What is up everybody Jason here for Jaspie's case place.com. We just sold out eight Fillers we're gonna wait eight free filler spots if it's sold out tonight guys Which it did and we're giving away 15 teams and illusions guys pick your team number four with this 2023 Penini mosaic NFL one value pack number 26 So again guys, this is a filler break first and foremost So we're gonna do the break first randomized customer names teams distribute the hits out then at the end We're randomized the customer names. I know it says pick your team number three guys That was just a little typo obviously go by the title here number four the remaining teams will match you up We'll randomize the names top 15 names get into the break So you can see that there's the teams there from the Colts all the way down the commanders I should believe the culture like a hundred fifty dollar team plus and then like I said We'll randomize the customer names again with the list of winners and we'll randomize them and like I said Someone matches up with a team there and remember guys. We're getting away eight free spots That means we only sold 26 spots here guys or sorry. We sold 24 spots We're gonna randomize the 24 names Top eight get free extra spots and we'll paste them in and then we'll do the break guys So let's roll it same dice roll for the list of Free spots and the break three to two five times one two three four five five times five five Scott Trist Trist Trist Jalen Kev Jalen and Kev There you go top eight get free extra spots Boom, so free spot Plus I'm free spot free spot free spot free spot Free spot free spot free spot and free spot Now I'm gonna copy this list here and We'll use this list for later. All right guys. So there you go Now we're gonna go five times here one Two three four five Sport port down to Jalen five times one two three four five Five times five five five and a five Chargers out of the Vikings All right, of course no trading in the Valley pack break I'll let you quickly see what teams you got though. Let's do the break now guys Here's a mosaic value pack Jackson to the jibba-roogie We got Aaron Rodgers green and then a couple pinks here Stefan takes the leaf Or elevates are all right, so nothing's super crazy out of there But now let's switch scenes and let's do that giveaway guys So again, we're gonna switch it to giveaway here top 15 get a team roll It's a four and a six for ten times One two three four five six seven eight nine ten Ten times four and a six ten All right, so obviously you can see angel snug in there then Jalen Jeremy poor Jalen Scott Tris Tris Mark Tris Angel Tris Tris Jeremy poor Kevin Christopher. There you go. So I'm gonna actually just copy the whole list But only the top 15 match up with a team so there you go Unfortunately the rest of you guys are not in thanks for giving it a shot though guys from Angel down to Stephen But everybody else is in guys And actually none of the people that got a free spot actually got into the top 15 Everybody that bought in straight up Which obviously, you know It's wild because usually there's a couple of people that maybe that bought it got a free spot in the break up in the top But maybe not I guess all right, so Christopher congratulations. You got the Colts kept with the Lions Sport poor you have the Ravens Tristan with the bills as well as the Panthers Angel with the Raiders Trist of the Chargers mark with the Dolphins Trist of the Cowboys as well as the Titans scouts and bangles Broncos for Jalen Sportport Giants Jalen Bucks and Angel Commanders There you go guys coming up next is illusions Pikachu number four


Hi, I'm Zor. Welcome to Unizor Education. Today's topic is combinatorics, problems related to combinations, relatively simple problems. As usually, I do recommend you to do all these problems yourself first. And you have to go to Unizor.com, where this lecture is presented. Try to do it yourself, and there are actually solutions there as well. So, you might read it afterwards and then listen to the lecture, just to compare your thoughts against whatever I'm presenting. You might actually get some better solution or whatever. Alright, so, problems. Problem number one. Okay, imagine you're playing bridge. The card game bridge, I mean. You have 52 cards in the deck, and they are dealt among four players. Each one gets 13 cards in the beginning. So, you are the player, so you get your 13 cards. Question is, how many different sets of 13 cards you can get? This is usually called the hands. So, how many different hands you can get after the dealer deals the cards among four players? So, I'm talking about only one particular player, you. So, how many different hands you can get out of 52 cards with your 13? Well, this is a very typical and very basic problem on combinations, because you don't really care about the order of these 13 cards, right? And you don't really care about distribution of these 13 cards among other players. So, basically what I would like to say is, and we are not using any formulas. We are basically deriving the formula on the fly. So, the only formula which you probably have to remember is the number of permutations. So, you have 52 cards, so you can put it in 52 factorial different orders. Well, 52 places for the card number one, 52 choices actually. 51 choices for card number two, 50 for card number three, et cetera, et cetera, down to the one choice for the 52nd card. So, that brings it to 52 factorial, the product of all numbers from 1 to 52. Now, are all these permutations of 52 cards give you different hands? Well, obviously not, because the way to do it is, let's put these 52 cards in the deck one after another, and let's say you have the first 13 card. It doesn't really matter how it's dealt. Actually, it's dealt one by one, so you get every fourth one, but it doesn't really matter. You get a specific 13 cards out of this 52. So, let's assume it's the first 13. Now, any permutation within this 13 gives you exactly the same hand. You don't really care in which order you get these cards, as long as you get exactly these cards. Similarly, any permutation among these, the rest among the other players, you don't care about. So, again, this is 30 factorial permutations, and this is 39 factorial permutations. So, you don't care about these, and with each of them you don't care about those. So, basically what I would like to say is that initial 52 factorial should be divided by 13 factorial and 39 factorial, because these gives you exactly the same hand. And that's the answer, which happens to be, obviously, the number of combinations from 52 to 13. Or sometimes they write it this way, sometimes they write it this way. Whatever the way they write it, that's why I prefer maybe something very simple, which is this. Okay, this is number of combinations of 13 cards out of 52. Now, problem number two. Imagine exactly the same situation. But now, not only you are interested in whatever the hand you get after the dealing, but every other person as well. So, basically after all 52 cards are dealt, every one of four players has some hand. So, now question is, we are dealing with some kind of a distribution of 52 cards among four different players, 13 each. How many different distributions, how many different combinations of the game are possible in this particular case? Okay, I will actually present you two different solutions. And hopefully they will get exactly the same result. All right, solution number one. Let's do exactly the same as we did in the first problem. So, let's care about the first hand. So, the first player will have that number of different hands. After 13 cards are already chosen for the first player, there are 39 remaining cards which are distributed among the three other players. So, the player number one will have very similarly exactly the same considerations. He will have 13 cards picked out of 39 remaining, right? After 13 out of 52, we took out for the first guy, there are 39 remaining. And out of these 39 remaining, we have 13 chosen for the player number two. Now, the player number three will obviously get 26, 13. Because after we out of 39 cards will already give to the player number two, we get 13, we have 26 left. And then finally, out of the rest 13, we get 13 for the fourth one, right? Which is actually not a big choice because there is nothing left but these 13. So, in theory this should produce one, and it does actually. All right, so that's one type of calculations. Now, let's consider this problem from the other hand. We have 52 cards, and let's again use our geometric representation, 52 cards. And we divide it in four different groups, 13 cards each. Now, any distribution of these 52, and there are 52 different ways of ordering these 52 cards, gives certain distribution of the cards among the four players. All the distributions within this group of 13, so all the permutations, and all permutations of these, and all permutations within this group only, and all permutations within this group only, none of these actually changes the total distribution, because the cards will remain within the same player as they were before. So, number of these is 13 factorial. With each of them we can have as many permutations of this guy, which is also 13 factorial, and this 13 factorial, and this 13 factorial. So, we have to multiply them all together because all of them give exactly permutations within each one of these groups, gives exactly the same thing. So, we have to divide it by 13 factorial, and 13 factorial, and 13 factorial, and 13 factorial, right? So, it's 52 factorial divided by 13 factorial power of 4. So, that's another way to approach it. Well, let's check if they are the same. Okay, I don't remember the formula, but I already so many times derived it that I remember it now by now. So, it's 52 factorial divided by 13 factorial, and 52 minus 13, which is 39 factorial. Now, this is 52, sorry, 39 factorial divided by 13 factorial and 26 factorial. This is 26 factorial divided by 13 factorial and 13 factorial, and the last one is 13 factorial divided by 13 factorial and 0 factorial, right? 