1. Comment #388907 by archfarchnad on June 18, 2009 at 12:34 pm

Woohoo! I'm the first to comment!

Thank you RD.net for uploading this lecture, I've been waiting to see it for a while.

Other Comments by archfarchnad

2. Comment #388922 by bluebird on June 18, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Say, this looks great. Here in K.C. it's hotter than...well, it's hot! Gonna grab a cool drink and enjoy this video-thanks for posting!
EDIT: Guess I'm in the minority of preferring a wild rose to a cultivated one; I think Professor Dawkins should have a rose named after him :)


~~HBD to Greig, Stravinsky, Gounod, Offenbach~~

Other Comments by bluebird

3. Comment #388925 by Andrea Gyori on June 18, 2009 at 1:21 pm

I have been waiting so much for this lecture! Thank you very much for uploading it!

Other Comments by Andrea Gyori

4. Comment #388926 by locutus7 on June 18, 2009 at 1:23 pm

Excellent presentation. Thanx, RD and Josh.

Other Comments by locutus7

5. Comment #388931 by reno on June 18, 2009 at 1:31 pm

It was great seeing you in Omaha, and thank you again for the short interview following the book signing; I received an A plus on the paper you were cited in. Josh--excellent work, as always.

Other Comments by reno

6. Comment #388933 by mattincinci on June 18, 2009 at 1:38 pm

excellent video, love to hear the q&a after coming soon

Other Comments by mattincinci

7. Comment #388937 by JAMCAM87 on June 18, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Wonderful as always, thank you Richard and Josh. Glad you mentioned Peter Atkins, I've read his Physical Chemistry textbook inside out. I forgot everthing it said as soon as I graduated.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

8. Comment #388938 by slunk34 on June 18, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Don't look forward to the Q&A too much - the session in Minneapolis was VERY disappointing. It's embarrassing to think that those comments will soon be available for all to see and hear. I would like to point out that Minnesota was not well represented on that night, just to set the record straight in advance.

Other Comments by slunk34

9. Comment #388939 by Olucatei on June 18, 2009 at 1:59 pm

My friend, who saw this lecture in Minneapolis, told me about it. I think at a certain point Archeapurpose and neopurpose collapse into one, but it is none the less useful in keeping Darwinian and conscious goals separate. I remember one creationist asking questions about the first cell. Why would it want to reproduce? That would only create competition for resources. The question was so profoundly wrong I had difficulty wording my opposition. I was a Christian at the time, but not the science-hating 6000 year old earth type. I knew that bacteria didn't choose to do anything. They reproduce because under suitable conditions it is impossible for them not to reproduce. At the same time it is impossible for our brains not to process information, hence why I would say that archea/neo-purpose are at their base the same thing.

Other Comments by Olucatei

10. Comment #388943 by Luis Dias on June 18, 2009 at 2:10 pm

Great editing and quality. I'm still amazed that the internet is already superior to the generic tv...

Other Comments by Luis Dias

11. Comment #388946 by ShirleyFilms on June 18, 2009 at 2:18 pm

This is wonderful.

I would love to have an audio version of this lecture (mp3). Would that be possible£

Other Comments by ShirleyFilms

12. Comment #388947 by BernardoRC95 on June 18, 2009 at 2:20 pm

This is one of the most beautiful lectures I've seen from Richard Dawkins. Thank you very much.

Other Comments by BernardoRC95

13. Comment #388954 by Quine on June 18, 2009 at 2:32 pm

I am thinking that the problem of goal tenacity v. innovative thinking may impose a limit to raw intelligence as we see it now. As a system becomes more and more powerful, and thus able to simulate more and more possible futures, the fascination with imaginary worlds may overcome any previous goal.

Other Comments by Quine

14. Comment #388960 by Squigit on June 18, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Thank you! I look forward to watching this later, after my son goes to bed! I have been waiting on this!

Other Comments by Squigit

15. Comment #388962 by evolvingalways on June 18, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Saw this talk at the University of Minnesota now I can see it on video thank you very much!

Other Comments by evolvingalways

16. Comment #388964 by Gregg Townsend on June 18, 2009 at 2:58 pm

Thank you Richard for the thought provoking lecture!

And Josh...



Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

17. Comment #389008 by j.mills on June 18, 2009 at 5:08 pm

Great lecture and very well put together. Thanks, Josh!

Quine said:

As a system becomes more and more powerful, and thus able to simulate more and more possible futures, the fascination with imaginary worlds may overcome any previous goal.

Why am I reminded of string theory..?

