Q&A - Information, Evolution, and intelligent Design - With Daniel Dennett
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 05. 2015
- How long until humans are made redundant by the evolution of technology? Is there an inherent difference between men and women's intelligence? Daniel Dennett answers questions from the audience following his talk. Watch the main event here: • Information, Evolution...
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
The concept of information is fundamental to all areas of science, and ubiquitous in daily life in the Internet Age. However, it is still not well understood despite being recognised for more than 40 years. In this talk, Daniel Dennett explored steps towards a unified theory of information, through common threads in evolution, learning, and engineering.
The Ri is on Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter - Věda a technologie
The problem mentioned about analog-controlled engines working at in-between values reliably if tested at nearby values (in almost every case) not working like that if using software has been already found in real engine software: The US Air Force F-16 fighter's engine had an improvement program where they were testing it, using its built-in software controls, in a test setup at a laboratory. They gradually cranked up the external wind speed of the wind-tunnel as they increased the engine power and when the engine hit the speed of sound, it instantly shut down! It turns out that the software left out an EQUAL SIGN in the equation it was using for adjusting the engine controls when inputting air speed as a fraction of Mach Number, so that the software crashed when it was at MACH 1, where a change in the equation was necessary. This also was happening to all F-16s as they passed through MACH 1 both up or down, but the time at exactly MACH 1 was so short that by the time the computer could react it was already on the next cycle where the equation worked again. Thus, a potentially lethal bug existed if somebody decided to speed up or slow down very slowly when around MACH 1, which may actually have caused F-16 crashes that were misdiagnosed as to the cause.
Recently stumbled upon the lecture series by Ri. What a joy these are to listen to. Thank you for uploading and sharing these.
what i pick up is simply a super smart dude. his theories are not philosophically compact, but they are surely food for thought and there is a lot of sense in them
That first answer had me absolutely in stitches. Brilliant.
Dennett is a joy to read or listen to, but what he says about AI makes me realize how long ago 2015 was in that field!
Indeed Mr. Dennet, a common source.
This Q & A was as good as the talk!
Thanks, a really interesting lecture. 👍🏼
True! We don't have a good measure of intelligence at all. Well said.
Nature's highest order is to maintain the highest possible diversity at any given time. The question when technology will make humans obsolete is typical for narrow minded people who fade out this fundamental law of diversity.
With each step of evolution life forms have more choices and we humans are at the first level of 'free-will' - we can choose and we should finally make choices in favor of diversity and create more possibilities of existence instead of standardize society and life itself - which will always lead to extinction because any specialization is just a branch in the tree of life. It's time to create more trees of life.
What a great Q&A session...
+f43d348k it doesn't start too well at 0:32-1:16, that's quite a cunning way to hide the use of the tactic described
in an article about propaganda called "The Manipulation of Information":
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target. The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. *You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone*, you are comfortable and secure-so they say.
[or another shorter more recognizable variation: "If you don't believe what I say, you're just stupid; if you do believe what I say, you're smart."]
edit: it doesn't end to well either around 18:47 when it's giving me flashbacks to the Beavis and Butthead series
Uenbg What on earth are you talking about? He's hardly "cunning" about his opposition to the ID-woowoo. He's just simply tired of otherwise intelligent people deciding that darwinism can't be true - because they don't _want_ it to be true - rather than being honest about the fact that their "lack of understanding of darwinism" comes from their religious (or sometimes just metaphysical) stance. Wouldn't you get tired of it if you were Dennett?
Same thing applies to the hard problem debate - here, he was explicitly asked to propagandise against an idea, and so he does. Whether you think he is right or not, it's hardly Beavis and Butthead level...
f43d348k
quote: "What on earth are you talking about?"
The chuckle from the audience after "doesn't get it" (around 1:00) might give you another clue as to what I'm talking about (it also has a recognizable effect). But I'm not gonna put in a big effort trying to make this more obvious since Dennett does allude to something that is true in general, if someone doesn't want to 'get it' (understand something) then there's little another can do about it (that's actually not quite the point he's making, which is why I said, allluded to). But his 'get it' is also intended for quite other purposes than primarily making his point and the chuckle from the audience shows the effect his words have on the audience, playing on their pride (as well as riding/surfing his own).
