow, so Dan Den has always looked like Darwin...
I assume he came out of the womb bald with a luscious beard.