Why Dawkins is wrong | Denis Noble interview

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

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

[@bengeurden1272]

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

[@welingkartr416]

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

[@laurier3348]

Ya, but he's old

[@winifredherman4214]

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

[@welingkartr416]

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

[@pyxxel]

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

[@pyxxel]

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

[@TWGypsey]

So agree - and a special tribute to the interviewer who laid the ground so well

[@znarfranzi]

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

[@mathiaschaves7604]

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

[@upturnedblousecollar5811]

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

[@znarfranzi]

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

[@alexappleby8677]

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

[@terencefield3204]

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

[@fraserwebster8761]

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

[@civildiscoursefm6480]

I read it! What an interesting experience.

[@Tubemanjac]

Lucky you in having worked with him! 👌

[@Julia-oe9xl]

Today was the first I've heard of this man and I'm glad I did. Not only is he a systems biologist eloquently and clearly explaining his ideas (very important ones for that matter), he is also a programmer, well-read and a musician. Very respectable

[@folee_edge]

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

[@playitard-pz3ed]

Making or feeding assumptions is not a good idea.

[@martinlawrence8427]

What a treat to listen to Professor Noble!

[@voyagersa22]

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

[@radwanabu-issa4350]

Horrible interviewer with that sleepy too confident voice!

[@larryparis925]

@@radwanabu-issa4350 Just a suggestion: stay off the drugs before commenting on something important.

[@christophercousins184]

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

[@zah936]

Thanks

[@Paul_C]

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

[@christophercousins184]

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

[@livrowland171]

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

[@alexappleby8677]

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

[@stevemawer848]

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

[@uingaeoc3905]

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

[@Dodgerzden]

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

[@willpeony5534]

@@Dodgerzden I never heard of Balliol.

[@DanielJones-wj7mm]

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

[@elizabethcsicsery-ronay1633]

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

[@john_mckinney]

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

[@alienspotter422]

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

[@induchopra3014]

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

[@jasontoddman7265]

Pun unintended?

[@DiscipleOfHeavyMeta1]

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

[@vernonhedge4530]

I found it botnobaglasmic.

[@jikkh2x]

Go back to mismanaging your garden tankie

[@andywomack3414]

What reality does this check?

[@samjackgreen]

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

[@johnschuh8616]

Dawkins is a true believer. Noble is a scientist.

[@geo24793]

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

[@Conserpov]

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

[@BearGryllsSpoofs]

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

[@Conserpov]

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

[@kammonkam4905]

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

[@zarathustra8789]

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

[@terjehansen0101]

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

[@Allen1029]

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

[@Ian.Does.Fitness]

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

[@Conserpov]

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

[@Ian.Does.Fitness]

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

[@Conserpov]

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

[@Eromasta6]

Dawkins is a fool

[@chrisevans1255]

@@Conserpov precisely

[@earFront]

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

[@blakebronte1544]

I can see the likeness. 👍🏼🌟

[@thesufi]

William Hartnell lives on!

[@Si_Mondo]

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

[@pitbull2005]

@@earFront No Michael Foot reincarnated!

[@josephking1947]

Referring to him as the Time Lord would be apt.

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

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

[@tjejojyj]

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

[@yoso585]

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

[@brechtkuppens]

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

[@martinwilliams9866]

Genetics determines potentiality, enviroment determines actualization!

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

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

[@ABC-yt1nq]

I watched my first Denis Noble talk yesterday. I've been watching everything I can find, downloading papers referenced in the comments. The guy is a Buckeroo Banzai! Amazing the way he can communicate extremely complex ideas and information clearly and eloquently. Magnificent mind!

[@rustycalvera977]

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

[@skarphld]

That was magnificent. Thank you so much.😊

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

You're welcome

[@keithtomey5046]

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

[@julienbilodeau6159]

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

[@StardustAnlia]

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

[@bg1616]

Free will could be an illusion 🎶

[@Resmith18SR]

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

[@musicloverlondon6070]

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

[@playitard-pz3ed]

Sure, he is using a physiologist like-vocabulary.