0 factorial is 1. So, what do we have remaining? We have 52, we have 52 factorial, 13, 13, 13, 13, 4 times exactly the same as this one, right? So, we got the same answer. You can choose any solution you would like. Personally, I prefer the second one because it has this geometric representation. So, to count how many different distributions are among four players, you put all the cards in some order and draw 52 factorial, and then you permute everything which doesn't really change the whole distribution. So, within each player, 13 factorial permutations must be counted as 1. And the same thing for the second one and the third and the fourth. Okay. Let's go on. Let's consider you have a keyboard menu. Keyboard... to the computer keyboard. I mean a computer keyboard, right? Computer keyboard. And it has different keys which have functional, actually, functionality. Right. What I mean is there is a control key, remember this. There is an alt key. There is a function key. There is a shift key. And there is something else, because I remember 5, menu key. Some kind of menu key. On Microsoft, there is some kind of a Microsoft running operating system. There is a key which has this Microsoft logo, for instance. So, we have five different functional keys. Their purpose is not to enter some, like, digit or a letter or something like this, but some functional purpose. Now, you probably know from, again, usage of the personal computers for Microsoft operating system, you have to press control, alt, delete, for instance, to reboot the machine, right? Or something like this. Or get to the main menu, whatever. So, you have to press three buttons. So, my task is, I have five different function keys. Now, if I'm using a combination of simultaneous pressing of three of these keys, how many different functions I can accomplish? So, control, alt, delete is one. Control, menu, funk is another. Funk, shift, alt is another, etc. So, how many different combinations of three keys simultaneously pressed I can get from these five functional keys? Well, this is, again, a typical problem related to combinations. I have five choices and they have to pick three of them. So, it's number of combinations of three out of five. Again, how can we basically derive this? Very simply, we have five. And let's say you put them in the order and you cut it the first three in the beginning. So, how many different sets of the first three you can get? Well, obviously, the five factorial is the total number, right? But, since these can be permuted in any order and they actually constitute exactly the same combination of three keys, I have to divide it by three factorial and then I have to divide it by two factorial because any permutation of these, which I'm not using, also constitute exactly the same set of three keys at the beginning, right? So, that's the answer, which is exactly the formula for number of combinations of three out of five. Next. Next, you have a company which employs 10 managers, 30 programmers and 20 data entry operators. That's the stuff. That's what they have. This is the company. Now, there is a special project and this special project requires two managers, six programmers and four data entry operators. So, question is for this particular project, how many different teams can we construct from these employees if we need this number of specialties within this particular team? The answer is you have to pick two managers out of ten and this can be done in this number of different choices, right? Now, with each of them, you can have six out of 30 and with each of the programmers and with each of them from 20 data entry operators, we have to choose four and that's supposed to be the answer, right? Or if you wish, we can go into the factorials and they don't want actually to do it, like ten factorials divided by two factorials times eight factorials, etc., etc. So, that's the answer. Next problem. Next problem, you have five tennis players and they have to play with each other, let's say one match. So, question is how many different matches can be played? Well, again, it's a regular problem related to combinations. It's the question of how many pairs we can choose from five different objects. Because every pair constitute a match between two different tennis players and we don't really care about the sequence. If first plays with the second, then the second plays with the first at the same time and we are saying that only one match is supposed to be done. So, basically the answer is supposed to be out of five players we have to choose two. So, how many different combinations we can have? Which is actually five times four divided by this, which is ten. Now, there is another way to approach this and it's always good actually to approach the same combinatorics problem from more than one different direction. Well, the direction is the following. You can think about the first player. He can play with the second, the third, the fourth and the fifth, right? Then you can take the second player and he can play with the third, the fourth and the fifth. With the first it's already played, right? So, here you have four, here you have three. Now, the third player can have four, number four and number five players. Because all the previous one, three and two is already played, three and one is already played. So, this is two. And finally, number four plays with number five, which is only one game. And some of these gives exactly ten. Yet another approach, which is probably also very interesting, a geometrical approach. Let's position our players as a pentagon. We have five players, right? And let's connect them. So, this is a pentagon and these are diagonals, right? Here. Now, we connect it all with all. Now, how many different connections we have? We have five sides of this pentagon and five diagonals gives you ten connections, right? So, that's yet another way to approach and this is the same number. And again, it's very good actually in combinatorics to check the problem from different directions because, as I was saying before, combinatorics problems are very difficult to check. If you are solving an equation, you can have the number which is the result of your solution substituted back into the equation and either you see it's equal or not equal. I mean, identify identity or not identity. Here, you cannot really check so easily. The only way you can have is to approach the problem from a different angle. Maybe direct calculation as I did here or some other geometrical calculation, whatever. So, the more ways you can approach the problem to get the same answer, the more you are sure that the answer is correct. It's very important in combinatorics. Okay. And the last problem which I wanted to talk about is... All right. Let's say you have a fisherman which has caught ten fishes. Ten fishes. Now, we have two different scenarios. Scenario number one. He eats three fishes. One for breakfast, one for lunch, and one for dinner. Question is, how many different day meals he can have if he has ten fishes and he's using one for breakfast, one for lunch, and one for dinner? Well, the answer is obviously he has ten choices for the breakfast, right? Now, one fish is already eaten, so there are only nine left, nine choices for the lunch, and eight choices for the dinner. They have to multiply, and this is 722. So, he has 720 ways to eat three fishes during the day out of these ten. But if he doesn't want to eat these fishes, he wants to throw these three fishes back into the lake where he caught it from for whatever reason. Well, this is different because in this case the order is important. In the case when he throws away, it doesn't really matter which fish is the first, which fish is the second, and which is the third, which he picks for throwing away, which means in this case, in case when he throws away, he actually has a number of combinations of three out of ten, which is ten times nine times eight divided by one, two, and three, which is 120. So, this is the number of ways he can pick three fishes and throw them away. And this is the number of ways he can pick three fishes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner separately. And the difference is only because this is an ordered set and this is not. This is basically a partial permutation and this is the combinations. Okay, this is it. That's all my six problems I wanted to present to you today. Suggest you to go back to Unisoner.com and go through these problems by yourself. Don't look at the solutions and try to refresh your memory to come up with the same solutions. Thank you very much and good luck.


