The Reality of Sex & Gender, Evolutionary History & Free Will - Richard Dawkins

[@triggerpod]

JOIN our Locals community to hear *Richard* answer audience questions: triggernometry.locals.com/ CHAPTERS👇 00:00 Trailer 00:39 Olympic boxing controversy 03:20 The subversion of science and language 05:07 Sex is binary 07:38 Advances in genetic science 11:24 Hippo history 12:52 Unexpected twists and turns of evolution 14:32 Water found on Mars 14:52 SPONSOR: SimpliSafe 16:00 Life on Mars 20:08 Nature is conservative 21:55 Humans are not adapted for these advances in tech 25:40 Climate change - a threat? 26:22 Species extinction & de-extinction 29:14 Invasive species 30:25 How dinosaurs went extinct 32:41 SPONSOR: AG1 33:54 Evolution of crocodiles, birds and lemurs 38:48 Unintended consequences of our actions 39:54 Origins of Covid 40:56 Talking with Jordan Peterson 41:35 Are humans special? 42:45 Debating free will 49:01 SPONSOR: Mint Mobile 50:18 How do genes shape our personalities? 53:55 Can genes affect sexuality? 54:50 How much of life is predetermined? 55:23 Debating determinism 58:15 Doesn’t this undermine the scientific worldview? 1:04:25 What’s the one thing we’re not talking about?

[@hedgefundphil]

the university down the street from me has a women's business center which is ironic because women shut down men's programs in the 1970s. Amazon has preferential treatment for women owned businesses. the school I attended has special scholarships for women. women are eligible for no bid contracts that men are not eligible for on both the state and county level. google has a women's startup accelerator. women can join the police, the military or firefighting with lowered standards. women in the aggregate are net tax recipients, men are net tax payers. men are forced to serve in the selective service in order to vote, but women are exempt from the draft. there are a lot more men than women who are homeless but there is no effort to equalize that. the average man pays anywhere between 25 to 65 percent of his income to pay for social entitlements, which is more than serfs were made to pay during feudalism. Social security and medicare are insanely bad investments for men both because men pay more in taxes and don't live as long. women complain about the pay gap but fail to note that men are much more likely to be injured on the job.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

sex: gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other. ♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️ gender: sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact). Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”. The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema. If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines. Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”. Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition. Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language. If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!) For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms. Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning. Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).

[@michelledavis2604]

Gender is an infinite spectrum. If there's no freewill then transwomen have no choice.

[@michelledavis2604]

​@@TheWorldTeacherit's an infinite spectrum

[@johnsenders4156]

L lo pp p

[@alexanderbrown8498]

When my fiancée was pregnant, the nurse at the hospital literally asked her if she's female. It's nothing short of insanity.

[@C1ayd0n82]

*asked her if she wants to be known as female. It's a nuance idiots don't get

[@karagi101]

Should have said she’s male. Just to see what she does.

[@jwright4222]

You know immediately, this person cannot be trusted

[@JM-st1le]

​@@jwright4222Just because they hold different views from you doesn't mean they can't do their job

[@terryquarton2523]

My Thai fiancee went to an Australia doctor because she wasn't feeling well and asked her when was her last period. She's nerve had one in her 33 yrs. The Thai doctor had do such a good job a🎉nd she has worrking parts. She is a very happy 38 yr old woman.

[@vincentcooper9139]

"Although genetically male, they are partly phenotypically female.The question is: which part of the phenotype is relevant to boxing. Not genitals. But things like reach and punching strength are." That really gets to the heart of the matter. Brilliant.

[@M11969]

It's also one of the most compassionate explanations I've heard to date.

[@hdog6371]

Strength or reach doesn't matter. Male genetics matter.

[@Celestina0]

so we should ban people from womens boxing who have above average punching and reach? which basically describes all women boxers?

[@dawnkeyy]

​@@Celestina0I think testosterone and test sensitivity should be the standard. Get an average female testosterone, slap a +/-20% or whatever, viola. Because testosterone really is a proxy for all we care in terms of physicality in sports

[@bkilg2509]

​@@Celestina0 no, no you will have to relisten to what he said I think.

[@AnInvisibleMan]

The most refreshing thing about listening to someone genuinely intelligent like Dawkins is hearing him immediately admit "I don't know" when someone asks something he either doesn't know or doesn't have a certain answer for. No waffling, no inventions, no blustery face-saving, just an honest admission of ignorance. Love it.

[@jenkem4464]

True. Any good scientist will do the same.

[@matadorade]

Also, how patient he was when dealing with questions by somebody with far less scientific knowledge.

[@escher2hands663]

Then why didn't he say he 'didn't know' the genetic sex of the two olympic boxers? Has he seen any tests that the rest of us haven't? The International Boxing Association didn't reveal the chromosomes of the two boxers, or even if their chromosomes were checked. The International Olympic Committee didn't either. So Dawkins is asserting as fact something he has never seen. He was amazingly quick to jump on the bandwagon of calling them male without evidence. I'd love for him to walk back his bold assertions about the genetics of others, but he seems just fine with pretending to be certain of things he doesn't actually know anything about.

[@jeremyrobinson9660]

He's very selective about saying "I don't know" when he doesn't know, especially at the start of this interview when he magically knows the biological sex of the two boxers...

[@jenkem4464]

​@@jeremyrobinson9660 Yeah good point. I was also curious why he didn't address the fact that, though rare, biological dual sex or intersex does occur in nature. Just because it's a small percentage doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Should we discount and ignore natural redheads in the population? Their numbers are near intersex percentages amongst the global population. (I think) Also, the sport analogy is very flawed as, at its core, they shouldn't even categorize by sex, only by performance rankings. If a large percentage of women will be on the lower end of the scale, so be it....it is a more fair and inclusive system.

[@scottmerrylees9415]

Something I love about Richard Dawkins is his willingness to say "I don't know". So simple and yet so valuable in a conversation.

[@oggyoggy1299]

Haha! Wow!!!

[@karentonks7581]

Socrates

[@JamesTaylor-je6es]

We need more of that.

[@bfreesun]

Pity he didn’t say that here. Has he seen any test results?

[@bfreesun]

What about the 6’8” female US basket ball player?. I like Dawkins but unless he has actually seen the chromosome tests he’s letting himself down

[@rolytnz]

"Words are our servants, not our masters.". Very succinct, and to telling of what we see today.

[@michaelsuh2005]

83 and sharp as a tack. Extremely eloquent. Man's a national treasure

[@kylereese4822]

The ones who banned her... Russian Umar Kremlev is the president of the International Boxing Association The International Boxing Association's appeal against the removal of its status as the sport's world governing body After beating a Russian in 2023.....

[@Sal3600]

@@kylereese4822yea nah mate this isn't about Geo politics.

[@mrbaker7443]

Interesting man. He needs Jesus though.

[@eduardosantana8300]

@jennasiidecould you explain?

[@whiskeytango9769]

And after having a mild stroke as well.

[@Jessica-pl5tm]

Professor Dawkins himself belongs to a species which is going extinct - a real scientist who isn't only brilliant in his own field but very educated in other natural and "beautiful" sciences like literature, classical music and other arts. How often can you find someone like him nowadays? I'm travelling to Belgium from my home country Germany in november to see him for the first at his event there. I'm really looking forward to it! I hope he and his vivid mind will stay with us for several more decades.

[@folee_edge]

So glad that you get to see him! I also have tickets for one of his US appearances, and I am EXCITED!

[@abeautifuldayful]

Several more decades might be wishful thinking. But I'll settle for several more years, at least. And he's already given us so much to think about and research. His career is so brilliant. I've read all his books up until the last few years. I need to catch up now.

[@lk-sb8ql]

I wish I also could be there. He is a legend, the prototype of a THINKING person for me.

[@Sinuev1]

What happens when even the experts default to trusting the experts? A dark age, I'd say. Who are you to question Ptolemy? You really do need a broad understanding of the various fields adjacent to your own area of expertise, and a good education in a broader range of knowledge - as well as the ability to think critically, to speak openly against taboo ideas, and the courage to doubt the experts. The system isn't entirely broken at the moment, but I don't know if I'd want to risk a cross-country trip in that car the way it's malfunctioning.