The so-called mountain of evidence for Neo-Darwinian theory (Dennett uses different wording) is actually a house of cards, and Dennet is intelligent enough to be aware of this I suspect, making his attempts at reminding the audience that they 'are the smart ones, they are not alone' (because they do accept this house of cards as a mountain of evidence like he does, they 'get it' supposedly) even more obvious than if he was expressing his true feelings regarding the evidence (which would at least sound a bit more nuanced and probably appeal to the philosophy of vagueness and agnosticism every now and then: 'science does not deal with absolutes', 'science does not deal with absolute truth', 'mathematics is not a science', etc. The last one is often hidden but the other 2 are immediately refuted if one doesn't also accept the last variation or sub-philosophy on the philosophy of vagueness and agnosticism).
P.S. "a science" is short for a field of science/knowledge (from the Latin "scientia", meaning "knowledge"). Mathematics is a field of knowledge.
Uenbg Ah, I see - Darwinism really all a big conspiracy - but _Dennett_ is the one trying to manipulate the audience... Nice try.
Daniel Dennett..an expert in predicting the past
It is logically possible to have intelligence embedded into the origin of existence without there being any design work involved. The mistake is thinking that the "output" of this intelligence must be known ahead of time before it ever emerges.
does information arise by chance...
We might be more limited than we think by "purposes" we didn't set up. May be we don't like the thought uf being determined. But if someone would do things, the motivation of which no one else understands, "we" would rather call that mad instead of "intelligent". And the history of the Christian conquista is an example of this, as also (m)any conflicts between different cultures.
Totally finessed the question regarding the difference in male vs female intelligence...
Great! Thank you Daniel.
great answer regarding intelligence by d.d.
“The “”only”” thing that can explain…..is that we have a common source”. How scientific.
Yeah, you notice the audience wasn't actually impressed by that and neither was I. It seems to me his argument actually goes the other way i.e. supports more the idea of intelligent design than the other way around.
Gotta love how all the neo-reactionary yt comment army jumped at him for his dismissal about men vs women intelligence.
There where more interesting parts of this talk, but this shows exactly what kind of things trigger them.
Without noticing it, they actually justified his response.
Purported pro science philosopher says that science shouldn't pursue certain questions --- of course that's going to attract comments. Dennett takes a position of intentional non-curiosity...how is this squared with being pro- science?
Lol at the Peterson crowd who throw “neo” in front of things they don’t like because, you know, it’s neo time.
He is probably talking about Jay Sekulow (sp) as the law professor he was in a debate with.
@17:50 the bloke who asked the question about consciousness is profoundly missing the point. Think about the experience of pain. What is it, where does it come from ? How is it possible that a mere collection of atoms can have a subjective experience like that ? Do rocks feel pain ? Light switches ? Ant colonies ? Nobody has the foggiest idea.
exactly. And i also got a bit triggered by Dennett's response. He just kinda brushed the idea of it being a hard problem off and sounded kinda dismissive to philosphy. It feels like people who dont believe in it being a hard problem don't actually understand why people are saying it is a hard problem, because they can never answear the question to the supposedly not-hard problem.
@@KevinUchihaOG Yes agreed. TBH I've never thought much of Dennett as a philosopher. He has a book called "Consciousness Explained" that I was very excited to read when I first got interested in these questions. But in the book, he once again misses the point (I was amused to read on wikipedia that some people refer to it as "Consciousness Ignored"). It almost makes you wonder if there really are "philosophical zombies" among us, who talk and act like regular humans but who don't actually have subjective feelings. Very strange :)
Q&A - Information, Evolution, and intelligent Design - With Daniel Dennett.
13:00 Mr. Dangerous Idea says some ideas are just too dangerous.
Question: How Do You Get Life from Non-Life?
The theory is called abiogenesis. I would start by reading the wikipedia article on the subject!
@@paulashla
I have read about it...and not on Wikipedia, but actual articles. And it doesn't answer my question. The numbers don't add up. 4.5 billion years isn't enough time.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 Haha yeah but Wikipedia is great for a first pass. Dont be dissin my boi wiki ;) As for the timescale, I'm not sure we know how much time is required for abiogenesis. We need to quantify the probability of abiogenesis in some rigorous way first right? Then we can talk about timescales.