The DuPont Company of Wilmington, Delaware, makers of better things for better living through chemistry presents the cavalcade of America. Tonight's play, one came through. Tonight's star, Wendell Corey. Bells told mournfully in Boston on the first day of June, the year 1774. By active parliament, in direct reprisal for the Boston Tea Party, the thriving little port was closed, shut down indefinitely, cut off from the sea lanes by a grim squadron of British warships in the harbor, by batteries that commanded every approach by land. In a matter of weeks, Boston is like a ghost town. The shops empty, wharves deserted, town meetings forbidden. The only sound, a steady tramp of British patrols. From the window of his shop on Fleet Street, William Dawes, a tanner, watches the approach of a company of Redcoats. Peter. Peter. We're out to have visitors. Some of the British are headed this way. They march well enough, that they do, with an air like they were a company of the King's Nobles. Go on, hold them, Dawes. I'm William Dawes. I'm Colonel Smith of the King's Regiment. By order of General Gage, I'm to search these premises. Search away. Corporal, look in the back. Inside McCready. Sir. Upstairs. Yes, sir. Two of you men come with me. You there. You! Me? Stand up. It's a difficult procedure for a man of my advanced years, with that you insist. Who are you? It's Peter Gadsden, my clerk. Let him out, sir. Peter Gadsden. Quirk. What are you doing with that knife? Whittling. Whittling what? Whittling a wattle. A what? Not a what, a wattle. What the devil's a wattle?  Now, some whittles aren't sure what they whittle, but when I whittle, I always whittle wattles. Don't you? What's your tongue? A feat I have never been able to accomplish. My nose obstructs the view. Colonel, is it in order to ask why you invaded my shop, and just what are you looking for? You're an officer of the militia, Dawes. I'm major of the ancient and honorable artillery company of Boston, that I am. I've orders from General Gage to search these premises for firearms. All I have is my musket. You're welcome enough to it. Where's the cannon? The what? The brass cannon your company exercises with. Where have you got it hidden? Oh, the cannon. Peter, and you recall where we've got the cannon. Well, now let me see, the cannon. Now, will you believe me, Mr. Dawes, I do think I've misplaced that cannon. It's very absent-minded, I've become. Nothing upstairs, sir. Nothing found in the back, sir. Oh, very well. Dawes, sir, this is an order. The cannon is to be delivered to the arsenal by noon today. It'll go hard on you and the rest of your crew of rebels if it isn't produced.  I understand. The next time I come, I may forget my natural, gentle disposition. I hope I make my meaning clear. Oh, yes. Very clear. Good day, then. Come in. Off go the peacocks and parade. Let's go, Peter. Go. Go where? To schoolhouse, where you've got the cannon hidden. All right, all right, your attention please. And now, with the permission of you young gentlemen, we will explore for a moment the properties of gerunds. Quiet, please. A gerund is a word like noun. The word gerund is derived from the Latin ghetto, meaning to carry on. School dismissed? Dismissed, I said. It's you, Dawes. Come in. Come ahead, boys. The cannon's hidden in the woodbox, Yanda. Do the British know we have the cannon here? No, but they'd find it soon enough. The gage would rip the town apart to get his hands on it, you can be sure. We'll have to move it to a hiding place outside of town. It's too heavy to carry around. We've got a wagon outside. Come along, lend a hand.  You'll have to lift the cannon out. Peter, stand by the door and keep watch. Get a firm hold now, boys. Ready? Ready. Lift. Look out, it's slipping. Don't get hold. It's too heavy. Look out. Dawes, your hand. Never mind. Lift it. Lift it.  I'm all right. You men get the cannon out in the wagon. Peter, you know where to take it. Aye. When you have it safe, come and tell me at home. I'd better have Hetty book off this hand. William, just bathing your hand this way. It's not doing much good, darling. It looks all inflamed. You're going to have to have it attended to by a doctor. You can't, Hetty. I went to the doctor. There'd be questions. How did it happen? Why did it happen? You don't know who you can trust these days. If the word got to General Gage, I had part in getting our cannon out of Boston. There'd be a pecker trouble. I know, dear, but... Shh. I see who it is. Don't let anybody in, but Peter. All right, William. Peter, come in. Thank you, ma'am. I got it tucked in safe and quiet, William. Good. You mean-looking hand you got. And he won't go to a doctor, Peter. Please make him, girl. I told you, Hetty. It's not right to take the chance. One-armed man won't be doing much good when the trouble starts, William. Hetty's right. You need doctoring. Now come on. I've got the wagon outside. We'll go see Doc Warren. Warren, who's he? Good man. Whittle's rattles in his spare time. They're a nasty wound. How'd you get it, Doc? Mashed it. So I see. But how? I don't reckon it matters, any. Hold still now. This may hurt a bit. You all right? Yeah. All right. Block and tackle would have made the job easier. We're not saying. Things like this happen from lack of organization, like of planning. I don't know what you're talking about. Bandage too tight? No. Knowing you've had to lift the cannon out of the wood box in the school room, you should have had enough foresight to bring along block and tackle. What cannon? Secret of fellow, aren't you? I stick to what's my business, even though others may do differently. I agree with you, Doc. You do stick to business. You know how to keep your mouth shut.  The man you want? The what? I don't use that arm for a week. Now, unless you have other plans, I'd like you to come along with me. May I ask where? Certainly you may ask where. To meet John Hancock and Sam Adams. This may appear a bit melodramatic to you, Mr. Dawes, but it is required of all who join our enterprise. I will ask you to put your hand upon this Bible. All right, Mr. Hancock. Do you solemnly swear, William Dawes, to keep all that you hear and learn in the presence of the gentlemen assembled, secret unto yourself and speak of it to none others? I do solemnly so swear. Good. You know Mr. Sam Adams. Only by reputation. How do you do, Mr. Adams? How do you do? Sam, I think we owe a vote of thanks to Dr. Warren for bringing us this gentleman. I'm sure we do. Are you experienced in the saddle, Mr. Dawes? Not just for short, John's mind you. But can you take a hard ride and a long one? I... Good. Now we come to the point of our meeting. Once General Gage has his position consolidated here in Boston, his objective must be to put down the resistance movement in the countryside around. He knows the militia have arms and powders stored in towns all around Boston. So his next move will be to try to get to our military stores and that must be prevented. We've taken all the precautions we can. Our main supplies are now at Concord. Gage will be after them as soon as he finds out and he'll find out soon enough. The Minutemen between here and Concord have been alerted. All they need is a word of warning that the British are out. And they'll mass all along the road between Boston and Concord. That's going to be your job, Dawes. To spread the warning. To get the word to Concord. That the regulars are on the way. Like it's not the British will seal off all the roads leading out of Boston, won't they? They'll be needing to move in secret. You'll have to out with them. That's your mission. And I take it gladly. Your orders will come from none but members of this committee. Myself, Adams or Warren. From no one else. I understand. Then let us shake your hand and wish you luck. Don't understand it. Why do you suddenly want me to go to Worcester with the children? Boston won't be safe when the trouble starts. Well, then won't you come with us? I can't do it, Eddie. Why not? Now, please don't ask questions. Haven't I a right to ask questions? Ah, you have, but believe me, Darlin, I don't have the right to answer them. Now let's get to the packing. I want you and the children safe and Worcester by this time tomorrow. Look, I was able to catch you before you got to the shop. What's the trouble? I've been in Worcester getting, uh, Eddie and the children set with the kinfolk. I figured you'd come by this road and you'll return. Red coats are in the shop. Waiting for you. Seems like this Colonel Smith is a might put out at not finding the cannon. He swears he's going to arrest you on sight. It's a nice kettle of fish. You'll come and stay with me. I couldn't do that, Peter. Only in danger, you and your family. You're staying with me. That's orders. Orders? Uh, flew me to you from Dark Warren. Oh. Seems like he figures your voice just ain't powerful enough to reach to Conkert from a dungeon in Boston Jail. But, uh, what am I supposed to do? Nothing. Just wait for word from Warren. Oh, maybe weeks, months. Uh-huh, maybe. I'll tell you what, William. I'll keep the company. Well? Yeah, I should say, two of us together. We'll... I know, I know. We'll whittle wattles. That'll be real rousing fun. Return to Cavalcade of America, starring Wendell Corey as spring of 1775.  