[@cameroncameron2826]

0 seconds ago There is nothing 'brilliant' about richard dawkins just the opposite. New Atheists designed modern thought crime in the process of chasing christianity into the sea.

[@OFilellinas]

I appreciate the fact that Richard Dawkins is very comfortable saying "I don't know".

[@ponyboygarfunkel1675]

It is fascinating that so many atheist KZbinrs have adopted transgender ideology and now decry Mr. Dawkins. Fascinating.

[@vecernicek2]

If it were just KZbinrs, it'd be sad. But since it's also a good chunk of the humanities and not so insignificant part of the rest of Academia, it's utterly tragic.

[@vecernicek2]

If it were just KZbinrs, it'd be sad. But since it's also a good chunk of the humanities and not so insignificant part of the rest of Academia, it's utterly tragic.

[@navyglass1242]

It doesn't surprise me that athiest have taken the whole gender thing and accepted it it at all. Many athiest are only athiest because they think they are more moral than God. And have decided that even if God is real that they won't follow him or anything he has set in order. Including man and woman. Athiest rely on science as a God. As if science is a perfect entity that is never wrong. So of course if science says one thing they will beleive it because science is there God

[@sillymesilly]

and they pretend to champion logic, but became the same theists they oppose.

[@folee_edge]

Agreed! That Plus movement really revved up the clown car...

[@zh1992]

“These are profound deep waters which I’m not qualified to wade in” If only more people were this humble. Nowadays everyone has an opinion on everything and seems to be an expert on the subject.

[@jamesh1758]

That was such a beautiful way to put it. It’s not at all a shut down of the conversation but a clear assertion of his position on not talking about a subject. Personally, if I had the opportunity, I would’ve put it to him to maybe give answering a go by following on with the analogy. Even a non-expert fisherman can potentially catch a massive fish. I think it’s well worth someone so intelligent to put their mind to work on a topic they may not be extremely well versed in as they may have some revelation or new insight never brought to the table before. Even if not, at least he’s ran through the topic once before and so maybe more prepared to give a well reasoned argument in future.

[@Breadbored.]

​@@jamesh1758 Intelligent enough to understand the potential harm he could do by pontificating publicly about topics he doesn't have the prerequisite knowledge of. Somebody who never fished before might decide to put a net across a river to catch the biggest fish, which can cause significant damage to the ecosystem depending on when and where it's done. Society is filled to the brim with people hunting for quotes from anybody with an ounce of credibility that sounds like they agree with them. Those quotes are compiled with those of other credible people to push nonsense on uneducated people who aren't capable of sifting through research papers.

[@jutaipeter]

Just like Dawkins has an opinion about colonizing Mars. Which is a total absurdity. And he does not know even the basic facts that prevent us from colonizing Mars - ever.

[@Breadbored.]

@@jutaipeter What basic facts prevent us from colonizing Mars -- ever?

[@jutaipeter]

@@Breadbored.lack of magnetic field

[@donnastrom9640]

It is so refreshing to hear a person of Dr. Dawkins’ stature and breadth of knowledge say so matter-of-factly, “I don’t know”. So many persons at his level find that admission hard to say. And yet, they don’t know. And for the most part, they know perfectly well that they don’t know.

[@teenidol18]

Pleasant contrast to how arrogant and annoying Konstantine is, huh?

[@NicholaWallace]

Really? Dawkins appears really certain that God doesn't exist.

[@oggyoggy1299]

@@NicholaWallace Well, in the same way we “know” leprechauns don’t exist.

[@MiddlePath007]

A person with that sort of stature and breadth of knowledge is going to say "I don't know" or "I'm not the one to ask" as a definition of that stature and breadth of knowledge. He knows when to say that he doesn't know. That's in his breadth.

[@efsbass]

I didn’t read that in his God Delusion book

[@gilbertengler9064]

As a molecular biologist I only can 100% agree with "all" Richard explains. He is fantastic!

[@joeberg3317]

I'm very happy to see that Dawkins is putting gender ideology as a major point in what will likely be his final appearance tour. Kudos for taking stands throughout his whole life.

[@Jessica-pl5tm]

I'm travelling from Germany to Belgium to see him. Didn't want to miss what I might not be able to do another time.

[@HmFood4Thought]

Dawkin's was essentially cancelled from his own movement over a group of people being offended over him transgressing the "me too era" hierarchy of ethics (caviat: the hierarchy seems to be changing every few years, and this was technically in 2011. Look up elevatorgate), the issue of gender and what is often called "woke now" is a "direct descendent." Even if this interpretation gets things wrong or omits important details, Dawkin's promoting biological evolution, coining the term meme, and then fighting memetic systems of values (i.e. "woke-ism") could be one of the most interesting cultural stories of the past few decades.

[@GeDePeU]

So it is brave to take a stance when you have no more stakes. Great!

[@Dantegrey1]

​@@HmFood4ThoughtIt was very strange. The Wokeists had infected more and more of the Atheist Movements up to 2011. I remember The Atheist Experience's reaction to the loss of Christopher Hitchens that same year. It was rather.. ambiguous. Something major had happened. One thing I found interesting: my observation after 2011 was a general trend that long term Atheists (the Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett-types) were not persuaded by Wokeism, while relatively new deconverts from Christian religions (the Dillahunty, Aron Ra and Andrews-types) jumped in with both feet. Ex-muslims were generally not persuaded (new or long term Atheists alike). I sometime feel a kind of sorrow for the loss of that Atheist Fellowship. I felt good in it, if you know what I mean?

[@JerryMetal]

@@GeDePeU reputation is at stake

[@Robisquick]

Whales emancipated from the tyranny of gravity is the most beautifully elegant way to describe that they are chunky blobs.

[@marcvanwesten2759]

Could be the title to a body positivity book....

[@dn38oo]

I've always wondered especially after a couple of bourbon glasses. They swim all day yet they're so fat.....

[@erniehudson1]

🤣😂🤣

[@LusciousTwinkle]

they are compared to say, a capuchin monkey...They are beautiful graceful chunky blobs...

[@pilgrimlost]

I wonder what a pot of petunias would think if it was falling under the tyranny of gravity along with some whales?

[@George-ph5pz]

Dawkins is such a gentleman. A good role model for how we should discuss complex issues.

[@janegardener1662]

Alas, a dying breed.

[@keshakesha2344]

I was sitting next to him in the airport in Iceland a couple of months ago...I wish I had guts to come up to him and thank him for everything he does to educate the public. But I didn't want to look weird and disturb his privacy...It was really nice to see him in person.

[@Мыищемприключения]

Had the same situation with Navalny Alexey in 2019. Still regret that I was too shy in that moment

[@leechristy]

What a treat on a Sunday evening. I still remember Dawkins Christmas lectures on evolution when I was about ten, so long ago now. I understood it and thought it was absolutely marvellous. Thanks Richard for setting me on the path to science and reason.

[@terrorbilly1]

You understood lectures on evolution when you were 10? That's impressive, I couldn't differ my ear from my bum hole at that age.

[@mattkelly2004]

Richard Dawkins a living legend. Agree with him, or disagree with everything he says, either way you should listen and listen carefully.

[@ralfvanbogaert3451]

There is nothing to disagree with. I read all but 2 of his books, the guy is brilliant.

[@BenHall289]

@@ralfvanbogaert3451 lol you must be joking

[@Zleec]

The last horseman

[@michelledavis2604]

He's wrong about gender

[@justanothernick3984]

​@@michelledavis2604 And presumably free will too, if the trailer isn't misleading.

[@threecastlesandagriffin]

Francis tentatively asking questions about birds reminds me of that kid in school asking the teacher questions about a book he clearly hasn't read for the assignment. 😂

[@jumblyman]

I thought Francis did a great job, he should take the lead more often.

[@johndalzell904]

I think he said he read it over the weekend? I find in unfamiliar subjects I can follow along when reading as long as the author is guiding me, but when I discuss it later my apparent understanding turns out to be much less solid than I thought! I suspect that happened to Francis when he had trouble formulating his question about how birds evolved into so many species. There is still a lot of debate about how this happens. Evolution within the same species is much better understood.

[@robertpaterson5477]

@@jumblyman Yes he was obviously fascinated by the topic and had some great questions.

