The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge | Matt Ridley | Talks at Google
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ธ.ค. 2015
- THE EVOLUTION OF EVERYTHING: HOW IDEAS EMERGE, Matt Ridley’s brilliant and ambitious new book in which he explores his considered belief that evolution-in biology, business, technology, and nearly every area of human culture-trumps deliberate and intelligent design. Like his other big ideas books, The Rational Optimist and Genome, he presents his concepts in accessible and elegant prose, presenting a thesis which is sure to stir controversy and stimulate conversation.
I appreciate you Matt Ridley a True Humanitarian
great talk, he is very wise
I know Matt Ridley, so no surprises there. But what made this stand out was the relevance and thoughtfulness of the questions and the general lack of ideologynstanding in the way. I would love to teach students like that, but I rarely find them.
However, I have a slight quibble with using evolution to explain growth and betterment. It implies that what results from evolution is by necessity better. Not at all. It just produces beings and ideas that work well in a particular, accidental context. With plenty of suffering and deadweight losses along the way. Deer antlers, for instance, have grown so large and cumbersome because of zero sum competition among males. Bursting appendices caused painful deaths for billions of humans long after we stopped eating cellulose. And… well… you know… Hitler was only one of thousands of genocidal maniacs winning popular supports, the difference being that when he came along other evolutionary processes had yielded the technology for him to put his ideas into practice on an unprecedented scale. So essential as a framework, but not quite warranting this kind of panegyric.
He's so comfortable to speak to, I enjoyed the Q&A section very much
Not a big science guy but I enjoyed the book, some of the ideas I embraced and some I didn't agree with however a great book introduces you to new things in amazing ways and this book did just that.
He is of course a big “science guy”…
the subject matter at around 22.35 i think can be linked quite nicely on to morphic resonance theory by rupert sheldrake, what an interesting phenomena, "we think the same things at the same time" well to some degree when the subset of rules allows.
45:00 I think the Apollo programme, while being Gov't lead, it was B U: it was very competitive, emergent, it evolved. May be the USSR were more T D.
Top down can be good or bad. In either case, would there be any case to restrict bottom up?
Dupont got really good at licensing technology and where we gained respect for IP and sharing too!
unfortunately, some of these comments walk back some of ridley's optimism....
Yes, evolution is, in a way, it's own force, and bottom-up does seem to be an efficient framework for society, but is it comprehensive?
Matt's thesis starts showing cracks when pushed on the need for governance, and leadership (here 46:18 and here 54:00). His definition of 'top' isn't really clear. What should we really be doing less of, regulation, leadership, organized systems, design?
I'm left with these questions after the talk:
1) Is leadership necessary? If so, what extent?
2) If we, as an advanced society, visit a primitive civilization, and we see them heading towards extinction (through abusing resources and mass crime), should someone intervene?
3) Hierarchy, after all, is a tendency that evolved through evolution, should we completely suppress it? was evolution 'wrong'?
4) If natural selection chooses everything for us, should we be designing anything in the first place? should we be 'problem-solving'? when is it valid to correct?
5) Evolution as a system, seeks survival and reproduction, doesn't this imply that it has an objective, and a 'design driver' if I may call it so? If so, why is does evolution seek survival, and how did it seek it?
My view is that we need to reverse engineer 'evolution', define it in terms that apply to our current era and apply it in that direction. This, I find, translates to the maximization of collective well-being which cannot be done without effective leadership. In other words, the signal starts from the bottom, moves up to be filtered and crystalized and channeled back to the bottom.
Glad someone awesome is in the house of lord's.
excellent questions btw
Sounds to me like prototyping. If you combine that with multiple intelligences it could explain that 'trials/ prototyping gives you a chance to experience an idea in a different way but it are individuals that create. Create from a urge originated in from interconnected energie. We always try to come to the center of that energie by meditating, sporting, searching for conflict, make love..
Wait a second, the emergence of complex (organic) systems, can be explained by the universe's trend towards higher and higher entropy... complex, orderly systems create a net result of more entropy (onto its surroundings), thus making the emergence of life in this universe a logical consequence (of that thermodynamic law). This theory was posed by MIT scientist Jeremy England, you might want to look it up, and I have no idea why this hasn't gained more attention than it did (?!)
Cheers.
May I ask. Isn’t entropy a reductive force. Then how can it be a driver of more complex system whilst breaking down and reducing at the same time.
@@diesaffer Hi, very welcome. As I understand it, ''breaking down and reducing'' happens in the surrounding of the complex object/system in a net-positive way related within the whole of the (meta- (and closed))system. I.e. complex systems (i.g. organic) emerge compulsively to increase net-chaos overall (within the closed system (e.g. universe)). Don't know if this makes sense to you. Hope others will clarify our wrongdoings ;)
As necessary, Nature can opt for quorum (leaderless) type species/lifeforms (bees, ants). Bees don't really have a leader; decisions are made via "quorums.
+h0ll0wm9n Bees also aren't smart enough to have leaders.
33:28 HAHAH 'Can you tell more about the House of Lords?'
He was great. I worried when he started but he did it correct and finished right.
Question: You say the eye was designed for sight then in the next sentence you say it came about with no plan.
Am I the only one seeing the elephant?
God Damn !
33:17 is perhaps the best question I have ever seen.
Great prediction on bitcoin!
Peter the Hermit did quite an effective job at demagoguery long long before radio.
what was that last comment on a voted war from the audience? did anyone hear it?
Hierarchy should be evolved, just slight iterations from other successful heirarchies of current or past.
We need Jorge X McKie.