[@keaton718]

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

[@TheDustAutumn]

LOL, Dawkins is as dogmatic if not even more so than your average religious crazies

[@keaton718]

@@TheDustAutumn it’s different. Dawkins is dogmatic about the lack of any evidence, any reason, to think the supernatural let alone any of these specific gods exist. He’s happy to hear about any evidence but there is none and never will be.

[@TheDustAutumn]

@@keaton718 Read The Science Delusion by Sheldrake and then read about how he refused to look at evidence repeatedly. The guy is a grifter at best milking the reddit npcs

[@keaton718]

@@TheDustAutumn no thanks. If there was evidence for the supernatural I would have seen it on the 6 o’clock news.

[@tonycincera3353]

@@keaton718 The economist John Maynard Keynes

[@dosesandmimoses]

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

[@artlessons1]

agreed ./thats why he is also a musician.

[@aljoschalong625]

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

[@kalijasin]

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

[@aljoschalong625]

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

[@scottkb2000]

Not only am I impressed with the mind and knowledge of Denis Noble, but he is one of few who can explain his thinking in a way that ordinary viewers (such as myself) can grasp...and dare I say, Understand!

[@irenecraig7739]

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

[@andrefelixstudio2833]

Very interesting and a intellectual conversation!

[@s.hauser1732]

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

[@cameroncameron2826]

That his books are metaphysical nonsense is no misinterpretation though thats for sure. Nor would it be when referring to him as the founding father of modern thought crime.

[@warshipsdd-2142]

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

[@ironwilltattooclub6116]

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

[@dukeallen432]

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

[@seandonahue8464]

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

[@isatousarr7044]

From a quantum genetics and biology perspective, the concept of genetic determinism where our traits and behaviors are solely governed by our genes becomes increasingly complex. Quantum mechanics introduces a level of uncertainty and indeterminacy at the microscopic level, suggesting that genetic expression may not be as deterministic as previously thought. The quantum phenomena of superposition and entanglement hint at the possibility that genetic material could exist in multiple states or be influenced by entangled factors beyond simple inheritance. Additionally, quantum biology explores how quantum effects could play a role in processes like enzyme catalysis or gene expression regulation, implying that biological systems are not merely deterministic machines but are potentially influenced by probabilistic quantum events. This perspective challenges the reductionist view of genetics, opening up the potential for a more intricate interplay between our genetic makeup and the broader quantum environment in which it exists.

[@martinbennett2228]

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

[@cameronlapworth2284]

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

[@off6848]

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

[@andyzola]

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

[@christopherellis2663]

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

[@ciupenhauer]

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

[@erdwaenor]

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

[@SueFerreira75]

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

[@instamdgram]

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

[@erdwaenor]

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

[@instamdgram]

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

[@alanjenkins1508]

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

[@johnscanlon8467]

He also makes specific neolamarckist claims.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

You seem to be right aboot that...

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

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

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

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

[@shanemac7185]

Yes, exactly.

[@ttecnotut]

I just discovered Noble and I love him

[@mtheinvincible4156]

Love the nuance here. We don't get just either/or Nature. Love this man.

[@MisterWillow]

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

[@Scott_Hoge]

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

[@RogerioLupoArteCientifica]

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

[@cyberswine]

The title is click-baity.

[@Conserpov]

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

[@1SpudderR]

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

[@tanned06]

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

[@szyszkienty]

An interesting talk with a misleading and clickbaity title.

[@DW-indeed]

"i am a programmer..." There may be no if-then-else at that level, 1) we're at the machine code or even the electron gate level (switches) 2) if dna is "just data" and the processing is done elsewhere , the description of the processor is still contained within *that same data*

[@PhillipParr]

DNA is definitely the compiled binary to use that analogy, but it's significantly more complex because each bit in binary is discreate and controls a switch, but each amino acid can influence a significant number of other things. It's orders of magnitude more complicated in that respect. I think we will reverse engineer it successfully at some point, but being able to see a program's binary is a long way from being able to work out what it actually does.