[@squidikka]

Not sure I get the hate. You're shaming a man who took a genuine interest and asked some great questions... because...why? Everyone has subjects they are more informed on. I'm quite certain he'd run circles around you in other topics.

[@threecastlesandagriffin]

@@squidikka if you think that's hate, you live a very sheltered life.

[@curlywurly4770]

Trigger were surprisingly unprepared in their questions, which often didn't make sense or were obscure and pointless, meandering for 10 minutes on whether a bird is more of a dinosaur than a crocodile, going round in circles for 30 minutes on free will, while not even bothering to ask THE preeminent evolutionary biologist who is imminently retiring from interviews, about something essential like how will humans navigate/evolve with AI

[@ijohnny.]

Oh, stop

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

Yup

[@jcvdchuck7915]

Thats a bit harsh. They are just not smart enough for this conversation.

[@williamfoster770]

Agree.

[@jam99]

@@jcvdchuck7915 Konstantin is usually very smart and a very clear thinker.

[@HamSandwich556]

“Emancipated from the tyranny of gravity.” Love listening to Dawkins speak.

[@HmFood4Thought]

She is unrelenting

[@GeDePeU]

Not really. Thank God for gravity: we would be dead without it!

[@OrwellsHousecat]

Some more than others

[@fink-it3002]

Things still sink in the ocean. Plus there is water pressure. Doesn't sound emancipated to me.

[@grahamhorne6956]

Sometimes Dr Dawkins looks his age and seems world weary from having to answer the same questions time and time again. He's such a good natured man.

[@GeDePeU]

So is the cannibal warlord from Liberia now turned preacher.

[@wholiddleolme476]

Answer the same questions again and again? Are you really that ignorant! He never answers them, that's why the same ones keep getting asked!

[@markbolduan8517]

Richard Dawkins good natured?? Lololololol

[@JohnSmith-oe5kx]

This is certainly a plonker of an interview. Did they lot do any preparation?

[@JohnSmith-oe5kx]

What is the word salad at 46:27? These interviewers are embarrassing

[@sherlockh22]

Love the split screen approach to your interview

[@questor55]

And let's not forget their lighting. It could make a psoriatic camel look good.

[@Halbared]

The boys wanting answers and the scientist answering like a scientist.👨🏻‍🔬

[@jam99]

The free-will discussion is pretty irrelevant to my life. Everything we do can be determined but nobody and nothing is able to precisely predetermine everything, or even come very close. We can predict some things, and science, mathematics, knowledge, logic and thinking helps improve the probability that we are correct. Personally, we have choices to make in what we do and everything we choose to do could theoretically be predetermined by an all-knowing entity but, only by an all-knowing entity. For example, get the energy of just one atom wrong and the prediction of many things could be inaccurate. I don't know of any all-knowing entities and certainly can't get a conversation with one so I don't see any point trying to determine if we have free will or not. Perhaps somebody who knows that an all-knowing entity exists has a different opinion but I'd still be somewhat surprised to observe them getting an incontrovertible understandable prediction from it. Regardless, we have personal responsibility for our own actions whether we like it or not, even if we were not to have what some people call free-will.

[@Papa_Tea]

@@jam99Donkins was a scientist maybe he hasn’t been for 50 years atleast. Donkins is willing to insult Christian’s but when asked about Islam he huffs and puffs then throws insults later on. Donkins has no credibility.

[@jeffongezaimanibaguma6763]

These interviewers are really lay-men 😮 Am I the only one to see that ? I am just a guy with a college degree who almost never took biology classes. Lots of science training though as an undergrad.

[@moonlightray8493]

Always a treat to see more Dawkins content! Hoping these guys will be joining him on his upcoming tour in the fall.

[@turbolevo8703]

Friend of Mr Dawkins the late Christopher Hitchens was once asked if he had freewill, and his reply was that he had no choice.

[@charlesfenton2063]

We miss Mr Hitchens.

[@jamesh318]

He also said that religious people claim to have free will because God says so.

[@Nyet-Zdyes]

Functionally, we have no choice but to behave as if we DO have choice.

[@rareword]

How do you define free will?

[@reach2prasanna]

Mr Dawkins is surely a shell of himself now, after watching how the society he wanted to build has disintegrated under the pressure of Islamism and far-left ideology.

[@philangell1403]

Dawkins, as always, is a fascinating listen. Great guest.

[@Dakkss]

That whole unending grilling on freewill and predetermination was just aggravating. Dawkins has stated plenty of times that he 1. doesn't find himself qualified to answer, 2. is comfortable living with the incongruent nature of the logical conclusion vs how people live their lives and 3. is quite happy to admit "I don't know". I don't think that needed to go on for as long as it did because those are all perfectly acceptable answers. On a fun note, Dawkins' saying the hippos were "emancipated from gravity" just makes me think of Gundam and the concept of Newtypes. Char Aznable would be proud!

[@RaveyDavey]

I thought so too. TBH these 2 guys didn;t really ask any interesting questions.

[@pmosh1]

LOL. My first impression of the guy in the purple jacket is that he really _thinks_ he's exceptionally sharp. His attempt to challenge Dawkins for not sharing his contempt for determinism was a disastrously amateur effort. He seems unable to handle cognitive dissonance.

[@pmosh1]

@@RaveyDavey lol right?

[@jam99]

The free-will discussion is pretty irrelevant to my life. Everything we do can be determined but nobody and nothing is able to precisely predetermine everything, or even come very close. We can predict some things, and science, mathematics, knowledge, logic and thinking helps improve the probability that we are correct. Personally, we have choices to make in what we do and everything we choose to do could theoretically be predetermined by an all-knowing entity but, only by an all-knowing entity. For example, get the energy of just one atom wrong and the prediction of many things could be inaccurate. I don't know of any all-knowing entities and certainly can't get a conversation with one so I don't see any point trying to determine if we have free will or not. Perhaps somebody who knows that an all-knowing entity exists has a different opinion but I'd still be somewhat surprised to observe them getting an incontrovertible understandable prediction from it. Regardless, we have personal responsibility for our own actions whether we like it or not, even if we were not to have what some people call free-will.

[@Misinformed_lol]

Dawkins is here to promote his newest book, he looks so uncomfortable and out of place… those two especially purple jacket guy thinking to himself WOW - we’re talking to Dawkins we better sound smart and knowledgeable, like rock band groupies As for Dawkins, someone with his credentials to use ‘I don’t know’ especially on COVID origins is cowardly and dishonest. Leading scientists in evolutionary biology and zoology and he refuses to answer such an important question, no wonder we are in this mess. I used to have such high regard for science and people like him, red most of his books, now all I can see, old man scared to say what he really thinks. He actually deserves to sit in front of these two and feel uncomfortable and out of place…

[@ConradSpoke]

It's been truly sad and disappointing to see Stephen Woodford (Rationality Rules) get on the trans bandwagon and defend biological males in women's sports. Woodford's recent attacks on Dawkins' character are appalling.

[@Rick_Cleland]

*_Mmmmmmm..._* 🤔🤔🤔

[@ConradSpoke]

​@@Rick_Cleland kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYjZaIWHlrF8rs0si=-aFGYH4Qmns6j9fu

[@folee_edge]

Agreed. It just goes to show that you can learn and understand logical fallacies, and still be derailed by them. I wish and want things to be true as well, but that doesn't mean that they are.

[@homemaintenance1234]

Why, he’s an arse.

[@Celestina0]

are you saying men can have vaginas?

[@StumpyMantis360]

Every interview that Dawkins gives now needs to be treasured and learned from. There aren't gonna be very many more. And good on him for continuing in public life at his age. If only he could let us know if he was right or wrong when he does pass.

[@elizabethshannon24]

He is right, he doesn't have to pass and then tell us that he was right. Both you and I can "test" for ourselves what he says and will be able to see for ourselves just how right he is. We can do that right now.

[@erehwhon]

Yup, can you imagine how excited he, as a scientist, is, THE big experiment and he gets to find the answer! - is death the end or is there something that comes after, like eternal damnation in fiery hell or not.

[@PetrSojnek]

@@erehwhon And how frustrating it must be as a scientist to not be able to tell anyone ? :D

[@j0hncon5tantine]

@@elizabethshannon24 What drugs are you on and can I have some?