Suddenly, one night, he decides to try a desperate plan. We're going out tonight, Peter, two of us.  We're going out. Hancock told me to plan my ride carefully. And I can't do that sitting here with you whittlin' wattles. Now, get a wagon ready. What for? To see if the British will appreciate some play acting.  There's a sentry post up ahead.  Try? As you say. Here, up there. Huh? Start your business. My name is... Timothy Willoughby. Your business? Well, I'm... I'm going to Cambridge. Well, start your business in Cambridge. Well, it's not business, really. It's my wife. Your wife? She's staying in Cambridge. Well, no travels permitted on this road. Oh, you've got to let me go through. My wife will never believe me if I'm delayed even so much as an hour. She's terrible strict with me. Ah, she is? Oh, well, I've got to be in the house by seven sharp. But I must or she'll... Oh, it'd be awful with me. Oh, you're an impet one for sure, aren't you? No. No, no, just peaceable soul. Oh, corporal, I happen to have a bottle of spirits. Now, I don't use it myself. Perhaps you'd like it. It's right here. Hmm, well... I'll be coming through this way most every week and, well, I just might always have some spirits with me if you know what I mean. Every week, you say? Oh, yes, every week. My wife's very strict. I must go to Cambridge every week. Oh, she... Well, one bottle's hardly enough for the four of us here on duty, you know. Now, isn't that strange? I happen to have another bottle. Oh, here too? Yeah. Well, right here. Hmm. Oh, rum. Jamaica rum. Pass on your wife. Thank you. Thank you. Get out now, get out. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Pardon my word. You're so convinced and you even got me feeling sorry for you. All right. We're set now, Peter. We'll ride through every week. They'll get to know us, expect us, and be glad to pass us. We've got the gate open. Now, when the time comes, nothing will stop us riding through. Now it's the light of April 18th, 1775. He must see William Dawes at once. Here quickly Dawes. I've been waiting months, Dr. Warren. Sleeping with my boots on. Good, good. Come inside to my study.  Of course, of course. I know Paul Revere. Glad to see you. How are your Dawes? Splendid. A Dawes. It looks like the regulars are set to move on Concord tonight. Tonight? You're sure, sir? We're almost positive. The regulars have been assembling all day at the bottom of the commons. Now we're not sure yet whether they intend to advance on Concord by way of Boston Neck or by boat across the Charles River to Charlestown and then on by way of Lexington. They've got plenty of boats to ferry them across. That's right. We've got to subterfuge. We have to be sure of the route they intend to take. And that's why I've asked Revere to take a hand in this. Now here's the plan and mark it carefully. We have Richard Devons over in Charlestown waiting for our signal. Signal? One lantern will be hung from the steeple of North Church if the regulars move by land. Two if they move by boat. Now Devons has to send word on to Hancock and Adams at Lexington as soon as he sees a signal. Well, what if the British spot the lanterns and haul them down before Devons gets to see them? Well, that's why you gentlemen are here. Just in case the signals fail, you'll carry the word to Lexington and Concord. Revere, you'll try to cross to Charlestown by boat. The summer set is anchored in midstream. It'll be a tight squeeze. Well, get across. You Dawes try to get through by land through Boston Neck. Now make no mistake. Redcoats have been sent ahead all along the road to make sure no messenger can spread the alarm before the regulars reach Concord. But you get through. I'll get through and so will I. Then you both best be off. Good luck Dawes. Good luck, Revere. I'll see you at Lexington when a ride to Concord together. Right now, Peter, this is the one time we've got to get by the Sentry Coast without trouble. Do you have the spirits? Four bottles. We're liberal tonight. It's an occasion. Let's go. William, look! Whoa, whoa, whoa! It's not the regular Sentry at the post. It's Smith. It's Colonel Smith. Or he'd recognize me on site. You stay back. I'll ride ahead and distract him. Then when you get my signal, ride like mad. I don't permit it on this road. Ah! I'm a bit Dave. Ride back. No one's permitted on this road. You'll have to talk louder. I said no. What's going on here? This man seems to be hard of hearing, sir. Oh, does he? Hold that lantern up. Let's have a look at him. Why, it's you. I've run out of bottles to riddle. Seize him! Get up there! Catch me first! Off to him! We crossroad every farmhouse. He spread the alarm. Sexton, you there on the street. Crumbs beat and the Minutemen swarmed along the roads leading towards Lexington and Concord. It was one in the morning when Dawes dashed up to the minister's house in Lexington. It's William Dawes. Dawes, come in. The regulars are out, Mr. Hancock. We know Revere is already here and Devon's got the signal from North Church. Oh, Revere. So you did get by the summer, sir. I tickled its turn with my oar as I rode by. How does it look from Boston to Lexington? The whole countryside has sprung alive, Mr. Adams. Good. Excellent. When do we start the Concord? Whenever you're ready. I'm ready now, sir. Then, by all means, be on your way. Reuters dashed through the light. Paul Revere and William Dawes. That big Elm. I see them. Take care now. He's not a soldier, I can see them. Under the tree! Who are you? Come out! Sam Prescott of Revere. Sam, what are you doing out at this hour? Caught in the prettiest miss in Lexington. If it's any concern of yours, who's with you? William Dawes, writer for the Provincial Committee of Safety. What's brewing tonight, Paul? For the past hour, all I've heard are signal drums and bells tolling in every church steeple. The regulars are on the march. They headed for Concord to get the militia arms and ammunition. So that's it. Listen, not more than ten minutes ago, a group of British officers rode past me. I heard them in time and hid behind some shrubs. How many? Four, at least. Well, they'll be waiting up ahead. Have an ambush for us, that you can be sure. Getting you two prime rebels would be a feather in there, Captain. That's it, would. But they'll not get both of us. Doors. Turn and ride back to Lexington. Go back. You're too valuable a property to be risked on the road tonight. It's only you, Warren, has to get dispatches out of Boston. You going ahead? Aye. Sam and I will walk into the Hornet's Nest. One of us will manage to get through to Concord. Going back, why, it's like turning my back on a rousin' good fight. Before this is over, doors, you'll have all the fightin' you can ask. Right now, your mission is to carry word from Warren to Hancock and Adams. There's no bigger task in the country. There it must have been. Have you heard from Peter? She's heard nothin', but Peter. I've been proudin' away to her all night. Peter, you get away from him. Oh, no. They got away from me. And lucky for them redcoats it was, too. Are the Minutemen gathering, William? Gathering. Heady, you should see them. On every road leading to Lexington and Concord. Every man and boy with a musket. And the women, too, heady. Carrying extra guns and food for their fightin' men. This is a night that'll long be remembered. There'll be fightin' then? From behind every stone wall and every tree. Ah, good, good. Peter. Hi, William.  There'll be no more whittlin' till we march the redcoats back from Concord right into the sea. In King's Chapel Cemetery in Boston, a little brass marker can be found on a plain, weather-beaten headstone. It reads, William Dawes, Patriot, Son of Liberty, and first messenger sent by Warren from Boston to Lexington on the light of April 18th, 1775, to warn Hancock and Adams of the coming of the British troops. Our thanks to Wendell Corey and to the DuPont Cavalcade players for tonight's true story. Tonight's DuPont Cavalcade was written by Irv Tunick. Original music was composed by Arden Cornwell conducted by Donald Boreys. The program was directed by John Zoller. The DuPont Cavalcade of America came to you from the Belasco Theater in New York City, and is sponsored by the DuPont Company of Wilmington, Delaware. Makers of better things for better living through chemistry. You can perhaps listen to Red Skelton on NBC.