[@sulekhasingh4576]

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

[@alexappleby8677]

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

[@MrCmon113]

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

[@OneFurlongTooLong]

Great interview, excellent choice of questions.

[@kennethttt5ttt548]

Excellent talk! Informative on many levels.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Ah well, what can I say....

[@oskarngo9138]

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

[@kennethttt5ttt548]

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

[@Al.S.]

Thank you, Professor Noble

[@walkabout16]

In a conversation with Denis Noble, you'll find, A challenge to Dawkins, a different kind. For Dawkins and Noble, they both engage, In a lively discourse, on a different stage. Dawkins, the atheist, with fervent belief, In science and reason, he finds his relief. But Noble, a voice from a different plane, Suggests there's more to life, a broader terrain. In this interview, a clash of the mind, Noble contends, Dawkins is somewhat blind, To the depths of existence, the mysteries untold, That science alone cannot fully unfold. He speaks of evolution, but in a new light, With systems and genes, all working in flight. Noble's perspective, a holistic view, Suggests life's complexities go far and go through. So while Dawkins is wrong, in Noble's view, It's not all in conflict, there's still much to pursue. In science and faith, in a harmonious blend, They seek understanding, where paths may amend. In this conversation, ideas entwine, Dawkins and Noble, two minds in design. Though they may differ, in belief and in song, The dialogue's rich, as they both march along.

[@dawnemile7499]

Denis Noble is so sharp despite his age.

[@tommason8104]

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

[@keenanmiller6231]

Clickbait . No substantial disagreement with Dawkins about anything and a bit of straw manning . Dawkins doesn’t think behavior can be predicted from genes alone

So how does it work?

[@mlh3604]

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

[@metamorphosis9958]

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

[@weaseldragon]

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

[@daveblack2602]

And your evidence for that is what?

[@nerdyali4154]

@@daveblack2602 Reality.

[@off6848]

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

[@brechtkuppens]

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

[@off6848]

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

[@MrMikkyn]

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

[@lawrence1318]

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

[@lawrence1318]

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

[@foffjerkholes4995]

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

[@giangosdrakoulas]

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

[@andyzola]

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

[@aceoffools86]

Yes, the answer is actually nowhere to find. No clear centre of free will, or self and it remains to be most important question. All we have are combinations of different processes. I hope some scientist give us good answer, because to imagine being in fully determined destiny, being technically noone, just a dream...it feel so bad.

[@dauntlessRRs]

This is important to me as a dog breeder in this age of breeding by DNA Tests rather than the whole dog. Just as with 'breeding by numbers' (dogs scored by 'experts' on a point by point interpretation of a written 'standard'), there is a great danger of breeding into dead ends when those individuals with that, 'special something', are denied to breeders with 'an eye' to see 'it'.

[@mlambrechts1]

The evolution in cancer treatment based on genomics is phenomenal.

[@christopherellis2663]

Simply stop eating carbs

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

@@christopherellis2663 literally carbs?

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Literally phenomenal?

[@ciupenhauer]

What was the evolution? In simple terms I could understand

[@mimoslavich6639]

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

[@DarkForcesStudio]

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

[@tongleekwan1324]

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

[@chrishoffman5610]

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

[@adamadappa]

Don't we all?

[@KNOWHOPE72]

Love listening to a scientist with an OPEN MIND

[@EdMcF1]

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

[@j.dragon651]

There is an old saying in rock and roll, "nobody's right if everybody's wrong".

[@dlcurtis69]

Noble, speaking about Descartes' ideas, said, "there must be a spiritual entity that interacts with the mechanics, this was Cartesian dualism..." Then expressing his own idea he said, "we don't need dualism, the agency of organisms comes from within us..." Now, it is certainly fine to have your own ideas. But he is doing what scientists do so often, they present an idea as though it is a scientific truth, but they do not back their idea with evidence. Whatever you might believe about "spiritual entities" and "agency of organisms," if you have not proven it with scientific evidence, then it is an personal opinion and it should be labeled as such.