[@beatthebag]

He isn't THAT old

[@luske2]

I love to see that Richard Dawkins is still a man of science and logic. He's a legend that shaped a lot of the ways I view the world and religion today.

[@homemaintenance1234]

True believer then.

[@litoo2002]

Read “The Bonobos and the atheist” by the late Franz De Waal. It changes my views of Dawkinsian.

[@j0hncon5tantine]

@luske2 Dude, your brain needs an enema if this dumb ass has shaped your world view, go view his video where he speaks on bad design in giraffes, he is a total moron.... 🙄

[@eduardosantana8300]

@@litoo2002umm could you go further onto that? I’ve read the book, what about it made you “change” and what did you change from and to. Cheers

[@Aristocratic_Utensil]

@@eduardosantana8300 Look up a book called "how Dawkins got pwned" and read that instead.

[@meraaiki6129]

Wow, just love the way Richard Dawkins speaks. Over and above his obvious intelligence & expertise, he seems so comfortable in himself & so clear in his communication. You can see his answers are very well thought through, without being full of the silly excessive use of words that seems to be the trend today.

[@sarral2008]

One can see immediately that Khelif is physically male. The body, the face, the posture, the mannerism. Everything.

[@ChiefGore429]

There's an interview with another female boxer who rats him out. She was told about the scam. And sparred with him while he wore a male cup

[@chiquitabigotes8139]

I agree, I don't understand why Dawkins says the boxer seems somewhat female phenotypically. He doesn't

[@sarahhale-pearson533]

Including the nasty sneer on his face, as he looked at his devastated opponent on her knees sobbing . Revenge against real women?

[@sarral2008]

@@chiquitabigotes8139 He is being polite. The transgender mob attacked him many times.

[@hermitcard4494]

There are some pictures of him without the mandatory hijab.

[@captaingoose9872]

The Selfish Gene is a stunning work.

[@darrenwolboldtalk2]

An idiot who spent his life being angry at the God he does not believe in

[@occamsblunderbuss]

It's a bit hyperbolic for me to say, "It changed my life!", but The Selfish Gene and Quantum Reality are the two books that "Changed my life". My entire reality shifted after reading The Selfish Gene, staggering stuff.

[@alistairmurray626]

@@occamsblunderbuss what part did you find life changing?

[@ARR409]

It was written back in 1976 too. Almost 50 years ago. Crazy how long Richard Dawkins has been around in the mainstream. Quite incredible.

[@Neilisatwin]

I think I have the colour book😊

[@mtc2054]

This was 9AM when the very overqualified substitute teacher shows up and the over-awed 15 year olds throw everything they got at him.

[@stevesalt2921]

😂 Yup.

[@OrwellsHousecat]

OFSTED Assessment day

[@robertbentley3589]

Wish they were a little more intelligent.

[@davebuchan81]

I was surprised Dawkins remained patient, these guys clearly had no clue what they were even asking... politics and philosophy plus some attempt to ask about biology from the perspective of a guy who failed to understand his books...

[@rogerwhite4073]

@@davebuchan81 I agree that it was a little awkward to watch, and I have a suspicion that Konstantin had been fed a line of questioning by Jordan Petersen, which may explain why he was dogged about it. However, there is an interesting point being hinted at, which I think can be summed up as: there are human behaviours which we all take for granted as intuitively sound, that cannot be explained by a purely mechanistic/materialistic framework of knowledge. Iain McGilchrist is a good source for a deeper grasp of this conundrum.

[@GungaLaGunga]

Thank you Richards Dawkins. Your book The God Delusion set me free from the tyrannical grip and ABUSE of the Roman Catholic Chruch! "Of course I have free will. I have no choice in the matter." - Christopher Hitchens

[@daviddeida]

Congrats now you are in the tyranical grip of genes and conditioning,a mere programed meat puppet

[@davidventura83]

You did nothing. That was just an illusion. Everything is predetermined, including me posting this message and you getting mad for being that stupid

[@macmonkie7265]

I am a 43 year old man with a beard.... I had an Hip Xray a few weeks ago in London UK and afterward the nurse asked, "I know this is going to sound like a strange question, but I need to ask you if there is any chance you are pregnant?" WTAF!! I should have suggested she take a closer look at the Xray!!

[@olafstorbeck4777]

She should have asked before harming the baby! How careless. A X-ray to the pelvic area in a potentially pregnant human. Sue them! 😂

[@mrgoober6320]

She 100% knew it was a stupid question.

[@MichaelNeeves-wf8ls]

Not her fault it's the power hungry administrator bosses

[@SaikoDeMoN]

Her choice is ask the mandated question or risk termination. You sound like an asshat being difficult in that situation.

[@greatbutler]

If she didn't ask, she would be reprimanded or fired. This is insanity.

[@iviewthetube]

Funny we laughed at the Creationists regarding Evolution... then gender ideology came along.

[@folee_edge]

Yeah, watching this go down in real life is a treat, isn't it? We have the insufferable woke of our former group arguing in complex sentences with the hope that they won't have to produce any real evidence for their POV if they can just shame you into silence, whilst the other half of our former group watches in horror and determines that maybe Jordan Peterson is right and they should go back to church now. I am back to being among the 3% :D

[@Tom-qp6oh]

The Creationists are still technically wrong IMHO, but I find them less crazy and more pleasant than this new group of science deniers. Creationists will actually try to be friendly and get along with the people who disagree with them, while these new loonies call you a racist-homophobe-transphobe who's worse than Hitler!

[@txdmsk]

Yeah, man. I miss the times when I was rolling my eyes at shit religious people said and did. Technically the woke crap and religion are not very different. Religious claims are not less ridiculous than woke claims, but late 20th century European xtianities were tame and nice and cozy, and not anti-human and civilization ending. The woke beliefs are.

[@hpholland]

@@folee_edgeyou just described me 😂😂😂

[@SilverSixpence888]

@@txdmsk Woke is very often described as a religion - because it is. I am laughing because my profoundly atheist sister is completely caught up in it and can't see how hilarious that is.

[@abletobeconfused]

The Olympics saying “it says female on their passport” is the same energy as the kgb agent saying “why you ahsk kvestions, it says right here on official document: suicide…two bullets to back of head”

[@kylereese4822]

Then Russian Corruption happens.... The Court of Arbitration for Sport has upheld the IOC decision to remove the International Boxing Association from the Olympic family. Russian Umar Kremlev is the president of the International Boxing Association Nearly 17 months ago 2023 in New Delhi, Algerian boxer Imane Khelif was disqualified from the International Boxing Association's world championships three days after she won an early-round bout with Azalia Amineva, a previously unbeaten Russian prospect.

[@NoName-cx3gk]

She was born female

[@jillengland3277]

Gender is a creation and expression of the mind. Sex is a function of individual physiology. The mind can override the physiology and change the individual’s genetic expression of sex through epimorpic and physical changes in gene expression which in humans is accomplished by castration and exogenous estrogen/progesterone. A “man” is more than the data set in his chromosomes. The whole is not the simple sum of its parts. As an equation; Human = X + (X|Y) + “cellular machinery including mitochondria” + “mind expression of gender (which can override some physical attributes with HRT (epigenetics) and surgery (castration)”

[@jillengland3277]

Free will is interesting because “reality/now/causality” is not instantaneous. This truth, that a second is physically 186k miles, separates the universe into potentially infinite number of realities. Hence the Schrödinger's cat apparent paradox. There is no paradox from our reference frame where only one reality can exist, however causality is not instantaneous. The speed of light problem is not about light, it is about time. 1 second IS 186k miles.

[@bjkarana]

@@NoName-cx3gk Define female?

[@towerdave4836]

Just reading the blind watchmaker - I’m so impressed with the forensic that Dawkins has and his ability to explain the inexplicable. He’s up there with Darwin and Newton in my view.

[@txdmsk]

Dawkins is one of the greatest minds of our era. Profoundly brilliant.

[@homemaintenance1234]

Whatever you say. Sounds like a true believer.

[@SilverSixpence888]

@@homemaintenance1234 Why insult someone just because they have a different opinion?