In this mini lecture, I'm going to talk to you a little bit more about the DNA structure. So how was the structure actually determined? The structure was actually determined by two scientists, James Watson and Francis Crick. And you may just hear them from what they called Watson and Crick. But Watson and Crick were not the only scientists that actually came up with the whole idea of the structure. They obtained data from other scientists such as Rosalind Franklin. She worked along with Maurice Wilkins to come up with some data that was used. Also Edwin Shargoff contributed data to determining the structure. Now I'm not going to go into detail into exactly the experiments that they did, but now we'll just remember that they were instrumental in determining the structure of DNA. So if you were to examine DNA, the structure that they actually proposed was this spiral structure, double helical structure. So this part is represented as a linear structure for clarity. So this is a linear representation. And I'll just put Rep for short. Whereas this, this is a part that is actually how it looks double helical. It's a double helix and it looks kind of like a spiral staircase. So it's made up of two strands and from the data they were able to deduce that. And the strands are basically running opposite direction to each other. So this strand is running in that direction and the other strand is running in the opposite direction. And also what is important is that these strands are held together by what are called hydrogen bonds and they exist between certain molecules that we're going to be talking a little bit more about. So these are the molecules that actually hold the structure together in order for the two strands to maintain this double helical pattern. So if we were to look at DNA on a closer level, if we were actually to look at the molecules that are involved, the DNA strand is a, or the DNA molecule is actually a polymer. And a polymer consists of monomers that join to each other to make this polymeric structure. So the monomers that are found in DNA are actually called nucleotides. So this is an example of a monomer. This is a nucleotide. This is another monomer. So these monomers join together to give one strand of DNA and the similar thing happens for the other strand. And in the middle of this DNA structure the bases, or they're called the bases of the nucleotides, these bases, they actually associate with each other to form the hydrogen bond. So these are the hydrogen bonds that I'm talking about. So what's important to know is that the nucleotides that are formed, they differ from each other depending on the base content that we have. So nucleotides normally look like this. So this is an example of an adenine nucleotide where you have this part being a sugar. So this sugar actually has five carbons and it's called a deoxyribose sugar. Then you have a phosphate group over here. So this is a phosphate group. And then you have the base which consists of a lot of nitrogen atoms. So this is the base. In this case this nucleotide has the adenine base. So you have four bases that make up nucleotides of DNA. You can either have an adenine base, a thymine base, a cytosine, or a guanine base. So they each form a base can combine with the sugar and the phosphate to make an adenine nucleotide, a thymine nucleotide, a cytosine nucleotide, and a guanine nucleotide. So from now on I'll just refer to the nucleotides as A, T, C, and G. So just remember when you see those letters we are talking about the nucleotides. So another thing that they found out, or they deciphered Watson and Crick, were based on Edwin Shargar's data. And the result of his data they concluded that adenine, which is the base, remember they form hydrogen bonds with each other. The one base in one strand of DNA forms a hydrogen bond with the base in the opposite strand of DNA. So what we learned is that adenine pairs with thymine and guanine pairs with cytosine. So that basically the structure of DNA are held together because of these base pairs. So the paren of adenine and thymine are the paren of guanine and cytosine called base pair. Base pair. So they're basically forming base pairs with each other. So another thing that is important about the structure of DNA is that they strands that make up the DNA molecule are complementary to each other. So if you were given this strand for example, and they asked you to find the complementary strand to it that would make the result in DNA molecule, you have to know your rules. So you know that adenine pairs with thymine and cytosine pairs. Adenine pairs with thymine, two hydrogen bonds, and cytosine forms three hydrogen bonds with guanine. So based on our base paren rule we can determine what the other strand is. So the other strand would be C, G, A, C, G, T, C, A, and G. So therefore we can determine our complementary strand if we know our existing strand. So this actually is the complete DNA molecule. So because DNA consists of series of nucleotides that are held together and the strand of the other strand in the DNA molecule is complementary to the first strand, this makes it suitable for its function. So it can function in inheritance and the reason for this is that it can get duplicated and we're going to be talking about DNA replication. So you can duplicate it and as a result it goes through cell division and because of this we can make, if you go through the cell division of meiosis, you're going to form gametes that will form the offspring. So these two individuals produce their offspring because of DNA replication. Also DNA replication is important in gene expression where you go from DNA to form a molecule called RNA. We'll talk about that later too and ultimately form in protein. So in order for DNA to be copied, the information in DNA to be copied to RNA, you have to have the complementary base pairing occurring and then you have translation occurring from RNA to protein. We will talk more about that just bear in mind that base pairing all tends to happen a lot when we are transmitting information from DNA to protein. So you have learned a little bit about the structure of DNA, now we're going to move on to talking about how it gets copied.


Welcome to Skeptico where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I'm your host Alex Tecaris and today we're joined by Matthew Alper, who a few years ago wrote a book, The God Part of the Brain. A book that received a tremendous amount of praise, was very well received and a lot of people liked it, especially a lot of really smart people like the ones that I'm shown up here on the screen. I was doing a radio the interview the other day. Here's how this interview came about. There's the show Midnight in the Desert and I'm talking to the producer beforehand and she's telling me about this guy who came on the show and the host was so frustrated. The guy's an atheist and he's a skeptic and he's so frustrated that they didn't even finish the interview and I was like, man this is my kind of guy. I need to talk to this guy. Well that's actually a nice way of saying that they hung up on me. It's that it's the first time I'm like what are you hanging up on somebody for? So as you know from listening to the show, folks have listened to it. I love exchanging a lot of ideas, open to especially hashing out things with people who are coming at things from this kind of materialistic perspective which is the dominant view within science and this God part of the brain thing is something we've certainly talked about a ton on this show so I thought it'd be great you know to have you on and to kind of hash this out and to go over this. So Matthew thanks so much for coming on and can you tell us a little bit about yourself and about more about the book the God part of the brain? Well I'm not that interesting.  I was a fifth grade teacher. I worked as a sculptor at a claymation studio, made monsters for living then I went back to teaching taught high school history then I bought a book how to write a screenplay, wrote a screenplay, met a producer from Europe at a party, ended up living in Munich while my movie got produced.  I studied philosophy in college. I've been reading a lot of science and philosophy since I was young. I was since I came to terms with my mortality I think I was driven to try to get to the bottom of you know, is there a spiritual reality? It seemed like most the world believed there was one, you know, people talked about us all being reunited in heaven and all of that and um I know wasn't buying it turned out Santa wasn't real and a whole bunch of other stuff so I said I'm gonna look a little deeper into this I want to get to the bottom of this particular question and I thought that the answer would eventually come in some one of the sciences so I was reading from cosmology down to molecular biology thinking leave no stone unturned I was also experimenting with drugs and meditation thinking you know there were a lot of people writing about how different psychedelics were a portal to the other side that didn't really get me anywhere just sort of altered states of consciousness so I kind of felt like if there was going to be an answer it was going to be in the sciences but then after I I don't know 22 years of I well I was 22 at the time and I was like you know what I've read all the books and I'm getting nowhere and I just have to accept the fact like everyone else that it's just one of those unanswerables and I guess I'll know when I die or I won't know when I die so while in Germany I they have they offered me a job there and I was like all right I guess you know I was going to work on other screenplays living in Munich it was a beautiful city and I thought to myself all right I guess I've got a job I've got a career I kind of lamented for a moment the fact that like you know I used to be philosophically driven I had this quest I wanted to know deeper things and you know I guess I'm just going to be a guy with a job and I said you know what I haven't even thought about really anything philosophical in years and again when I was in high school and then college and after college I was you know reading all of the you know as much as I could of the great thinkers in history the philosophers thinking maybe somewhere