Lets assume that 4.5 billion years is insufficient. To me, given the lack of evidence of an intelligent creator, panspermia then seems a reasonable theory to explain how life appeared on our planet.
@@paulashla
For something I'll take Wikipedia's word, for most things however....Trust But Verify.
2 videos that show what I'm talking about.
Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance
this one is short 10 minutes
czcams.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/video.html
This one much longer
The Origin of Life: An Inside Story - 2016 Lectures (with James Tour)
czcams.com/video/_zQXgJ-dXM4/video.html
it is the Halt Problem that prevent genetic algorithms from happening!
As I see it the problem with modeling the AI on Humans Int is how often our intelligence breaks down and we do dumbass things ....
18:15 book this idea must die?
If life end on earth today and and alien came to investigate, the same concept used in building bicycle appears in motorcycles and cars... And it'd be easier to jump to the conclusion that they evolved from the same Source...And in fact, they did. That source is their architects
I have just read up the article in the book he mentioned (later on), and it's embarrassingly bad. As expected, I'm afraid, while I don't think he's incapable of logic (e.g. I liked pretty much his whole talk), it's just the typical empty posturing and "special effects" of his tradition, that ends in nothing at all. Very short too, in fact he could have given the whole argument as a short answer (but it's too silly, and just nothing).
(Basically: Zombies are a silly thing aren't they [implied that they're silly, because why not], and imagining they're "possible" doesn't mean there's a hard problem [nobody said there is a hard problem because imagining Zombies is possible]. And some other shit like that.)
yes we don't need to know everything.. i for one don't want to know the exact day of my death.
I still think it a travesty that such a claim is made at a gathering of the prestigious Royal Institute in London, to robust applause.
Dislike all those use of the word skeptic to mean someone who doubts science
Both
Wow... that's.. just so very unfortunate :/ The lecture had quite a few interesting ideas and insights worth pondering, but then he started using those almost management-framework-like "graphs", choosing axis arbitrarily, assigning places of things from reality into it without any kind of concrete evidence for it, and taking conclusions from it. Then in the Q&A he starts by ridiculing a large group of people for their (admittedly ridiculous and anti-scientific) belief, but then minutes later openly admits to one such ridiculous and anti-scientific belief himself. What a mess. I guess I should've known from the moment he started citing Dawkins :/
(and for the sake of clarity, saying that any kind of measure of intelligence will be biased is not the problem, that was a very pertinent and insightful remark. The issue is that this topic is obviously of great importance to social policy-making, and so his dismissal to pursue it is instead just evidence that he doesn't like the topic and doesn't want to study it. In these cases the correct attitude from a philosopher and/or scientist is to say at the very least that they're not qualified to talk about it, preferably that they are not personally interested in the subject, and never "I think we shouldn't investigate that", because that's exactly the same obscurantism that makes people believe young-Earth creationism)
"but then minutes later openly admits to one such ridiculous and anti-scientific belief himself."?? What are you reffering to?
And what's wrong with Dawkins? And did you honestly expect a talk about information and evolution is not going to mention the selfish gene?
"but then minutes later openly admits to one such ridiculous and anti-scientific belief himself."?? What are you reffering to?
And what's wrong with Dawkins? And did you honestly expect a talk about information and evolution is not going to mention the selfish gene?
I dont think we need to know everything... applause .... ???
+Simen Johansen Classy language there
Listening to this I suddenly miss Iain M. Banks. A lot.
I've been watching countless videos on evolution and i dont see overwhelming evidence.
I’d like to see at least one transitional fossil, just one time any species became another species. Plenty of evidence exists for microevolution, however, I have still yet to meet or hear of anyone who can provide even one faint possibility of evidence of macroevolution. The religion of macroevolution requires a serious leap of faith in order to maintain that belief system. ;^p
"I don't think we need to know everything and this is one of the things I don't think we need to know"
Embarrassing. That's anti-science and knowledge.
Calvin Smith For the same reason we elect to find out why humans develop cancer instead of finding out why I dislike peanut butter sandwiches. Rejecting pseudoscience is not anti-science.