[@JukeboxJunkie7]

💯 I wish everyone would read at least one Dawkins book to fully appreciate his mind and the beauty and clarity of his language-he is a true educator and a fascinating thinker. I'm certain that many of his contributions to human understanding will only be recognised down the line (which is to say he's ahead of his time).

[@theoutsider6191]

What a legend of Science and Education Dawkins is, and thoroughly deservedly so.

[@DarthwRath]

Dawkins is a legend¹⁰ for not bowing down to that cultish trans pimple of a movement. He is the last major Atheist that stands firm against it and I'm glad he did. Because when I left islam, Dawkins was the greatest educator I referred to in understanding the biological life on this world. He explained the theory of evolution with such ease and simplicity that even my simpleton brain understood it. Hopefully he gets through this final tour and have fun with it. The man deserves his rest and so much can be done at home. He has a podcast, he just needs to have more varied guests on it. To your health Professor Richard Dawkins. Thank you for all you've done.

[@DarkSta77]

Dawkins has always been a pure scientist before a left/right wing ideologue. He will always have my undying respect.

[@RaveyDavey]

Correct on all points. The atheist "community", or at least the internet one, really fell hard for the genderwoo. But Dawkins stands with his principles of reason and science. I respect him even more. The likes of Matt Dillahunty have shown themselves to be more political than reasonable. Shermer is still talking sense, however he is also a bit more political albeit more to the right. And congrats on escaping the totalitarian religion.

[@beatthebag]

Do we actually know that the Olympic boxer has a y chromosome though? My understanding is that we are taking the word of a boxing federation that doesn't even have it's license anymore. And they never published the test results.

[@beatthebag]

@@RaveyDavey Sam Harris didn't fall into "genderwoo". I haven't heard Shermer "genderwooing" either. Or Dan Dennett. There is no "atheist community" and to the extent there is one it's the people who listen to this podcast and Joe Rogan (who is very clearly atheist and non-gender woo). So wtf are you talking about?

[@Jessica-pl5tm]

@@beatthebag Have you got eyes? Then you know Imane Khelif is not a woman.

[@alexbody3502]

I really liked this interview. Nice to hear laymen asking "stupid questions" (the kind I would ask) and getting respectful, deeply interesting answers. More of these please lads.

[@Vhalior666]

Richard Dawkins changed my life from a young age. He is, without a doubt, the one Tutor I would have wished for during my studies. Thank you for this interview, Gentlemen.

[@thenonexistinghero]

He seems like the type who would do the worst kinds of experiments on people and animals. He says there is nothing wrong with man playing god and also seems to support the view that the extinction caused by mankind is comparable to the ones caused by nature. But that isn't even remotely true.

[@aesopstortoise]

@@thenonexistinghero Not at all. Do you seriously think that Dawkins would agree with, for instance, the Tuskegee experiment? Disagree with him by all means, but there is no need to cast aspersions on his character.

[@esjavavu4808]

Dawkins spends his entire life to prove that something he doesn't believe in, doesn't exist. Such a sad, sad man.

[@Pedro1809]

@@thenonexistingherohumans are part of nature so by distinction anything we do is natural and comparable with anything else occurs in nature. Including natural disasters.

[@tsad5611]

@@esjavavu4808spent very little of his time worrying about that. You, however seem quite focused

[@svtinker]

Woke DEI is a power grab.

[@Syncopia]

Divide and conquer, ancient tactics.

[@OrwellsHousecat]

By whom?

[@Woodland-Gangsta]

DEI= Definitely Earned it

[@Woodland-Gangsta]

DEI= Definitely Earned it

[@GettingSchwiftyy]

@@svtinker that's all it is. Right out of the communist playbook

[@DenisMaher-o5l]

I feel like a red squirrel in my city

[@Leftatalbuquerque]

You're nuts.

[@British_Dragon-4K-Simulations]

Most of the Working-Class natives do. Russia is offering citizenship to people that are being oppressed by Woke ideology.

[@laaaliiiluuu]

That's a tree-mendous claim

[@British_Dragon-4K-Simulations]

@@DenisMaher-o5l we all do brother.

[@mrshannonite4016]

I usually feel like a kitten in mine, but I can't find anywhere that cooks them :(

[@TiGGowich]

This interview felt kind of painful... Konstantin and Francis didn't seem like they really knew what they wanted to ask or where they wanted this conversation to go, while Dr Dawkins looked like he was wondering why he was there to begin with

[@luisarodriguez8197]

Just before I read your comment, I was actually thinking the interview was brilliant. That they asked the questions I would have liked to ask and that they were quite prepared. Maybe I am not as smart as other people that have found it painful, but I sincerely must admit I thought it was great.

[@filipecardozo]

Did you really watch it?

[@luisarodriguez8197]

@@filipecardozo who? Me or the first guy who commented?

[@TiGGowich]

@@luisarodriguez8197 that's great, there is no right or wrong here lol, if you got a lot out of it that's brilliant for you then :)

[@TiGGowich]

@@filipecardozo yep

[@miyojewoltsnasonth2159]

So glad to see Richard Dawkins on Triggernometry! As a left-wing atheist myself, I'm hoping they will delve into the cancel culture going after him and what he thinks about finding new allies amongst -- of all things -- right-wing conservative Christians. It happened to me (obviously at a lower level) when former friends started calling me right-wing when the excessive Woke stuff started happening and I called BS on them.

[@homemaintenance1234]

Still Left wing then? Definition of madness.

[@briancox9357]

I class myself as anti woke left.

[@Nyet-Zdyes]

@@briancox9357 That's cool... we need more anti-woke left... to bring the left back to its senses.

[@GettingSchwiftyy]

@@miyojewoltsnasonth2159 it's a modern day religion for many on the left. Cancel culture is the equivalent of blasphemy laws and excommunication. Privilege is original sin etc

[@miyojewoltsnasonth2159]

@@homemaintenance1234 I still hold strong left-wing views like believing the US should adopt a health care system like Canada's or Britain's. This is the primary issue that prevents me from calling myself a conservative or right-wing or Republican. *Reply to:* _"Still Left wing then? Definition of madness."_ *Edit:* My praise for Britain's healthcare system might be out of date. Please see *@judgedottaylor7565's* replies to see a Brit's personal difficulties.

[@seanhammon6639]

Dawkins is a legend. I have immense respect for his intellect and courage.

[@aldunlop4622]

The way I think about it, there are two categories in boxing - Women's and Men's. A very, very minute number of people don't fit into those categories, which is unfortunate for them personally, but if they are allowed to compete, it's unfair for a large number of people. So, I think it's a case of choosing the solution which negatively impacts the smallest number of people, and that solution is that people who don't 100% fit in those categories shouldn't be allowed to compete.

[@SilverSixpence888]

3rd category.

[@dympnaoconnell6426]

Then have four categories:- male, female, trans men & trans women. Then everyone is competing with like species. There are just two gender/sexes but for those who psychologically can't adhere to this they can feel secure with like-minded individuals.

[@aldunlop4622]

@@dympnaoconnell6426 The bottom line is professional sports require money. If there is no audience, there will be no competition, because it requires money to make it happen. If they want to fight and test themselves, that's fine, just don't expect anyone to pay for it, or watch it.

[@jam99]

Or have two categories called 'everyone' and 'XX only'. I can't think of a physical sport where the best XX invariably beats the best XY. Are there any?

[@jasondashney]

@@jam99 "I can't think of a physical sport where the best XX invariably beats the best XY. Are there any?" One. Ninja warrior obstacle courses are dominated by women, depending on how they are set up. Women have a better strength to weight ratio. Exercises like where you hold onto a bar and then do a pull up which frees the bar and you have to then hook the bar on a higher set of pegs and so on and so forth, women dominate at things like that. I also want to see men on a balance beam 😜. If the course is set up where height matters, then men win on average no matter what because men are taller on average. If it's set up differently, then women can dominate. Food for thought: are the sports we play an advantage to men because men created them to suit their own skill sets? I would love to see women try to come up with their own sports to see if there are different styles of competition that they might be better at.

[@meraaiki6129]

Look at his tie!! Something tells me this man has a refined sense of humor as well.