[@piushalg5041]

There seem to be questions natural science is not able to answer by its very definition. And therefore the answer that everybody is his own agent sounds trivial or as old as humankind.

[@kipling1957]

Scientism is the claim that the only form of knowledge derives from the scientific method producing “evidence.” Noble only mentions spiritual entities as a way of framing the absurdity of Cartesian formality applied to living systems. His sounds more like a dynamical systems theory approach to complexity and intelligence, in which the resultant agency of the organism derives from simple but myriad reciprocal loops. In other words, a complex but constrained system. Stephen Wolfram is developing computational models around such systems. Cartesian models often portray the universe as deterministic, obeying fixed laws of physics. On the other hand, Wolfram's theories suggest that the universe operates more like a computer, following a set of simple rules that compute the next state of the universe from the current state. This approach embraces the notion of computational irreducibility, where the only way to know the outcome of a system is to perform the computation (or let the system evolve). There's no shortcut as we often find in deterministic equations. You might also explore the work of the biologist, Michael Levin. Levin's research into morphogenesis is similarly concerned with how complex biological structures emerge from cellular interactions. Both might be seen as studying different kinds of "automata"-Wolfram more in a computational or mathematical sense, and Levin in a biological one.

[@MBY1952]

שיחה מעולה. תודה רבה.

[@larryparis925]

A fine interviewer, and a wonderful interview. Thank you.

[@28pbtkh23]

I was looking forward to listening to this talk, but I doubt if I understood half of it. I shall have to listen to it again.

[@CALIJOE13]

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

[@5piles]

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

[@CALIJOE13]

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

[@Vrailly]

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

[@Vito_Tuxedo]

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

[@off6848]

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

[@eensio]

The title gives the wrong impression about Dawkins. Why?

[@grantm6514]

Because it gets clicks.

[@eswn1816]

​@@grantm6514 "Clickbait" on KZbin is ubiquitous!

[@riccardodececco4404]

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

[@shrimpytcoon]

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

[@Conserpov]

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

[@Gottenhimfella]

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

[@the_dark_one6052]

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

[@marianmoravcik9262]

I really love to hear these arguments.

[@peteypeterson80]

What an interview! Fascinating.

[@No2AI]

Always beneficial to share thoughts and ideas - the truth however is that we simply don’t know, no matter how intellectually the case is presented .

[@johncampbell9216]

We know better than this old liar.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

That's right!

[@theuniques1199]

We know everything right now because we know that we exist right now including our belief that we may not know and that we may know by what means that we do exist by right now because we absolutely know that we exist as all of existence itself right now, summary: right now is always absolutely right now including the assumption(belief, illusion) by what means that we may exist by right now to know that we exist as all of existence itself absolutely right now.

[@No2AI]

@@theuniques1199 in my view the only absolute is the ‘ I AM ‘ everything else I don’t know.

[@yoso585]

@@No2AI Huge assumption

[@TheYoungFactor]

I don't believe this changes Dawkins perspective that much. It basically just kicks the deterministic can back one level. Great, so your genes aren't the totality of your identity, microtubules or some deeper stochastic process are. Big deal. This doesn't leave any more space for God, a spirit, or a soul than neo-Darwinists believe. It's still biology all the way down. Don't get me wrong: this is fascinating, and the implications in medicine are immense, but it's likely the uncertainty in this area will and already is being capitalized by creationists to smuggle in their numinous, antiscientific intuitions.

[@christopherbrice5473]

I think these ideas have the potential to kill creationism as we know it. What's to do if there is a "spiritual" aspect fundamental to existence but it is not of any religion written about? That's kinda checkmate.

[@mba321]

He wasn't trying to argue for religion, he was trying to argue that genetic determinism is not the be all, end all of the story. Weren't you paying attention?

[@quakers200]

Seems like the interviewer is trying to create more controversy than illumination on the subject.

[@WrIm-x1w]

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

[@FlockofAngels]

The pain in my back can make me more or less altruistic depending on my perspective at the time. 😊

[@CovidIslandDiscs]

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

[@bobhumid]

"Why Dawkins was partially wrong" would have been less of a click-bait. Otherwise fantastic interview!