someone kind of opened the gateway to an idea in one of their thoughts let me just jump in with a quick question Matthew at this point where would you consider yourself like spiritually would you identify yourself at this point as an atheist or was that not even you you just were like somebody who just was going along with trying to figure this stuff out no I would say that I'm probably the most fundamental atheist you can come across and now you are I guess I'm trying to say back then would you have identified if someone would yeah if someone asked me then I would have said I'm an atheist but I but I was but I was but I was a frustrated atheist frustrated in that I didn't believe but I didn't feel I had a grounding for my disbelief other than it just didn't it didn't add up yeah this is a bunch of crap no is arc this stuff I'm definitely not well that's religion that's even religion I you know I you know I felt just by learning all the world's mythologies I didn't have to debunk each one individually you know that Zeus was as likely to be as real as was Jesus or Moses or Muhammad or any of that so that was easy religion was easy but that doesn't just even if you know the religions got it wrong that doesn't mean there's necessarily no spiritual reality you know something that we haven't even come across yet so that was what I wanted to get to the bottom of because basically you know the question was I'm either one of two things I'm either a physical being which means ashes to ashes dust to dust or I'm a spiritual being which means that even though my body will die there's a chance that some aspect of myself my conscious experience will live on in which case I'm immortal so I don't have to be as nervous about it um so but but I considered myself you know an atheist but I you know again like I said I was frustrated in that it felt it felt empty in that I didn't have so someone who reveres science I wanted proof of my belief in some form other than just basic doubt so I'll tell you you might find this interesting so when I was in Germany you know I kind of like you know what I given up the philosophical life but before I take this job I'm going to ask the question one more time I should probably go back to it I thought every five years five years will go by and I'm just going to readdress the question have I learned anything have I come across anything new that has given me any indication one way or the other to believe that I might have some certain knowledge of God and I was like you know no I haven't seen any miracles and even if I did I would have questioned my own perception of them have I learned anything that's opened or closed the door one way or the other I was like no I'm back at square one there's nothing I can say with certain knowledge of God and then I had my Eureka moment I was like wait there is there's one thing I can say with certain knowledge of God it was a odd kernel it's not what I was expecting but I was like it's sitting on the computer screen because I typed out this sentence I was like it's sitting on the computer screen in front of me there's an empirical fact God is a word I can see it in Braille I can touch it if someone says it I can hear it so what can I say with certainty of God that it's a word okay well what does science say about words well it's a human construction something we evolved to have the capacity for more over it's a word that seems to exist or some version of it in every single culture from the beginning of humankind my next question is what the science say about universal behavioral patterns which takes me to sociobiology and the answer is it's because it's inherited it's wired into the animal there it's instinct and at that moment I came up with this idea holy crap it's coming from inside our heads it's a perception we're wired with it and I wrote on a piece of paper the God part of the brain and I stuck it on the wall and I was like that's gonna be my next thing and it was and you wrote this book it's a well written book and the book is well received so what was that whole process like real quickly sure um I used to be the worst writer alive as a student I felt discouraged as far back as elementary school when I was all excited about the creativity of my ideas and the teacher would put red marks all over thing you know you didn't capitalize the first letter you the punctuation's wrong so I was like you know what screw writing I'm good at math and science and all the other stuff I have a good memory I won't be a writer whatever and I really I took to that so the time I was in high school and having to write papers I was like oh man I screwed myself this is getting difficult like and my writing was horrible it really was horrible um and then when I was teaching when I was a high school history teacher I was like I've tried photography I worked as a sculptor I've done these different things I felt I wanted to do something creative but I was like it started up dawn on me like the thing that I had always been bad at and felt that I didn't need to know I'm starting to feel like might be the most powerful artistic medium which is words like I think I overlooked like the big picture here and missed the bus but I'm not old and dead so maybe I should get back on the bus and see if I can learn to write so I started reading the classics and reading vocabulary and studying language really and punctuation and then when I came up with the idea like maybe I'll write a movie when I was teaching high school and bought that book had to write a screenplay um I thought well it's a screenplay I mean it's mostly like you know Steve and Lisa sitting on a park bench dialogue Lisa hi how was your day you know I was like well that I don't really need to be a great writer I need to be a great storyteller so I was like maybe I'll find out but I think I can pull it off as far as the writing goes and then I all of a sudden was like wait now I'm writing a philosophy tome so whatever you read was after about a thousand edits from beginning to end starting over starting over I self-published my book was first universally rejected because I have no credentials in neuroscience so I opened road press and then I had boxes of books sitting around my apartment and someone's like well you got to market it and I was like I don't like that stuff and they're like well here's a phone number send them a press release maybe they'll put you on their show and that was art bell and I guess given the show you do you're familiar with art bell so 20 minutes later I get a call this guy with like the most perfect deep voice and he's like we're gonna have yawn I was like okay he's like so how's this date work I was like okay he's like so you know the drill right I'm like uh yeah and I'm like what what important art bell guy I'm like what millions of listeners honestly when I first got on art bell um admittedly I had a few puffs of weed before I went on but that didn't help I almost went into a full-blown panic attack and at one point I was deep into the theory and I was talking about the anxiety function and I have an anxiety attack but it's on the phone so no one can see me so I just sort of like held the phone and he's like hello are you are you still there and for like 20 seconds I was just like I was just about to hang up the phone like I am over my head I don't know what I'm doing and I was like come on pull it together man this could work out and I got back on the phone and honestly like he was talking and it was all just like a blur like wall war and I was so nervous and finally I got my bearings and I started talking and then it went really well he was only gonna have me on for like an hour and he had me on for the rest of the night and then he replayed that show like a week later and all of a sudden I'm seeing orders coming in like by the tens of thousands and my I was ranked for uh one day I was ranked on Amazon I was like the 17th top selling book in the world I was between Angela's ashes and girl interrupted at the time this was like 98 when I first wrote this and I was pretty young at the time so anyway the reason I'm saying so then I started selling books and one of the things people were like this is amazing these original ideas I love it however like did you get into did you have an editor it was still but poorly written I still had a lot to go uh and then I then all of a sudden I was like oh my god I've been sending out this messed up book like I better get in gear and then I edited and edited I spent like six months editing non-stop went over the book from beginning to end like 50 times and cleaned it up and basically I've been cleaning up it up since it got sold to source books and then went into numerous languages went into hardcover but by that edition the 2008 edition um I haven't touched it since honestly I'm terrified to open it I'll have a panic attack because I'm a better writer now probably and I'll see a million flaws I can't even look at it I'll never open that book again but um but I was told enough times that it was well written so I was like and then at one point people like great book you know they want to talk about the ideas I'm like yeah yeah okay great book but what do you think of the writing like all I wanted to hear is people say like oh it's so well wow that's that's amazing for a guy who starts out saying hey I'm not very interesting there's not much to talk about me you got some amazing stories I mean just your whole background and then that art bell and your writing thing for any frustrated writers out there that's just fantastic stuff so persevere frustrated writers and read classics and study the way that the that the greats punctuate and string together their thoughts and if you persevere maybe you'll some of it will rub off on you yeah but buddy that's not exactly your story your story is you just go do it and just do what's next kind of thing and I think there's some magic in in that too so I tell you what let's let's jump off of that yeah and so let's talk about all this stuff I'm obviously coming at this from a very different perspective you know my history is I was really just a a business guy who got interested kind of like you and the big picture questions who are we why are we here and I kind of felt coming from the opposite perspective