Other Comments by j.mills

18. Comment #389014 by HappyPrimate on June 18, 2009 at 5:28 pm

This is so appreciated. I cannot get to any of these lectures and so appreciate them being posted here. Thank you!

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

19. Comment #389015 by Huzzah on June 18, 2009 at 5:29 pm

Something a little new. Looking forward to Dawkin's new book.

Other Comments by Huzzah

20. Comment #389017 by yyy on June 18, 2009 at 5:33 pm

Awesome talk.
Maybe scientologists will take some exploitation pointers from this and rename themselves as the 'scientology brotherhood/sisterhood/family' and lure people to 'audits' with scantily clad models and free M&M's (well initially free, their price would just ultimately come out of the $20,000 they scam you out of later).

If I remember right, I thought penguins adopt chicks according to an attenborough or similar doccumentary (which might just be misfiring behavior if so).

Other Comments by yyy

21. Comment #389025 by GJJCole on June 18, 2009 at 5:48 pm

is it just me or does anyone else consider the belittling laughter of the audience to be darn right arrogant? i would like to see how stupid we look in say, 500 years time. ok most of us now reliese that animals are not here so that humans have something to eat. but how many of us still eat animal products? selfishness seems more idiotic to me.

Other Comments by GJJCole

22. Comment #389035 by rocket777 on June 18, 2009 at 6:30 pm

I only wish Dawkins would stick to his area of expertise - biology. It gets me a bit sick to the bone to hear his views on statism - his love of the new Messiah (who is doing Bush-ism more so than even Bush ever dreamed).

For someone who so elegantly expresses the truths of nature, he is so naive about politics. The new Messiah has NOT reduced the wars of the American Empire, He has in fact increased the violence. His knowledge of finance can be seen with his recent proposals to put the FED in charge of the hen house.

Perhaps Richard has seen through this so called "change" 3 months following, but I doubt it. Richard doesn't understand that putting government money into stem cell research is the worst thing for that, or any research. The strings will be seen to be oppressive. The best thing about the non-funding of such things as stem cell research is that the research funds went instead to private organizations that did real work. Now that federal funds are again flowing, we will see that only politically connected groups will get the money.

After all, look at who is getting all the trillions of bailout funds? The money goes to whoever can bribe the Priests in DC.

Maybe Richard will one day understand that the same PURPOSE exists for those in power through religious shenanigans as does those who do so for purely political purposes. It's really a shame for me to see such a brilliant scientist get totally taken in by the power elites. Doesn't he understand that the priests of the inquisition were simply replaced by kings and that the modern religion is actually just worship of the state.

Other Comments by rocket777

23. Comment #389050 by j.mills on June 18, 2009 at 7:06 pm

Your argument, rocket777, is that RD, along with most American voters and most of the rest of the world, is wrong to see Obama as an improvement on Bush? Well, I applaud your independence of mind...

Richard doesn't understand that putting government money into stem cell research is the worst thing for that, or any research.

Would private finance have ever funded the LHC? Or the Apollo missions? The state isn't god (any more than god is!), but it has its uses and can do things for the public good without always demanding that they turn a profit.

Other Comments by j.mills

24. Comment #389110 by ColdFusionLazarus on June 19, 2009 at 2:39 am

Not bad. Not bad at all. I've got a better understanding of The Bridge on the River Kwai too! I only saw that film once and was disturbed by the Alec Guiness character. I wanted to like him, he seemed such a good guy and yet ultimately seemed insane and bad. Now I know. He was a good guy and we can all fall foul of subversion of purpose (well, I'm sure I can anyway).

But that's the problem. It's great when people become driven to invent something wonderful, such as genuine technological advancement, or even Concorde. But it's easier to see the righteousness of the decisions in hindsight. Ultimately the scientists, the poets and the politicians have to help us to see which endeavours are worthy, and we (well, me anyway) will often fall foul of unscrupulous selfish people of power. Discerning what is best for me and best for us is going to be tricky when sophisticated wool-pulling is being perfected.

I don't agree with rocket777's conclusions, but I can sympathise with why he feels that way. In 10 years time me might be dismayed at the outcome of the causes we championed ... naybe even wonder if we were duped. Still, what can you do? You've got to decide what to go with. I hope I'm listening to the best arguments and I hope I'm backing the best way forward for me and one that optimises a good life for a great many others. Better keep on my toes.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

25. Comment #389112 by gcdavis on June 19, 2009 at 3:26 am

23. Comment #389035 by rocket777
You say naivety, I say optimism. Dawkins enthusiasm for Obama is not misplaced. Our expectations may be overstated but at least here is an intelligent and sophisticated man who is inspirational and appears to be someone in whom we can place our trust. How many politicians can you say that about? I thought I was the worlds greatest cynic but I pass the hat to you.