RBuckminsterFuller That's not a good comparison. Your dislike of peanut butter is truly irrelevant. The stability of civilization might very well depend on gender roles and ethnic social cohesion. Studying that and understanding the limitations of "equality" might very well help us to build better societies for everyone. Instead, people like you and Dennett want to bury their head in the sand. A more appropriate politically correct response would have been for him to say that population based research is important but that we must treat individuals as individuals and not just members of a population.
Calvin Smith Dennett's point was that measures of intelligence are biased and not valid in a scientific context, rendering any "knowing" of the topic meaningless.
Calvin Smith
What practical benefits would such divisive knowledge bring?
+The Chidds What practical benefits? In social policy. If society excepted the differences between the races and sexes that anthropologists and others in the field already do, we could abandon the childish egalitarianism that pervades American snd European institutions. And dennett with his criticism of intelligence analysis reveals his ignorance yet again. No better than a creationist on this issue I am afraid to say.
(I have decided )lol, that you are wrong.
: LOL...There is nothing more obvious than ID when one studies science.
Care to elaborate?
Creationism is comedy, not science.
Absolutely nothing about where information came from, just deflection when asked.
Sad.
P-zombie.
..carrion...
..sorry carry on ...
..who gives a ....
.uck...,
.my children are hungry..
..
...and they,
..or
I'll
be dammed...
...,..thank you..
👁️
...lovely, egoic story....👽
..reign
force
mind...?!?!
😡😠👺👹👿😈
....
.what's thee.,
. defer..ends.
...life IS terminal..
🌚👁️👽😡😠👺👹👿😈
An argument for Intelligent Design (Capital "I"):
1) I perceive I exist so something must exist for that to even occur. How did I come to be?
2) There are only two possibilities that I am aware of:
a) From eternal nothingness; or b) From eternal somethingness. And if by eternal somethingness, then there are only two possibilities that I am aware of:
a) From an unconscious somethingness; or b) From a conscious somethingness.
3) Whether it's eternal nothingness or eternal somethingness, the concept of "eternity" "truly exists" and appears to be "self-existent". Therefore also the concepts of "truth" and "existence" also are eternally existent. When put all together, "a truly self-existent eternal existence". That is something and not nothing. Plus, if science is correct that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then even energy would then have to be eternally existent. Energy is also something and not nothing. Nothingness is nothingness. It only get's it's feeble existence by a conscious entity in somethingness who gives a name to the concept of nothingness, otherwise, nothingness is nothingness.
4) So everything in existence most probably came from an eternal somethingness not eternal nothingness because eternal nothingness does not even actually exist. It's nothingness. Now to try to discern whether this somethingness is unconscious or conscious:
5) a) Pure energy was created from nothingness, (if science is wrong), all on it's own and all just by chance;
b) A mass was created and "banged" (without even laws of nature being existent yet), all on it's own and all just by chance;
c) All the laws of nature were created, all on their own and all just by chance;
d) All matter was created, all on their own and all just by chance;
e) Our planet, solar system, and galaxy were created, all on their own and all just by chance;
f) A soupy mix of chemicals happened here on Earth, all on it's own and all just by chance;
g) First simple life formed here on Earth, all on it's own and all just by chance;
h) Simple life formed into complex life forms, all on their own and all just by chance;
i) If you took a snapshot of the Earth today, all the males and females of every species, as well as all the species that led up to those species, had to evolve at the exact same rate and at the exact same time in history for them to be here today, all on their own and all just by chance;
j) Even though the laws of nature were created in the blink of an eye during the big bang, they haven't really changed at all even though: the conditions acting upon them like it originally was is no longer acting upon them like it was; billions of years have elapsed; in a supposedly expanding universe whereby energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense; all it's own and all just by chance.
Now, I am not a mathematician. But I believe that if all these "all on their owns and all just by chances" were put together, while I fully acknowledge that anything may be possible, the odds of that is how we all came to be is so astronomically improbable that it is actually ridiculous to me to believe that is how we came to be. A conscious somethingness did it.
6) So, it is most probable that we all came from an eternal conscious somethingness, hence "Intelligent Design", (Capital "I"). An intelligent entity utilizing the evolutionary process.
Charles Brightman I feel sorry for you to waste your time typing this much because we didn't make ourselves clear enough. Let me put it this way: evolution is not random; it is a process of selection. There is a designer; the difference between you and me is, you say the designer is God. while I say it is natural selection. I'll emphasize it again: Evolution is not random. Hope I made it clear.