I didn't know for sure but I felt science maybe has something to offer here but these science guys seem to be missing the boat given the other science guys that I'm listening to and talking to so I was kind of like what gifts who's right here and that was 10 years ago when I started this podcast and the podcast you know eventually and then I wrote a book along the way why science is wrong about almost everything which is kind of like the opposite of your book which is kind of interesting and the premise of my book is that if you get science if you get consciousness wrong then you really can't get anything in science right and that consciousness as I don't know if you know or not because I just flashed up on the screen you know one of things that kind of threw me for a loop is I went and did first of all the first thing I did when I was going to set up this interview just so people know there's no sandbagging here I went and created a thread on my forum this is like two weeks ago and I invited you there to look at everyone's posts and stuff like that but let me play you this quote about consciousness from an interview I did with a very very smart guy I think philosopher Bernardo Castro but these are all people you'd recognize kind of coming from your camp and maybe that will launch us into a discussion about consciousness these people are just generally regarded as scientists as the mainstream scientists and we're talking about Richard Dawkins Lawrence Cross Neil deGrasse Tyson I mean Neil deGrasse whether we like it or not is the face of science for many many many Americans so let's see what mainstream science has to say about consciousness here we go I'm gonna play this clip you can see it there I'm gonna play it but you but you can say something about the question which you really would wish to know the answer to and I mean for me it would be what what's consciousness because because that's that's totally baffling Richard you know what I think I agree not that you ask but what I think on this is consciousness has kind of baffled us for a while okay and evidence that we haven't a clue about what consciousness is is drawn from the from the fact of how many books are published on the topic right we're not really continuing to publish books not really on like Newtonian physics it's done all right so so the fact that people keep publishing books on consciousness is the evidence we don't know anything about it because if we knew all about it you wouldn't have to keep publishing so so what I wonder what I wonder Richard is whether there really is no such thing as consciousness at all and that there's some other understanding of the functioning of the human brain that renders that question obsolete to that I've got to say like oh wow okay what is so funny about that of course that last voice was Bill Nye the science guy who was up there with him too he was astonished Bill was astonished I mean the idea that maybe consciousness is not there it's probably the weirdest stupidest idea ever conceived by human thought I mean where does thought take place it takes place in consciousness so here we have consciousness speculating about the possibility that consciousness does not exist and it may not be there I mean the very thought is is that in your face contradiction and the fact that something like this is not only seriously entertained but even verbalized by a person with the public exposure of the gentleman we just saw is is a a worrying sign of cultural sickness a very serious one okay okay maybe I didn't tee that up right but you get the idea consciousness kind of the fundamental question this what do you think okay so first of all I don't know why a room full of supposedly important scientists are so confused about what I think is a pretty simple question that I believe has been answered not to its full extent because we do not know the brain fully and probably never will within our lifetimes as however uh and I write in the book I have like a sub chapter I think called the neurophysiology of the soul and basically you know to me the question comes down to one of two things consciousness same thing with life spiritual or physical physiological is it is it the manifestation of some soulful entity some ghost in the machine some transcendental factor that resides within us or again is it a strictly physical entity my take and again I never went to school for neuroscience I'm not an md but I've read a hell of a lot almost an encyclopedia amount worth of um science and philosophy and my take away is that there's all the reason to believe that consciousness is a physiological experience that basically neuroscience slash cognitive science slash neurobiology if it's taught us anything it's taught us that all of that all of that makes up what we consider ourselves to be our conscious experience so we've got sensation at the simplest level we feel things we hear things uh we have perception we absorb the information and make conclusions based on it and then cognition and emotion etc so that's the makeup of our being and then we have memory so it solidifies gives us a sense of identity all of these elements of consciousness can be reduced to various parts of the brain and what's been shown is when you damage those parts people suffer aphasia some debility or deficiency to that aspect of their conscious experience so like I have people say like you know oh i'm gonna you know when i die i'm gonna be in heaven with my family so i'll say like okay you'll be in heaven let's even assume that's true you're gonna go to heaven who you are is going to live forever you joe is going to be around for eternity but then i say but let me ask what if what if joe gets dementia alzheimer's tomorrow and then you die a year into it where your last self you know didn't know whether to you know go to the bathroom or eat an apple you didn't know the difference between the two you didn't remember the names of your own children your wife let alone your own self so is joe the demented going to be floating around in this eternal headspace for eternity or do you have this idealized version that it's you joe now as you're talking to me or maybe is it going to be joe 10 years ago or joe when you were five we're all chameleons we go through we're a thousand different people in our lifetimes based on our periods of life so to me let's let's pull this apart because we're okay let's pull it apart yeah we're stacking a lot of different things together and i understand where you're going in terms of the limitations in terms of how people talk about the afterlife and all the rest of that what the reason i kind of deconstructed my thing the way that i did is that when you start to me when you start asking these questions you keep going further and further into this physicalist kind of question other people call it materialism and so the first thing you know because you kind of studied the philosophy this is the oldest question kind of in the world so there's Plato out there saying hey there's no physicalism right it's all thoughts it's all ideas and then you had this other thing it's like no we can break it all down into atoms and that discussion argument ongoing debate continues on to the modern day right so if you really look at physics as we currently understand it is this battle from a hundred years ago between einstein and neils bohr right and einstein is saying hey uh neils bohr you're kind of coming at me with this spooky action at a distance stuff which is consciousness is fundamental that's what neils bohr is saying and einstein saying no way i'm still holding on into e equals mc squared and that m it could stand for materialism it stands for mass but it could just as well stand for materialism because i think there is matter is fundamental so the question then is is matter fundamental or is consciousness fundamental and even einstein at the end of his life finally has to agree that every experiment that has ever been done in quantum physics has confirmed the reality of the observer effect has confirmed the reality of spooky action at a distance of entangled particles and all that stuff and i'm going to play one more clip to kind of reinforce that point because i just interviewed a guy i think he's a brilliant guy his name is don hoffman dr donnell hoffman and he's a physicist and as at uc ervine and we talked about this very topic so let me play another clip into you and then well i'll get your get your view on the whole thing of what i just laid out there how can science science as we know it be so wrong about consciousness i mean we're talking about a situation where pole after pole shows that 90 percent of people in the united states completely disagree with this biological robot meaningless universe brain centered idea that we have about consciousness so the real question i guess i have is how can we really trust science going forward you're a great advocate of science you speak eloquently about the scientific method about how beautiful science is done properly but i guess i'd turn it around can we really trust science when they drop the ball so badly already i agree that the current theories of consciousness among my scientific colleagues really do drop the ball they they really start with an unconscious objective reality of spacetime and matter and they try to boot up consciousness from that and and i you know i of course i disagree with them i think that that's not the right way to go about it and and many scientists still have a feeling that you know if that's what spirituality means that all that i will have none of it and the other aspect to it is they feel like look science made great strides in the using the assumption that spacetime and unconscious matter are the foundations and it's it's truly stunning what's happened in the last three three and a half centuries it's it is completely revolutionized our understanding of the universe the technology that's come out has been stunning and it's raised humanity's level of life dramatically so so there's this feeling among the scientists that look the physicalist framework was our our way of getting away from the the weirdness of the spiritual traditions and and breaking free look what it's look what it's done and it has been dramatically successful so that's part