The prof is wonderful teacher and definitely should stray into areas outside his academic expertise. His ability to explain how human behaviour is driven not just by biology but many scientific principles can only enlighten the wider audience. My hope is that his comments will eventually trickle down to those who have never even heard of him.

Other Comments by gcdavis

26. Comment #389113 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2009 at 3:27 am

I feel like I understand things less, but in a good way. There are so many ideas expressed here that I need to think about.

Here are just a few:

Why do we like flowers? Do we really like them because insects have been selecting them for millions of years? There are some flowers that have been selected by flies, but that does not mean we enjoy the resulting stink produced by those blooms. I think this is a really interesting question.

Do wild animals work continuously for their reproduction? I would consider dolphins playing in warm waters, and occasionally having sex just for fun, delightfully hedonistic.

What is the purpose humans can have? Is it neopurpose? I am not sure. Isn't there yet another level of purpose - a purpose that we come up with by thinking about what we want to achieve? The purpose present in a human brain is not the purpose present in a guided missile, because the missile has no awareness.

When a bat is described as having both neo- and archeo- purpose, I admit to finding myself confused as to the difference.

When we look at a sheepdog in a hunting posture, I think we should ask Who is doing the subverting of behaviour? Perhaps humans have been subverted by the hunting behaviour of wolves to tame them for the purpose of herding sheep?

There is only one point I would directly disagree with Richard about: is contraception a subversion of Darwinism? No, I think not. The chances of survival of children may well be improved by the parents not having any more. Contraception can directly assist the passing on of genes.

That is what is so great about lectures like these. So much to think about.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

27. Comment #389150 by sbooder on June 19, 2009 at 5:01 am

Absolutely fascinating.

Especially as I am reading; Climbing Mount Improbable at the moment.

Other Comments by sbooder

28. Comment #389190 by gcdavis on June 19, 2009 at 6:22 am

There appears to be purpose for most things. Our lives are filled with activities that have a clear purpose, we go to work to earn money, we eat to alleviate hunger etc. So it not unreasonable to assume that there is a purpose for our very existence as well. The distinction surely is between the purpose that drives our personal behaviour and a purpose that exists independently of it? I cross a road because I want to visit a shop or talk to a friend but no one would claim that there is a universal concept of crossingness that is applied to all roads.

Like most children who are shown a globe for the first time and told that their country is near the top, I couldn’t understand how the people who lived on the bottom didn’t fall off! It was not until I understood that there was no top or bottom but it was gravity that fooled me into that assumption that I came to terms with it.

So it is with purpose, when you understand that purpose is something that you construct for yourself (or others impose on you) and that life the universe and everything exists happily without purpose, it is easy to accept.

Other Comments by gcdavis

29. Comment #389196 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2009 at 6:28 am

Comment #389190 by gcdavis

Purpose is a hard thing to think about. Much of what we think is purposeful about our actions is a retrospective labelling of what our unconscious has already decided.

Do we really need the language of 'purpose'. I don't know. Sometimes I think that 'purpose', like 'meaning' is nothing more than a feeling we experience when we look at a situation. It is easy to mistake such feelings for things that are real.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

30. Comment #389220 by arunkj on June 19, 2009 at 7:45 am

Amazing content, magnificent editing, superb recording. Thanks RD and Josh.

Other Comments by arunkj

31. Comment #389231 by gcdavis on June 19, 2009 at 8:07 am

30. Comment #389196 by Steve Zara
Retrospective labelling is spot on Steve.

Other Comments by gcdavis

32. Comment #389241 by Humanist Wikitopian on June 19, 2009 at 8:23 am

Comment #389017 by yyy: If I remember right, I thought penguins adopt chicks according to an attenborough or similar doccumentary (which might just be misfiring behavior if so).

VIDEO - 'Gay' penguins 'adopt' chick: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8096453.stm

Male penguins raise adopted chick: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8081829.stm

Enjoy!

,-)

Other Comments by Humanist Wikitopian

33. Comment #389242 by Gregg Townsend on June 19, 2009 at 8:24 am

Steve,

Language is a funny thing isn't it? When I listened to Richard talk of purpose I heard 'fitness for a use' not 'intent'. Your mention of the word 'meaning' make me wonder.

gcdavis,

Steve sometimes has a way with words, yes?

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

34. Comment #389307 by Lastandfirstmen on June 19, 2009 at 10:50 am

Both enlightening and entertaining especially the clip of the 2 creationists with the banana, I nearly fell out of my chair.

