Richard Dawkins On Genes, Memes, AI, Religion, and Life Beyond Earth

Why are men's sex drives so strong? Can genetic information be destroyed? And why does the desert lizard have such intricate patterns?

I had the extraordinary privilege of exploring these topics with Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s most influential and thought-provoking scientists!

Dawkins is a renowned evolutionary biologist, zoologist, and author. He is also a prominent figure in New Atheism alongside Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens and is well known for his criticisms of creationism and intelligent design.

In our wide-ranging conversation, we explored the evolution of sex drive and aesthetic appreciation, genetics, the intersection of theoretical and experimental science, the potential of artificial intelligence, and more.

Key Takeaways:

00:00 Intro
01:41 Why is the sex drive in men so strong?
04:29 DNA, origin of life and panspermia
10:13 Is there life elsewhere in the universe?
14:41 Ground News
17:36 Memes and their evolution
22:56 Homage to Daniel Dennett
25:04 Natural selection and evolution
29:36 The threats and opportunities of AI
33:43 A shifting moral zeitgeist
37:53 Science communication
45:39 Audience questions
49:38 Technology, magic, and time capsules
58:59 Outro

Additional resources:

➡️ Learn more about Richard Dawkins:

➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:

Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.

Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!

#intotheimpossible #briankeating #richarddawkins

[MrFlaviojosefus]

Spending time just listening to Richard Dawkins is always worth it.

[MCsCreations]

I don't know why, but there's a freshness on hearing to Dawkins... Although I've been hearing him for more than a decade already... Fantastic.

[bokchoiman]

Richard is a very sensible person. I like people that you can reason with.

[---...---...---...---...]

A lot of scientists have opted out of science due to funding and politics, this is causing great damage to the standing of science and should be called out much more than it is.

[kbkesq]

Dawkins is always engaging, honest, and articulate. Great episode.

[owlredshift]

Was a bit all over the place for me, very wide but not very deep. Still always a pleasure listening to Dawkins. Props to being a thiest and amicably hosting this living treasure.

[marcobiagini]

I am a physicist and I explain why current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics.
It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally refer to as the soul (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations).

Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.

Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes—they are abstract concepts created by our minds.

Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct.
Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams)

From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.

Clarifications

The brain itself doesn't exist as a completely mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain.

Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.

Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.

Conclusions

My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding of molecular processes excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness.
An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.

Marco Biagini

[nunomaroco]

Amazing talk, really appreciate Dawkins, all the best to all.

[dimitrioskaragiannis]

Another Great Podcast!
Thank you Dr Keating ❤😊

[Lance_Lough]

For all his skills as an interviewer, Dr. Keating is relentlessly commercial and self-promotional. Undercuts this discussion and others..

[beshmohandes]

Cosmology meets biology. Thank you for the inspiring conversation.

[oliverjamito]

Remember sincere conversations is without being offended.

[ohalloranjames]

wow. Thanks for this Dr K. I love listening to Dr Dawkins and this is a great conversation well worth listening to it is very much appreciated

[davetekannon]

What a nice way Richard Dawkins remembered his friend, the great Dan Dennet. I like to listen to Richard and you too, Brian, and Sam Harris and other great thinkers because I want to raise my consciousness and try to see life through the lens that you people do with your minds. On the origin of life, one person has changed the river-of-thought that I used to have about how life began and that is Jim Tour of Rice University. For Jim, he talks about the simplest cell like this. It is composed of carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids DNA and RNA and amino acids. It has 19 amino acids of one sort and 1 of another. The lipids, which are the membranes are interesting because the outer membrane has 10 to the 78 billion possible combinations and only one will work. That is 10 with 78 billion zeros after it. If carbohydrates caramelize, they have to be re-created. Jim says it this way. Nature does not have a lab book, if they cannot be reproduced on the fly. Equally so, the lipids, nucleic acids, Amino acids and carbohydrates must all come together at the same time and at the right temperature or nothing will work. The carbohydrates on the outer membrane are more complex than the DNA and the RNA combined. What am I saying here? Boys and girls, for the simplest cell to come together it is beyond understanding how it could have happened on a summer day in a prebiotic pond in the distant past. This is the simplest cell and no one has also said if you were given all the components in a lab and they were put together right, then where does the spark come from to make it 'come alive'? Jim's explanation has changed my life, because I cannot believe nature had all of these elements just happen to come together and come alive like that.

[OfficialGOD]

i have long admired dawkins for his authenticity. gratitude for this interview, Brian.

[EricJacobusOfficial]

It's hilarious that Dawkins has labels for the sections on his bookshelf

[garrettcipponeri]

Cut the in-video ads and promoting. All this can be condensed to the outro. Love the conversations, here to listen to both of you. Having YouTube premium and still skipping thru ads feels bad. Keep it up Brian! 👍

[Bill..N]

Richards point near the end of this engaging interview is a valid one.. The apparent truth of naturalism and evolution of species by way of "natural selection" does not necessarily strike down religious faiths.. Only ONE pivot is necessary. Natural selection is the mechanism that God used to create man.. Relatively simple.. After all, time and means could be perplexing to human understanding, But meaningful to an omnipotent god.. I am definitely unconvinced by that line of reasoning. Still, it is viable..

[OnlyINDRAJIT]

I found many Pools - Memepool, GenePool, but the real pool is not mentioned in the video. Clue - it's a Dead one

[jasongarcia]

Keatings' gentle voice too. I support him fully.