[@edpereiraphoto]

When Francis starts asking questions about evolution, I swear it turned into an Ali G style spoof interview 😂

[@GettingSchwiftyy]

@@edpereiraphoto yeah it was 2nd grade level

[@Prometheus4096]

The rest of the part also is. But your bias makes it so you can't see it. The guy is just dumb as a rock. If they didn't decide to cut that bird part from the interview, imagine how stupid he was in the parts that they did cut.

[@merejackles]

Was a bit painful to listen to 😬

[@SK-yb7bx]

The red squirrel is making a comeback in Ireland thanks to pine marten numbers increasing. The martens can catch the grey squirrels easier than reds and the reds nest in areas of trees that are harder for martens to reach, unlike the greys.

[@pamelaroyce5285]

this is good news to me. I’m an American and love our gray squirrels but I adore reddish browns in squirrels and coos and bracken, etc. I have felt sad about the gray squirrels being a threat to the red squirrels.

[@RaveyDavey]

Pine Martins are great so double winner!

[@Ritch98777]

Dawkins is an absolute treasure. All those folk that worship the culture warriors like Peterson and Shapiro - this is a true intellectual who adheres to the principles of critical thinking

[@PhageTheFinalCure]

In my mid teens, while sitting and thinking about how everything works, I realised that nothing was truly random, and every event down to the atom is pre-determined by the previous event, it made me feel sick for about a week. I found it was best to not dwell on it for too long, and just enjoy the illusion of free will. It was also comforting to discover that this was a well established understanding, that others agreed on, as at least I wasn't alone and others have had to come to terms with this and done just fine.

[@thekid4779]

Alright Descartes…

[@PhageTheFinalCure]

@@thekid4779 I think it's safe to say every year many people all over the world come to the same conclusion in their teens, though probably less now that phones/tech steals almost all time from youths, in general, kids don't sit in fields staring and the flora and forna or up at the stars at night just thinking with no distractions anymore. So I can safely say by any stat/probability I am only above average in cognitive ability, though your disingenuous compliment would be very enticing and simultaneously horrifying to believe.

[@stevek28]

A finite number of past choices coupled with a finite number of present choices create the illusion we call free will.

[@laotzunami]

The older I get, the more I really appreciate Richard.

[@TheRover2010]

The older you get, the closer you're to turning into fertilizer. Richard as a biologist appreciates fertilizer.

[@erehwhon]

At least he, unlike so many, has the intellectual honesty to say that we still essentially have no idea how life started. So many don't understand that evolution runs once life exists; it does not explain how life started. How life started is still a deep, wonderful mystery for future young scientists to research.

[@cristristam9054]

I think organic material existed at t=1 (from the first moment) right from the big bang. This way you don't have to explain abiogenesis is just one of the many reasons I believe this.

[@SilverSixpence888]

@@cristristam9054 Organic materials are complex molecules. The big bang produced atoms.

[@oggyoggy1299]

@@cristristam9054 No. There wasn’t any organic material at T1.

[@TurinTuramber]

Biological evolution started with the first self-replicating molecule but other mechanisms and probability processes were in place before this. The distinction between life and non life is probably very trivial.

[@TheTplehar]

Whats the point of punishing your child if there is no free will? Because children learn, and learn is not the same thing as free will.

[@p1m1d1]

Yes. The questions are confusing “choices” with “free will” You make choices, but they are not totally free of past causes Of course you influence your child, and they will grow up different if raised by wolves or raised by Konstantin

[@TheTplehar]

@@p1m1d1 both mean a decision is made, but the difference has to do with if the decision is pre-determined... in the case of a computer program or robot clearly decisions are made and we understand exactly how because the decision making is determined by a program that uses external inputs to make its decisions, but the mechanics of the decision making is understood by the computer programmer. You can think of the child as similar to a robot 🤖 where it can be programmed: if slap - stop it ✋ But we know from our own subjective experience that we're not a computer program, and we think we exercise free will when we decide to do things. In philosophy class the teacher described this as the subject/ objective dichotomy

[@timothydavis2568]

Huge respect for this man. So glad you guys had him on.

[@Shane199416]

He created the word meme.

[@MichaelJPartyka]

The free will question, "Why, if my toddler has no free will, should I decide to either reward or punish him?" is simply answered, "Because to lack free will means everything your toddler does is either the effect of genetics or a learned response to external stimuli, and therefore by modifying the external stimuli your toddler receives, you can potentially program your toddler's lack of free will to produce the behaviors you'd prefer to see in your child." It's less "punishment" and more "conditioning" at that point, but the purpose and the end-product are the same.

[@vikkiiam3083]

you wouldn’t have free will either so you wouldn’t be deciding on whether to punish or reward your child , It would be based off of your learned response and external stimuli .

[@MichaelJPartyka]

@@vikkiiam3083 Similarly, whether you want your child to behave a certain way because it's your programming or because you're freely willing what's best for them is irrelevant.

[@daviddeida]

You have no choice but to raise your kid as you are.Its nothing to do with free will.

[@wanderinggremlin2388]

Education is the sexy way of saying conditioning then I guess. 😂

[@jamesepperson5940]

To lack free will?? We do lack free will so your comment you just made was already predetermined and if you respond to this is predetermined. I could run this universe forward in time and see everything you will do because it’s all just particles in a predetermined state and we can’t change it. But I’m not saying to live like that but it doesn’t matter what I say or tell you because it’s already written how you will respond and how you will live your life

[@peterglover1271]

Kings might move men, but your soul is your own. People might be heavily influenced and may not know they being influenced, but “free will” ultimately boils down to choice. Humans can make choices in their life, no other animal can make choices at the level humans do

[@lemming573]

I very much appreciate Dawkins. I feel bad that he felt he had to retreat from public life because he was becoming some kind of figure upon all the rage generated on the internet was being dumped.

[@SilverSixpence888]

He should be proud of it though, because it means the stoopid people know he is telling the truth.

[@julius43461]

48:04, This is one of the simplest things to understand about lack of free will. You DON'T punish someone for the sake of punishment. You punish your kid to direct future behavior. You put prisoners in jail to direct future behavior(hopefully), to convince others crime is not worth it and to put that person away from society.

[@robertbaker1893]

Don't kid yourself. Retribution plays at least as big a role as prevention and deterrence in most criminal justice systems.

[@julius43461]

@@robertbaker1893 I know it historically does, but it doesn't have to at all. Nothing changes free will or not.

[@SilverSixpence888]

You also put prisoners in jail to protect society, which has nothing to do with their future direction.

[@peterkelly4567]

I think if free will doesn’t exist, then nothing matters-we have no agency, we are merely cogs in the universe machine plodding on until it dies. You can't decide to punish, or not punish; the choice is predetermined by the starting conditions of the universe and the unfolding of cause and effect since then. There are no morals, there is no choice-punish, not punish-the choice was made eons ago. In this context, you punish because you were always going to punish; they were always going to commit that crime.

[@jbc22112]

I find it quite logical as well. People hold on to the idea of free will to the existential point. If there is free will, great. If not, I don’t see it as an existential problem at all. I would definitely try to raise my kid the best I could so he/she could flourish as a human being and avoid some stupid life mistakes. Because even if there is no free will, there are still consequences. I find it very interesting that so few people are able to imagine life without free will. I don’t think you need free will to do great things in life. You do them because you want to do them. Does it really matter if it’s YOU who wants to do it or millions of factors that made your brain want to do it? I’m not saying this is the truth, just that it’s not impossible to imagine that world could still go on even without free will. You would still put dangerous people out from society, that wouldn’t change. There would be more emphasis on prevention if some behaviours could be somehow predicted. If being a criminal is not a choice but determined by specific factors, then you could try to eliminate as many of these factors to produce less and less criminals in the future. But if there is free will, you can’t do nothing since anyone can always choose to commit a crime. The point is, in both scenarios, we would still want to live in a good world where we don’t suffer unnecessarily. That’s very reasonable goal even without a free will.

[@nem447]

What I love about Dr Dawkins is when he's asked a question outside of his field of expertise and isn't sure, he'll say he doesn't know, and won't attempt to answer it!!!

[@esjavavu4808]

@@nem447 so why does he keep talking about God and even wrote a book about Him?

[@nem447]

@@esjavavu4808 To educate people not to believe something without evidence that causes so many problems for our species.