What about emergence ?
I agree with pretty much everything he says. But I have a concern regarding the people who want to design our lives because they think they know best. We know what happens when they are in charge. Mr Ridley wouldn't be able to give this talk if we were all under a communist regime, dictating our lives. So wouldn't his argument of prosperity fail miserably if end up with a centralised committee?
...what
@@ishrendon6435 yes? This was 2 years ago. And slowly pacing our way to a world centralized government in slow motion.
@@marcoaslan ok but that comment now is 18 mins ago lol
@@ishrendon6435 I think what I meant by having a concern is that we should worry about the social engineers. It would be ideal for reality to auto regulate itself since no one is truly in charge. The problem would be to tell ourselves that no one is in charge and we end up like Venezuela or North Korea because we thought no one would be in charge anyways. We let the social engineers to take charge because there was no other group taking a stance to make sure no one is in charge. I think that’s what I meant.
The blockchain and encrypted virtual digital money was described in 1996 in a paper by the NSA so... no need for any mythological genius with exotic eastern name(s)
SEE HEGEL'S THEORY OF HISTORY
In this book, The Evolution of Everything, Matt claims, or rather repeats the claim that Lucretuis, more than 2050 years ago knew all about modern sciences, including Darwin's TNS and modern physics. All this, he says, is clearly written in this philosopher's few lines of poems!
Matt is not the only person who's suffering from presentism. Buddhists, Christianists, Islamists, etc have also been "decoding" nonsense from their scriptures that they claim are clearly explaining modern sciences. They even claim quantum entanglement in their holly books.
No, of course Lucretuis not only didn't have the slightest clue what Darwin's TNS was, he couldn't possibly know about it since modern sciences are, well, modern and require modern scientific libraries to understand them.
Matt thinks something in the line that just because a few of the Greeks thinkers thought the Earth was revolving around the sun, that's it, they knew that the Earth revolved around the sun, we should, therfore, based on his presentism, regard the Greeks as discovers of heliocentric not Copernicus.
People say things, say zillions of things using human languages, some of it might at some point in life turn out to make sense when compared with the wording of modern sciences, but that doesn't mean anything more than the monkey who when given enough time could type, utterly randomly, the entire works of Shakespeare.
I like Ridley, but I'm one of those folks who is skeptical of overly positive outlooks. This notion that progress is inevitable, because there were 20 some odd people who were poised to invent the lightbulb at the same time seems like it could be misguided. Just about everything Elon Musk has done looks like it could have been done decades earlier, yet it simply wasn't. I think Ridley may be describing some interesting phenomena that we are not widely aware of here, where the object we identify as progress is really more derivative than we think, but it seems he may be rushing to a much more hopeful conclusion than can be drawn as of yet with the evidence at hand.
Read Existence and Evolution of Everything for correct and original views
THE MEANING OF LIFE IS TO STAY ALIVE. LIFE IS AN ART. THE MEANING OF CIVILIZATION IS JUSTICE. MAINTENANCE IS THE WAY IN THE FLOW OF THE PROCESS OF TIME. EXISTENCE IS ONLY ULTIMATE POINTLESS., A DANCE AT BEST. BUT RELATIVELY THERE ARE A RANGE OF MEANINGS
Sound, common sense.
it is not a bottom up process because it does not even have a top
Wizard + Owl = Harry Potter
I dont find this new or groundbreaking. He is just using the ideas of liberalism. This is similar to anything Nassim Taleb has wrote years ago. Similar to Anti-Fragile or, from an economics stand point, Anything Hayek wrote.
Once we understood the need to progress. th-cam.com/video/Ateh7hnEnik/w-d-xo.html
He should Google hierarchies, lobsters and Jordan Peterson!😂
Yes. Appolo program would definitely emerge without the government doing it. LMAF
Wait till yellowstone)) May be 10+ million casualties or so will emerge
Multiple inventors theory, yeah. it would. Almost like you didn't watch the video.
Bet he was briefed by Google not to mention his views on Climate Change
No surprise there
His explanation for the eye at 5 mins... should turn everyone into a creationist because of the viciously flagrant way he says "...it was designed.. blah blah blah... for no reason... " complete absurdity
CAME ABOUT in a bottom up spontaneous way. I nearly fell off my dinosaur!
He's just being colloquial though right...
Figure of speech. Nothing more
@@OldManDave1960 typical 'handwaive'. Atheists have no explanation for anything really, but it isn't God! lol
This is incredibly dogmatic.
Was enjoying until Matt Ridley claimed that world gdp growth was 'unbelievably steady' apart from 2009. It went down in both 2011 and 2012; again in 2016 and 2018! No straight line growth at all. He also claims that transport and communication have swapped level of change now compared to the first half of 20th Century? Weren't the phone, radio and television introduced or made more available in the first half of the 20th century?
I read and totally agree with the perspective in "The Rational Optimist" but I have no patience with dogma. Especially the dogma of the theory of evolution.
Please, sir, if you would advance the cause of science, don't ever, ever again mention or even think about defending evolution or bashing ID or creationism. All three activities are political and dogmatic reactions, not science. Which ever theory is true will reveal itself in due time and the truth will stand all attacks all on it's very own, thank you very much. It doesn't need the pathetic attempts of a man to argue for it. What all three of these theories are sorely lacking (especially T.T.O.E.) is concrete support, not wishful thinking and speculation tied to speculation.
It's Matt Perhaps when talking about evolution it's necessary to mention creationism given the significant number of people believing in what is simply a religious fairy tale
Bad ideas emerge more successful than good ones. See Brexit