The second thing is: Evolution is a separate thing from how the universe started. The latter one is astrophysics. Whether or not the universe was created by God doesn't have anything to do with evolution. I know that creationists tend to mix those two things up because, well, the 'traditional' version of Creationism is about the creation of everything roughly at the same time (within 6 days). But please try your best to understand that scientist think that there is a 10-billion-year gap between the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on Earth. So, they are two separate events. You cannot disprove evolution by forming your arguments centered around how the universe came into being. And even if the universe was indeed created by god(s), after that point, every thing can be explained by natural explanations. Evolution is something as natural as gravity. Even if future scientists created a whole new group of genetically engineered plants and animals, and set them free on a distant planet, once they are left alone, evolution takes place and they would change dramatically a million years later. If God did it in the beginning, and left those creatures alone (because the Free Will Argument), they will evolve.
Maybe we can't see a 'macro-evolution' process within our lifetime, because our life is so short. How many generations of dogs can you witness within your lifetime? I would say less than a hundred generations. Well, that's really like nothing! You can see what selective breeding has done within 10,000 years to dogs. Some people might call that 'micro-evolution' and dismiss the connection between that and 'macro-evolution'. But hey, it's just 10 thousand years; and what would happen if it was extended to 10 million years? Wouldn't that make a bigger difference?
P.S. If you would wish to say that there is God that governs the natural principals such as evolution and gravity (although doing nothing to violate physical laws), I would not argue with you. That would be a pure philosophical view, and I don't have a problem with that.
Empurror Katz 1) You have your opinions, I have mine. Science has their own "religion" to believe that a mass existed and then "banged" one day all without laws of nature being in existence yet. Really?
2) You say "we" above: "I feel sorry for you to waste your time typing this much because we didn't make ourselves clear enough." Who's "we"? Do you have a mouse in your "Empurror Katz" mouth? And, I like typing, so what's it to you?
3) Follow the logic of my post above. It's a desire to seek the real truth as best as I humanly can, fully realizing my own human limitations and fallibility. If you have something to go against it, please share it with me and the world.
4) Think about this: Imagine you and you alone are an eternally conscious being, for eternity. One of the very things you could never ever do is to personally experience a total cessation of conscious existence. You might even be going "mad" because you know and understand all there is to know and understand and have experienced all there is to experience. So, what do you do? Your "God", you can do whatever you want to do. Maybe, just maybe:
a) You create a physical universe to experience. The stuff of you is everywhere and in everything. Let's call this stuff pure energy. It is eternally existent.
b) You create a process of "evolution" so as to automatically experience new experiences.
Those that can survive, do survive. Those that can't, don't.
Those that can grow, do grow. Those that can't, don't.
Those that can thrive, do thrive. Those that can't, don't.
(Hence, natural selection). (And this even applies I believe to things like ideas and technological advancements).
c) You create entities who consciously come into existence, who also evolve, and who also create technological advancements through an evolutionary process, (to be able to have new experiences without having to create new entities), and who also experience a total cessation of conscious existence. One of the very things you could never ever do, you do through them. It's as close to "death" as you could ever get. And there are even evolutionary ways to die. How cool is that.
d) When this expanding universe, of which energy that could not be created nor destroyed, would get less and less dense whereby all evolution stops, you change the laws of nature of that universe, revert everything back into the stuff of you, create new laws of nature and a new universe to experience with new conscious entities in it. And you do this for eternity, constantly having new experiences.
I ask, why couldn't this be really true?
I also ask:
"What exactly matters into eternity and to whom does it exactly matter to?" "God" alone? and/or "Me" too? and/or "Some other entity or entities"? OR "To no eternally consciously existent entity at all"?
If there isn't at least one truly eternally consciously existent entity that truly exists in actual reality, then all of existence itself ceases to matter one day of which then did it all ultimately and eternally matter in the first place? Who's consciously left to care? (All of existence is just an "illusion").
If such an entity exists, but it's not me, then all of my existence is just an "illusion". And even if I matter to that eternal entity, matter to that entity through it's eternity? Maybe, but probably not, eternity is a very long time.
By current analysis, it appears all of our true destiny is:
"To cease to exist and be forgotten, even by "God" into "God's" actual eternity".