Other Comments by Lastandfirstmen

35. Comment #389332 by Koldtoft on June 19, 2009 at 12:11 pm

This is brilliant. I hope "The Greatest Show on Earth" has more on the purpose of purpose.Very intresting. Can not wait for the book.

Other Comments by Koldtoft

36. Comment #389400 by Barney on June 19, 2009 at 3:14 pm

I'm enjoying this immensley.

One problem, to play the catholic laypersons adittion to a papel selection committee (the devils advocate).

Rich says Guided misiles have a neo-purpose. No they dont.
They have a programmed purpose, programmed by humans. For specific goal. Closing on a heat signiture.

It isnt Richarsd fault, he could have chosen dozens of other examples, but for the record Rich, dont use Guided missiles again. They dont fit the analogy.

Sincerely: A Guided Missile Trained Air Defence Gunner

Other Comments by Barney

37. Comment #389403 by j.mills on June 19, 2009 at 3:24 pm

Steve raises interesting points as usual:

Why do we like flowers?

Speculation: it's in our (genes') interest to prefer environments with flourishing vegetation, as likely sources of plant and animal food. Also, flowers may play upon our pre-existing predilections for the colours and smells of fruit?

When a bat is described as having both neo- and archeo- purpose, I admit to finding myself confused as to the difference.

How about, neo-purpose is a goal sought by an individual organism that it has set for itself? Thus, the wing is 'for' flying, the sonar is 'for' finding insects, but these 'purposes' are Dennettian free-floating rationales, outside the creature's control. Whereas choosing when to fly and choosing which insect to pursue is setting new purposes 'dynamically' - in a brain.

We might then argue that our brains go a step further by permitting us to choose what kind of goals to pursue, whereas the bat is stuck with choosing between this or that insect. But it's getting into philosophical territory...

is contraception a subversion of Darwinism? No, I think not.

Hmm, but the religites tend to have more kids, and our modern environment keeps 'em alive; so maybe selection pressure based on 'litter size' is kinda kaputt for now - until the planet's resources hit empty... RD's main point holds if we speak of celibacy instead of contraception.

Other Comments by j.mills

38. Comment #389491 by Shigawire on June 20, 2009 at 3:34 am

What a beautiful and thought-evoking lecture Richard! Thank you!

Other Comments by Shigawire

39. Comment #389723 by learningfromher on June 20, 2009 at 4:20 pm

Richard Dawkins is a brillant thinker and deserves great credit for advancing Darwinism and science in general. But am I the only one that thinks he suffers from a bit of tribalism in his constant attacks on the US and most political thought to the Right of socialism? It seems to be proof that none of us can escape our tribal instincts. He is part of an "in group" and dearly loves to show contempt for the "out group".

Other Comments by learningfromher

40. Comment #389740 by j.mills on June 20, 2009 at 5:05 pm

learningfromher: First, where did he 'attack' the US? Second, decrying Bush doesn't make you a socialist - even Republicans do it! And he applauds Obama, who certainly ain't a socialist. Yer exaggerating.

JDM2: Value is a good choice of term.

Other Comments by j.mills

41. Comment #389824 by Peter Grant on June 21, 2009 at 10:32 pm

This was Dawkins at his most inspirational.

Thank you.

Other Comments by Peter Grant

42. Comment #390055 by ryandinan on June 22, 2009 at 9:49 am

Rich says Guided misiles have a neo-purpose. No they dont.
They have a programmed purpose, programmed by humans. For specific goal. Closing on a heat signiture.


Barney, this is exactly what Richard said. The neo-purpose (the missile's tracking logic) is indeed programmed by humans. The missiles use this programming to actively intercept a target that is trying to evade it. I think you may not fully understand what Richard means when he talks about neo-purpose, compared to archeo-purpose.

Other Comments by ryandinan

43. Comment #390401 by sheepscarer on June 23, 2009 at 8:36 am

Enjoyed this lecture but it was not what I thought it would be. Purpose as an artefact of natural selection hit me like a bolt out of the blue when I first read 'The Selfish Gene'. I suddenly got it - that seeming tautolgy that 'survivors survive' made sense and I saw the profound but simple nature of the mechanism that underpinned life and its diversity. Life is just a persistent phenomena and that's the kind of 'purpose without purpose' or apparent purpose that I thought RD was going to cover.

Outside my backdoor, leaves always accummulate in small conical heaps. They are persistent phenomena on windy days and although obviously not alive or even replicators (although when a heap starts growing it sometimes begets other similar heaps nearby)they seem to me to be analogous to life existing because it persists when other forms don't.