[@esjavavu4808]

@@nem447 where is the evidence about the Big Bang? It is a theory; a hypothesis. There is more historical and eyewitness evidence that Jesus lived, died on the cross and rose from the grave, than there is about the life of Julius Ceasar.

[@Mitchhh1]

This became incredibly annoying how long you pressed Dawkins on the free will question. And I'm hugely impressed by his patience dealing with you say the same thing 100 times in a row.

[@daviddeida]

He has no free will ,so no credit is deserved by his so called patience,or for any of his books and research.

[@MrPochybovac]

It was not patience, he - Dr. Dawkins - was clearly lost and could not even find words to defend what is hardly defendable.

[@rayaqin]

@@MrPochybovac it is a popular debate topic and in no ways is it decided which answer is more defendable, it entirely depends on who are involved in the debate and who is the audience. Listen to Alex O Connor vs Ben Shapiro on the subject for example.

[@manusha1349]

Always a treat listening to Dr Dawkins ❤ spent the day listening to Carl Sagan and Christopher Hitchens, so this is an amazing conclusion to my 'Sunday education' ⚘️

[@philangell1403]

Difficult to better those three!

[@Steve-Cross]

Your IQ has probably increased 10% today. This is all about critical thinking and the pursuit of the truth. 🙂

[@manusha1349]

@@Steve-Cross it really has 😅

[@muxion]

how are you measuring your growth? if you do that every week will your IQ keep climbing well over 200?

[@Rick_Cleland]

@@muxion IQ is over *_9000!!!_*

[@ooparty]

Thank God for Richard Dawkins. Oops.

[@annslato5210]

😂

[@richyounger9]

Sam Harris’ book Free Will explains this very clearly. We are all products of our biological makeup and the impact our environments make on us. We are not free to choose those things. Of course we humans make literal choices during our daily lives, but the argument is that our mental capacities, combined with the environments we find ourselves in, lead to those “choices”. Simply put, we aren’t free to choose that which doesn’t occur to us.

[@svetoslavkrastev228]

Well said. My opinion is that environment (society, familly, friends, etc.) and inner world (aka - genetics and phsyiology) makes 99% of our choices, but there is still that 1% of randomness (aka feelings, believes and principles) that sometimes make it seem like there's this "I" component that is independent of the environment. One can argue that that "randomness" is also predeterment (if you mean it in the way that it is "influenced") by what we experienced. But there were many times in my life where I made choices that are 100% contrary to my upbringing and social influence - which is a result of me conforming to my principles, that I "built" in the course of my life. TL:DR - if the concept of "I" exist (something that differs in every person) - then I can call that a free will - coz it makes us different from each other. Think about it - if we were all just a product of the environment (inner or outer) - wouldn't we act all the same. I can see that there is this thing called "individuality" and many people take that as a proof of "free will". But in the end - I am totally fine with the idea that what I experienced/what I am is what determines 99% of my actions. It is just that there is this 1% real unprogramable thing that makes people different from robots. Think about it - we are "programmed" (genetically) to strive to survive - yet there are so many cases of suicides. The brain makes us think that we are all pupets, but it is also that very same brain that makes us do some illogical things. People call it "heart"/aka "feelings", but it all boils down to having "predeterment" components (mind and body) and STILL doing "not predeterment" actions/choices. My TL:DR wasn't short at all 😜😜😜😜😜😜 If you think about it - if your are comfortbale with the way you live and act, does it matter if you have "free will"? For me - the nature of the question is wrong so it will never have an answer - many years ago I've read this awesome sentence "Half of the answer is in the right question" and it stuck with me ever since. And more than 20 years later - i still see how true it is.

[@charleslonsdale3759]

Agree with him or not he must have a platform centre stage to advance the debate he is tolerant and respectful the essence of civilisation

[@buffaloalbertz1690]

The number of adverts in this really distracts from a very interesting conversation

[@Undeadpool]

That's because you don't have KZbin premium, I didn't get a single ad, just a few in-video sponsors that I skipped over 😮

[@Sal3600]

Get sponsorblock and ublock origin

[@Sal3600]

@@Undeadpoolpleb lol

[@jesusloveisthegreatestpower]

This interview needs millions of views to wake people up to this gender madness

[@nigeltrigger4499]

100%

[@sjey8665]

The gender madness is predetermined

[@Tom-qp6oh]

Dawkins is the MAN! I'm excited for this one!

[@lechenaultia5863]

Discussions of truth and science are like a cool breeze on a summer's day. How refreshing.

[@reekinronald6776]

Logically, there is no T-genderism, at least how it is described. No one actually knows what it feels like to be a man or a woman, in the same way that we really don't know whether the colour red you see is actually the colour red someone else sees. What T-genderism actually is, is that certain people want to be VIEWED as a particular gender. Completely different than how T-genderism is portrayed or described.

[@cp37373]

You’re so pathetic. You can’t even say the word.😂

[@JerryMetal]

I think this is why so many young people are now confused about their 'gender' since they got asked what 'gender they feel like on the inside'. This question has never been asked at school before and I have never had to 'feel' what gender I was. I'm a boy so I live my life as one. I have no clue if this is what I am 'suppose' to be feeling, I just am. According to some, the children are being confused on purpose by the people who have confused themselves.

[@glerp10000000000]

That is true. These days, many people want to be seen as 'trans', and will have a beard AND make up.

[@JerryMetal]

@@glerp10000000000 queer means you go against all societal norms. So... a beard in a dress. I hope this trend ends soon

[@SilverSixpence888]

They want to be viewed as a particular SEX.

[@dependent-wafer-177]

I've noticed Richard Dawkins is very quick to admit his ignorance on certain topics. Something you don't see often in people.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

sex: gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other. ♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️ gender: sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact). Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”. The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema. If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines. Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”. Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition. Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language. If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!) For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms. Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning. Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).

[@inconspicioutor]

So summarise, 2 genders?

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@inconspicioutor You got it! 💯✅💯

[@sarahhale-pearson533]

What they mean by gender is merely the clothes you like to wear ( or fetishize), and the things you like to do, based on their rigid, unrealistic stereotypes.

[@TheIntrepid7]

Thank you.

[@dirkpretorius8878]

So gender & sex are synonymous, & sex is binary?

[@merodobson]

When my male son tells me he has "girl brain" and that I don't understand, I become alarmed. The food and pharma corporations have poisoned us, disrupting/damaging our endocrine and metabolic systems. This what RFK Jr is talking about. The conversations are directly correlated!

[@SageJ-fu4ub]

Or you could just listen to your kid and talk about it instead of shitting on them over the internet to strangers. Trans people existed long before corporations polluted our water. Just google trans people in history, you'll find plenty of examples from hundreds of years ago. The major difference is the fall of religious patriarchy in the 21st century and the continued rise of freewill of citizens unbeholden to fictional gods. Nothing scares society more then freewill and the ability to transition genders is no exception to the rule.

[@TheFluffyDuck]

I was quite involved in new atheism back in the day. Watching so called “intelligent people” turn on Dawkins when he didn’t bend the knee to woke was a great learning moment for me. I remember when he had a stroke and the gleeful responses wishing for his death from previous brothers and sisters in arms was disgusting.

[@GettingSchwiftyy]

@@TheFluffyDuck they've adopted their own woke religion. When you stop thinking critically that's what happens. Humans are extremely susceptible to adopting ideologies and then burning the witches and heretics.

[@SilverSixpence888]

The woke are disgusting. Seriously, they are. They are everything they slag off others for being. Truly awful people lacking in any degree at all of kindness and compassion, whatever they convince themselves.

[@norbitcleaverhook5040]

Just because you share opinions with people doesn't mean you can trust they will have the same opinion on everything, nor is it true that large numbers of atheists turned their backs on Dawkins, just a small number of ideologues who see tribalism as the only way to share ideas.

[@GettingSchwiftyy]

@@norbitcleaverhook5040 it's much more than a few.

[@Orson2u]

YES!

[@cressida123]

Just rediscovering Dawkins and what a treasure.

[@Wichexx]

Choosing “God” as a quick answer to every complicated question does not imply intelligence.

[@rovert46]

@@YuelSea-sw2rp we exclude god already, he's never been found to be the cause of anything.