"Life" apparently isn't primarily about us, never was, isn't, and looks like won't eternally be.
But, I fully admit, I could be wrong for there is much I and even all of humanity does not know yet. But my quest to try to discern the real truth continues for as long as I consciously exist, possibly even into eternity.
I didn't say this couldn't be true. We (and I mean evolutionists by that) just don't care about that when we are doing research, because such a pure metaphysical question has nothing to do with influencing what we can observe. I'm not saying that scientist do not care about that at all. I'm just saying that in biology or other studies scientists are not solving metaphysical problems, since they are working with observable and objective phenomena.
If you still want to seek for the (metaphysical) ultimate truth, that is a separate realm of knowledge. That is philosophy, not biology. I you want to talk more about philosophy, I would like to hear. But I think maybe this is not the right spot. You and me talking about that subject down here might mislead the viewers to confuse metaphysical problems with physical problems.
In fact, I can actually prove by logical deduction that there is a reality beyond our reality.-- We are like dreaming or like in a stimulation (although neither the word 'dream' nor 'stimulation' is an accurate description).
The reason I don't want to say it HERE, is because I know someone would say 'Ha! He just admits there is a higher reality. Evolution is false!' But come on! -- Suppose you had a dream. It's a dream isn't it? But there are still some kind of natural laws in your dream. There are things that you can do and things that you can't do in your dreams. -- The metaphysical negation of reality-as-you-know-it does not negate the empirical principles of the physical world. But I know that a load of people tend to confuse these two different aspects.
Charles Brightman And by 'philosophy', I mean the philosophy about metaphysics, not the philosophy discussing the relationships and principles of our physical world.
Empurror Katz Meta physical reality is still reality. Rise up to a higher level of reality to better understand the lower levels of reality. For example: I offer the following potential reality at the highest level of reality that I am aware of for existence itself:
"Space and Time condensed":
1) "I" perceive "I" exist, how did "I" come to be?
2) There are only two possibilities:
a) From eternal nothingness; or b) From eternal somethingness.
3) If from eternal somethingness, then there are only two possibilities:
a) From an unconscious somethingness; or b) From a conscious somethingness.
(The analysis I put forward early, even utilizing the principal of "Occam's razor, would indicate that everything in existence most probably came from an eternal conscious somethingness).
4) Where am I going to?
5) There are only two possibilities:
a) To eternal nothingness; or b) To eternal somethingness.
6) And if to eternal somethingness, then there are only two possibilities:
a) To an unconscious somethingness; or b) To a conscious somethingness.
(The analysis I did would indicate, that while "God" may be eternally consciously existent, and that's not definitive either, we apparently aren't. We will all cease to exist one day, an unconsciousness that will probably last into an actual eternity).
Now, I put forward to you, this is not philosophy at all, but very real reality.
How say you?
"We don't need to know and it doesn't matter"
Someone sounds like he has his own political bias to me. Either that or just a coward.
Or maybe he understands a lot
More about human thought and behavior than you
ChrisMagoo99
...No, I think 'coward' is more likely. Or cuckold.
cuckold is so passé
Charlotte Reid
No, what he said can be true sometimes.
He didn't say it didn't matter. He said it was bad for society.
Publishing the genome for smallpox on the internet for others to study would further scientific knowledge, but it would be bad for the safety and security of society to do so. Dennett is correct that not everything needs to be known.
So he believes in the "nice" version of evolution ie. evolution stops at the neck. Interesting but dishonest.
Huh?
Could you elaborate your opinion, please? Because in the lecture, and on the Q&A section, he talks about evolution in all kinds of levels of integration, and even cites The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins which talks about evolution in this way. Specially at the brain level!
Is this guy supporting an intelligent designer or not? He seems to say that there is no evidence for an intelligent designer, and yet goes on to say we are nowhere close to being able to create true AI or get to a technological singularity, and if that’s the case, then there is incredibly solid evidence for an intelligent designer, as a bunch of guys who barely had pens and paper on which to write could not have possibly created the ELSS found in the Hebrew version of the Bible, much less encoded passages from the Bible into the number sequences of Pi at the formation of the Universe. In order to deny an intelligent designer, we would have to deny the number sequences in Pi and every other basic fundamental tenet of mathematics. ;^p