[@duledaska2198]

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

[@MunsKi]

howd you be able to sequence all these genomes?

[@nineteenninetyfive]

With great respect to this person's perspective, there are some people that are very educated but cannot think clearly and start seeing patterns in the stars, which they then start attributing agency to. I am afraid i find these arguments to be of this kind.

[@terencefield3204]

Wonderful clarity of ideas rarely spread to the peasantry.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Pleasantry; rhimes with

[@terencefield3204]

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

[@kipling1957]

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

[@campbellpaul]

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

[@afterthesmash]

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

[@SystemsMedicine]

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

[@MrCmon113]

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

[@campbellpaul]

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

[@lexunajinrui1340]

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

[@John-uh8kl]

Bien. Jrb. 🇬🇧

[@michael.forkert]

Explaining why someone is wrong doesn’t mean you are right.

[@heisenberg6921]

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

[@thedancingveganatheist6310]

Where in this video does anyone prove Dawkins is "wrong"? It's a hostile video title.

[@James-ll3jb]

😂

[@James-ll3jb]

@@Francis0206 Someone hasnt been listening, have they lol

[@James-ll3jb]

Try paying attention l

[@frogmorely]

@@James-ll3jb Denis Noble hasn‘t been listening, and nor have you. Noble absurdly contends Dawkins‘ concept of the gene as a unit of selection is deterministic. It isn‘t.

[@James-ll3jb]

@@frogmorely You obviously absurdly believe my laughter emoji has anything to do with the assertion you raised. Why is that

[@brothermine2292]

It seems premature for Noble to claim the genome project is a failure. Although he's right at 9:30 that the total number of combinations of molecules to be analyzed is too large to exhaustively explore computationally, he's neglecting the potential of pattern recognition algorithms to reduce the number to explore, and the potential of neural nets to recognize those patterns. At 10:48 Noble calls himself a programmer and says the genome lacks "if x then y" programming structures. He appears to be neglecting a more modern programming paradigm: event-driven programming. In other words, the nearby presence of a particular molecule can trigger the activation of a gene. Identification of triggering molecules could in principle be computed, given the genome and general information about how triggering works. Then it would be straightforward to translate to "if molecule x is present, then activate gene y."

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

He's not only a programmer, he's also a musician! Which ofcourse, explains everything!

[@ChannelMath]

At 10:48 , he's not really making a lot of sense (I have a feeling he hasn't actually done much programming). I *think* he's just trying to say "the logic" is not expressed in a clearly-written program like a person would write, and so it's not easy to decipher what it does or will do. Certainly "if-then" IS possible in the computational abilities of the cell: if there's (enough of) some molecule present, a "switch" gets flipped, and something else happens... I can see how event-driven could be a helpful way to think about it, but It's all just computationally equivalent to the general purpose computer, like most complex (but finite) computational systems are. (although Penrose might claim it's even more powerful via QM)

[@CeroAshura]

Bioelectrical approach seems to be the more likely functional candidate for bio modifications.

[@LeGioNnd]

Even Dawkins wrote about genes that are triggered (activated) in certain conditions, in the "Selfish Gene".

[@OneLine122]

When something is event driven, you can't predict what it will do by just reading the code, that's what he is saying. Even then, the action is mediated by something else and that something else is not in the gene, so the event driven function is not in the gene itself. It's done by another process in program speak. The neo-Darwinian approach is to explain everything by the genes, all the biological functions.

[@davidhunt313]

Having discovered only at the age of 57 that I am *_autistic_* and have been such since conception,.. how can I still believe in libertarian free will and reject biological determinism??!? I can choose my actions,.. but not my desires?!? It was quite a shock to me to realize my Libertarianism largely followed from my autistic affliction and not my choice?!?