[@rovert46]

@@YuelSea-sw2rp By anyone, ever. Sure, there are plenty of claims about extraordinary godly interventions down the centuries, let's have some evidence for those...my scepticism requires no evidence.

[@rovert46]

@@YuelSea-sw2rp you're asking for evidence of something that I claim has never happened?! You're introducing a straw man argument concerning reality which I never implied. Again, if an assertion to any supernatural occurrence is made, the burden lies on the claimant to provide evidence. Thus, attributing any cause to a god has never been established as factual reality, ever.

[@JOSMINCHERIAN]

So.. If birds are dinosaurs, then dinosaurs might taste like chicken..

[@lewissmith350]

And there are more dinosaurs than humans.

[@Alex-mn1fb]

Even if you do see gender as thing, and as something completely separate from sex, a sort of way someone moves in a social sense through the world and society, and even if then gender is a spectrum and if you are allowed to identifiy however you want in a social sense, why on earth would that category be more impactful or important then your sex? Which is binary, biological and evolutionary, end peermiates your entire being??

[@bobthebuilder9553]

ideology vs. chromosomal makeup. Which came first? The biology of sex or the ideology of what gender is to some people?

[@Alex-mn1fb]

@@bobthebuilder9553 Well. Bilogy for sure. I am just trying to give them the widest benefit of a doubt.

[@tarahunter7524]

Why is the way you feel about your gender the most important part about you? You must have a very empty life to circulate every emotion, feeling & thought through that filter and worry yourself over.

[@Alex-mn1fb]

@@tarahunter7524 Yes. And these are often kids that are loners, autistic, maladapted or traumatised

[@Celestina0]

we're not saying it is necessarily. but even if its less impactful, the way you identify and how you relate to people socially is still also important.

[@hylo1985]

Poor Richard having to put up with these two fellas. Absolutely mind numbing stuff.

[@maryroselovey1447]

I think their questions showed him up. Some of his examples such as one bird flying off to found a new colony or the discussion that describes science as a type of religious world view rather than the fact that it’s a method. A method does not exclude or explain natural wonder or indeed the source of consciousness.

[@derekh5340]

I just love Richard Dawkins so much, and love your channel very much

[@jamesepperson5940]

I could listen to Richard all day every day and never get bored and never learn as much as him. I hate seeing this man fade away and get old and decrepit. I wish we could preserve his brain and keep him alive in an artificial body so he could teach the next generations

[@nothappygilmore7634]

This show is absolutely amazing. The hosts level of respect for their guests is what MSM used to be.

[@Prometheus4096]

And Dawkins is thinking all this time "I know we are both anti trans haters, but this guy I am talking right now is dumb as a rock!"

[@TechGamesAU]

"What makes human beings special compared to animals?" Without missing a beat, Dawkins: "we ARE animals" Love it XD

[@kakabawani4212]

our body is animal being and our sprit is moral being that's free will .based on this we will be hold accountable .

[@zaconeil3709]

Human exceptionalism is the root of many a bad thing in this world.

[@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511]

you are easily impressed

[@Scipionyxsam]

32:07 The common theory as to why birds survived goes as this: Their ability to fly made it easier for them to evade the areas that were affected the worst by the meteorite impact. And more importantly their ability to eat and live off seeds helped them to live through a time when almost all plant live died. A huge herbivore dinosaur like Iguanodon simply had no chance of surviving that. And with their extinction all these giant and highly specialized predators would die off as well.

[@elfboy29]

Lokk at pigeons - they are idiots with one reflex: fly forwards and upwards when panicked. But they thrive everywhere. Flying is very effective.

[@jdsiv3]

but what about water borne dinos?

[@Scipionyxsam]

@@jdsiv3 There are none. Mosasaurus and the like were aquatic reptiles of a different order. They were not nearly as widespread and diverse as dinosaurs...that might be the answer. Even though there's still an element of mystery to it as to why turtles and snakes are the last remaining aquatic reptiles, I admit.

[@Player-re9mo]

Couldn't pterosaurs do the same thing?

[@aldunlop4622]

Yeah, I think seeds are the major factor. When all the predator's food sources died off, they couldn't survive. Even herbivores sources of food died due to lack of sunlight. But seeds were unaffected, and provided a food source for birds until the environment recovered.

[@Face2East]

A very wise man. I wished the broad society had the courage to listen to him more and ignore the rising tide of insanity.

[@ianm2170]

Konstantin was really flummoxing at the end of the interview. That was a refreshing experience.

[@BillsYoutubeAccount]

Not having free will doesn't remove cause and effect. People still learn, it's just that it's theoretically determinable if they are going to learn. So when you consider the punishing your child scenario you can think of it like you were always led to either punish or not, further leading to them either growing up disciplined or not. Chosing is our computation time for things that are yet to come, but like a computer the outcome is predictable.

[@adekaiwamisou]

Not always though. We can predict ourselves and we can see larger trends but I think we often overestimate our ability to do so, not to mention that other individuals always can have aspects of them that we are unaware of that may show themsleves, or thers that may recede, thus making predictions potentially flawed.

[@GeDePeU]

Apart from the first sentence, what you said is intellectually worthless.

[@adekaiwamisou]

@@GeDePeU Are you always this rude to someone you disagree with or is this a special occassion?

[@BillsYoutubeAccount]

@@GeDePeU It's just pointing out that whether free will exists makes zero difference to how we experience things and Konstantin suggesting that it might have profound implications for punishment - or anything for that matter, doesn't follow through logically. And it's reasonable to expect it doesn't really exist because if everything can be explained by interactions of particles and fields then why assume there is some more complex free will answer when the simplest solution is often correct.

[@TheFuzzician]

The simple answer is this: You punish reward/ because these things alter future behavior. That's it. We reward behavior that we want to see more of, and punish behavior that is detrimental society. Simple. Whether or not the universe is deterministic doesn't really change anything here.

[@almost_harmless]

Brilliant mind being interviewed by smart people. Love this. Like Dawkins, I have also harbored an annoyance at how language is being changed to mean something else than it does for the majority of people I speak to. Who decides this? Big Brother?

[@muxion]

it's always been a leftist/marxist basic tactic

[@almost_harmless]

@@muxion possibly any totalitarian regime too, I would argue, but yes, that especially. It irks me that supposedly smart people don't see that. Either they are complicit or they are just naive/dumber than I gave them credit for.

[@thekid4779]

I do struggle with “interviewed by smart people” - I think some of the genetic questioning was very poor.

[@almost_harmless]

@@thekid4779 He he. I like that comment. I might have been a bit too fast off the mark there. I still find them smart, but perhaps not in this field.

[@HarryGregg-jj5rg]

Jesus that A level style debate on free will was painful, it was like they'd seen the Minority Report the night before while on weed and couldn't let go.

[@vargonian]

Konstantin leans heavily into the Appeal to Consequences and other related fallacies. C.S. Lewis committed a similar fallacy when he assumed that, because we live as though a higher power exists, it must be evidence of the existence of a higher power--when in fact, more likely, it's just a result of our evolved tendency to ascribe agency to unknown phenomena. He's also putting forward the "other ways of knowing" argument, which is fine and wonderful, but if you're going to put forward "another way of knowing", you've got to demonstrate what it is and why it's reliable, otherwise it's useless.

[@vargonian]

By the way, I highly recommend the Decoding the Gurus episode which covers Konstantin.

[@robertstephens6757]

According to the philosopher Gary Larson, dinosaurs died off due to smoking.

[@annslato5210]

😂

[@Jesper-bl2ns]

Many of them also died by tripping on small stones - and their small arms couldn't protect them from the fall.

[@jamesscottvideos]

The 'free will' question has to be clearly defined before it can be answered. The more you try to define it, the more you realise it is not a valid question.

[@Jimraynor45]

Okay, but did you decide to write this comment of your own free will?

[@alansmith4748]

@@Jimraynor45 and why did you make this comment rather than not making this comment?

[@Jimraynor45]

@@alansmith4748 I did it to be amused as opposed to not being amused...

[@jamesscottvideos]

@@Jimraynor45 You define it, then I will tell you. 😉

[@jamesepperson5940]

He did clearly define it. It’s obvious that everything in our universe is predetermined even this very conversation we are having on the topic