Other Comments by sheepscarer

44. Comment #390582 by Richard Dawkins on June 23, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Richard Dawkins is a brillant thinker and deserves great credit for advancing Darwinism and science in general. But am I the only one that thinks he suffers from a bit of tribalism in his constant attacks on the US . . .

Oh for goodness sake, if you listen to what I said, it was the exact OPPOSITE of attacking the US. I was PRAISING the US for electing a properly qualified president, in place of the illiterate, inarticulate ignoramus of the past eight years.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

45. Comment #390624 by zeroangel on June 23, 2009 at 7:58 pm

Richard:

I was PRAISING the US for electing a properly qualified president, in place of the illiterate, inarticulate ignoramus of the past eight years.

...and forgive me for saying so, but it is outright partisan comments like this that alienate a full half of the American electorate.

Whether or not Obama is qualified is up for debate. He is a rather inexperienced statesman for one; recent events WRT Iran demonstrate this nicely. I never thought I would see the day when our allies in Europe led the charge in condemning Muslim lunacy. Further, while GWB was certainly deficient in many ways, I stop short of calling the man an "illiterate ignoramus." In the strictest sense of the word, "illiterate" is hyperbole.

In any case, it is no secret that the Republican base is comprised of fundamentalists. This is a burden for those that lean "libertarian" and are politically conservative on things like gun control, economics, foreign policy, and other valid issues. I imagine the Democrats have similar problems when they find themselves catering to people like Jesse Jackson. We often have to tolerate and swallow some pretty ridiculous nonsense because of this. McCain’s choice of Palin as a running mate was a perfect example.

Statements like the above from Richard only serve to further solidify in the minds of these fundamentalists that atheists are the enemy. As such, anyone that leans right politically is placed in an awkward position. I very much lament the extreme partisan nature of American politics, but it is what it is.

Richard, you weren’t attacking the US, just the half that isn’t overjoyed with Obama. Like it or not, in the minds of many fundamentalist Americans, you represent the voice of atheism. As I have mentioned before on this site, I hope you would tread a bit more carefully when making these politically charged comments. Thank you.

PS. I am only speaking of the comments here. I actually think Richard didn't say anything terribly partisan in the introduction to his speech. However, as a general rule, it's probably best to stick to the message of atheism and steer clear of anything that might be overtly recognized as partisan. Neither Obama or McCain are atheists, however I suspect both of them are equally religious, that is, they are religious as far as appearances and political necessity are concerned.

Other Comments by zeroangel

46. Comment #390627 by Goldy on June 23, 2009 at 8:09 pm

Zero

He is a rather inexperienced statesman for one; recent events WRT Iran demonstrate this nicely.

I dunno - according to many he's doing quite a good job. It's the British that are getting the brunt of the blame (I love Iranians, they make me think Britain still is an important world power :-D), not the US. This has been seen by some as an indirect attack on the US, UK being the US's proxy, but as Obama is seen as keeping the channels open, a direct attack on the US is not seen as a good idea. A more heavy handed approach would close these channels of dialogue and alienate quite a lot more Iranians AND populations in neighbouring countries - some GWB was bloody good at.
You ask me, Obama is being quite skilled as a politico in this case. Speaking softly but carrying a big stick and using jaw jaw instead of war war (if I may borrow from past politicians of note..)

Other Comments by Goldy

47. Comment #390628 by zeroangel on June 23, 2009 at 8:18 pm

Goldy:

You will have a variety of opinions on how good a job Obama is doing. They are all valid opinions and have nothing to do with Yahweh or any other deity. That's really my point.

Other Comments by zeroangel

48. Comment #390630 by mordacious1 on June 23, 2009 at 8:29 pm

There isn't a person in Iran who doesn't know that the U.S. supported Sadaam in the Irag/Iran war. Obama is doing the right thing by not getting too involved in this as it would unite people around the current regime. It is OK for the others to criticize as much as they want and good for them.

As for GW being called an inarticulate ignoramus...he's the definition of one (or is that giving him too much credit?).

Other Comments by mordacious1

49. Comment #390631 by Goldy on June 23, 2009 at 8:33 pm

Zero - indeed. This one seems to be the concensus in Euro and Middle Eastern editorials.

I agree nothing to do with gods but it was a response to the point you used as an illustration :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

50. Comment #390755 by Partisan on June 24, 2009 at 5:20 am

The slide containing Nazis and the Catholic church wasn't really relevant to what was being said and didn't need to be there. I understand the link, but it struck me as too akin to the Expelled strategy of saying "Evolution = Nazis" to "Religion = Nazis"...lets not go there.

Other Comments by Partisan