[@mehmetsarikaya1157]

Great interview and wonderful explanations. Instead of "selfish gene", it should be "selfish proteins, including the enzymes and the systems they are working in." I made this point to Dawkins at a book signing after his talk on one of his books (which are all wonderful, BTW).. he just looked at my face, said nothing. I am so glad to have listened to Denis Noble. We use directed evolution to select peptides (tiny proteins) for a specific function within a given environment. It works like a charm.. not many people are doing it.. I don't know why (ignorance, lazy, sticking to one's path, etc.). As Denis Noble says, organisms are doing it all the time.. and we humans do it all the time.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

Dawkins probably thought... "This chap doesn't understand that those enzymes/proteins/peptides come from genes! How will he be able to read this book ?" And he wouldn't be too far wrong. Denis Noble points out, implicitly I believe, that there is a trinity of components (pun not intended), the environment, the protiens/enzymes/plasmids/peptides/etc and the genes, which stochastically respond to each other in a nondeterministic way (overall!, but as best as possible, this is where he infers the process is "creative"). So the answer that the proteins/enzymes/etc are selfish seems silly. The peptides/enzymes etc are simply the huge communicating mechanisms between the gene and the organizm. And this allows for the profound comment that this disposes of the need to believe in dualism. The body/cells/genes and the person/soul/physiology are each "selfishly" bound by the proteins, plasmids etc. What I think will be the next revelation after Dr. Noble's ideas are mainstream, is that the earth's biome, viruses, bacteria etc play an important role in manipulating, "communicating" and evolving our genes and our physiology !!

[@Jahson70]

"Reductionism has failed." Thank you 🙏

[@letdaseinlive]

This really is in keeping with Charles Sanders Peirce who understands that the smallest particles can learn.

[@AliMaghsoodi00]

They can?

[@letdaseinlive]

@@AliMaghsoodi00 Micheal Levin is doing work not so far from this subject so far as it involves a living being controlling micro processes as in a lizard regenerating a body part or plausibly ourselves deliberately failing to replicate what the gene orders by the expected pattern and creating so-called errors or mutations. So, one can think of this as an intelligent process (directing particles to a purpose) rather than mathematically as a mechanical blind one. Or, more difficult, simply as a form of micro learning of the sub particles.

[@Faustobellissimo]

I've always found genetic determinism a troublesome idea. Especially as far as behavior and, even more, consciousness are concerned. To my knowledge, nobody has ever hypothesized, let alone proved, how genes can determine innate behaviors, like fixed-action patterns for example.

[@dukeallen432]

Caring if something is “troublesome “ keeps majority of chimps believing in eternal life.

[@petergibson2318]

So you think that Honey Bees in China independently work out how build Honeycombs as opposed to Honey Bees in Europe? Or that Spiders in the Rocky Mountains invent Web-Weaving all on their own and that Spiders in your Bathroom have to invent that behaviour all on their own as well? Or that Cheetahs all choose the same way to hunt their prey independently.. no matter where in the world they are? Do you also believe that Leopards can change their spots?

[@Faustobellissimo]

@@petergibson2318 No, I believe innate behaviors are inherited. That's why they are INNATE! I'm just saying that the current paradigm of genetic determinism doesn't provide any clue on how these behaviors are inherited and produced.

[@scottnineteen]

@@Faustobellissimo ah that would be genes. They provide a planned (inevitable consequential) differentiation of cells into a human etc. The neural circuitry available then prunes or otherwise themselves in relation to the inputs/environment encountered, consciousness emerges from the level of abstraction required to succeed as human.

[@afterthesmash]

@@Faustobellissimo Neither do the rules of simple, single-dimensional cellular automata (in computer science) "explain" themselves, and yet complex behaviours manifest themselves nevertheless. It's not a standard of evidence we ordinarily demand, because even for vastly oversimplified, artificial, toy models, we are profoundly ignorant about how so much complexity emerges by nothing much doing nothing much.

[@foundational]

Loved it!

[@tedgrant2]

I can still remember fondly the moment that changed my life. I was in a book shop in Loughborough and saw the book. I thought, "Mmm, that's an interesting title.

[@haydenwayne3710]

Excellent episode!!! Thank you.