of where they're coming from so if i can add just one little piece because i don't know if i'm making myself clear and all this or not physicalism materialism is just dead it's a non-issue experimentally it fails over and over again and this idea that consciousness is fundamental is what wins the day in experiment after experiment so mind equals brain mind brain is generating consciousness is just kind of no longer at the table so what Don Hoffman is saying he's kind of trying to feel some compassion for Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins and the rest of these guys who are still tied to this old model that fails over and over again experimentally so how are you processing all that okay couple comments so first of all one of the comments you made during that show was that like 90 percent of Americans disagree with the biological robot model so first of all the the the opinions of the masses the mostly uneducated masses the uneducated masses that gave us the government we have today don't represent to me a valid or viable if i wanted to put together a new technology some new type of nuclear missile i would not say hey masses let's let's let's think tank on this i would look for the 0.001 percent who are diligently spending their life studying these specific things for my answers so i i i want to just discount the notion that we can say what the majority opinion represents anything indicative of truth or reason my next point is we can't necessarily make comparisons to paradoxes in quantum realities to consciousness so the brain i don't believe is a quantum experience the brain is an atom experience the brain and all things human basically abide by Newtonian principles that's what's given us the mechanics of our day is that they work gravity still works even though quantum realities are real when you're dealing with subatomic particles you have a different set of standards than when you have atomic particles the materialism that comes in atoms that's just not that's you see that's what i guess don hoffman is saying if you drill into it that was the view like 20 years ago but these experiments of like entanglement that you're referring to they've got them bigger and bigger up to the atomic level up to the cellular level they now can even show entanglement that is viewable by the i don't know when you when you say entanglement what do you mean say define entanglement do you understand the idea of quantum entanglement and the observer effect yeah i i mean i'm aware of the observer effect you know schrodinger's cat and all right and einstein his whole thing of spooky out of action at a distance i mean these are the things that these guys were debating right okay so first let me let me premise also so you know whatever whatever debate we have and you're gonna have your beliefs and i'm gonna have mine i can tell you i've like read these books thought this through i am an unyielding materialist i believe that consciousness is a physical reality end of story and i can tell you why i think those things but you don't believe it you just think that's what the science says right because if the science went against you then you'd go with what the science is or do you have some kind of belief that insist no i mean besides just like sort of it adds up it passes the common sense test no it's validated by what i consider grounded scientific principles so and let me just also add this point since we're on the conversation so you're kind of alluding to that these old models of science are burnt to the ground they're discarded we all know better but who knows better i mean to me that's a fringe element the the skeptics the believers in various forms of magical thinking that i've come across doing a lot of these radio shows even someone like art bell to me ufology is a form of magical thinking does that mean i don't believe that aliens exist somewhere in the universe i absolutely do believe they exist do i believe that they've ever visited earth or ever will visit earth no way i don't believe that's possible within our lifetimes the nearest star alphas and terry alone is too far but again these are separate but not to digress because not to get off but but hold on i mean new york times 2000 december 2017 it's on the cover that the department of defense has acknowledged that they've encountered these UFOs right off the coast here of california and they'll show you the videos and they operate at levels beyond anything that is whatever whatever you're alluding to i don't i don't personally i don't believe it's real so hold up but how can you i'm talking about the new york times i'm talking about you can go watch the videos i'm talking about the department of defense i mean this is relevant in the sense that even if the department of defense decided to release some information like that i don't necessarily even believe that their intention is for all i know it's just to like distract people from something else they really want us not to know i don't necessarily until the scientific community at large the people who are like little weevils trying to dig up information all day long they exist in the universities around the planet and that's all they do they're like weevils digging up information trying to uncover some new fact that's all they're interested in and with all these weevils running around trying to unroot the truth i still consider what you're talking about fringe elements because you can't i can go to a university anywhere on earth and i can study biology physics chemistry you name it all of the various fields of science none of these sciences will offer me a course in ufology or reincarnation or transmigration of the soul or the study of the soul let's study the soul i have a phd in the soul i got it from harvard i took 20 courses all about how the soul is real the mere fact to me that is one of the proofs in the pudding in that all of these weevils who are trying to find the truth none of them think it's legitimate or valid enough and not one technology or advancement has come through the belief in what i all of these various forms of again what i call magical thinking and let me just get to the core point of my book the god part of the brain what i'm suggesting is humanity is born we're wired with a lens in our head that basically with self with the advent of self-conscious awareness humans became the most powerful species on earth it enabled us the power of self-modification but that one adaptation at the same time had a drawback it made us aware of our mortalities so in saying i am i exist i don't have to wait a million years for natural selection to give me a thicker coat of fur i can say i am cold and i can sell myself one self-modification most powerful species on earth but by saying i i am cold i also can say i am going to die and humans become the first animal to experience existential angst and i believe that in order to help us survive this unique awareness that we have can you still can you still i believe that i said okay well if i'm gonna suggest that there are actually parts of our brain generating these perceptions i have to have a reason a rationale because nothing evolves for no reason so why would we have evolved this now this is all speculative that but this is what i came up with i made a list what makes humans unique well we have we have language capacities that other animals don't have we have music abilities we have math abilities we have these higher emotions we have self-conscious awareness i was like okay that one's actually i think the one that's the most unique that makes us stand out the most and it was as a result of self-conscious awareness that humans became the again the first organism to be aware of their own mortalities inevitable death and i believe that the anxiety created by that awareness was so overwhelming because here for billions of years you had life on earth dealing with death simple on a simple mechanism of fight or fling and we have anxiety built into us pain functions to make us avoid those things that jeopardize our existence suddenly an animal comes in the picture that realizes there's nowhere to run and there's nothing to fight i could build the biggest castle in the universe i'm gonna die the anxiety created the insufferable anxiety created by that awareness i believe was so overwhelming that it forced the selection of an evolutionary adaptation mechanisms in the brain that compel us to believe in some form of a spiritual reality some form of magical thinking and it takes place in many different forms which is why when i hear even scientists debate or people say like well this scientist and they're a phd and an md and they won the Nobel prize and they believe in god so as if that in itself is an argument to me that's not the argument at all to me it's like yeah that makes sense because the majority of humans are compelled to perceive to filter all their reality through this spiritual lens and to justify and come up and jump through somersaults to come up with ways to justify to themselves what that these things are real because it's the only way we can survive amidst the mortal experience but matthew that's all good but it's just kind of your story and you keep kind of mixing in i believe this i believe that and i keep telling you i just keep going back to the science so i go back to don hoffman if you want to go back to him and he will tell you and we kind of got off the tracker he will tell you there has never been one experiment that's disconfirmed the reality of this consciousness appears to be fundamental okay let me ask you a question in this in this context consciousness appears to be fundamental paradigm simple question do you believe in ghosts do i believe in ghosts yeah well i don't even know what a ghost is but see okay well then i'll give you i'll hold on let me just let me go i'll play i'll play another clip because you know to me where i went with this is just okay if if there's these really smart people who have reason to believe that consciousness is fundamental and like you said i mean i don't understand your logic when you say i'm a materialist i go well you're just going to follow the data and you go no i'm a materialist i'm just going to believe in the materiality well it's like i mean you're not playing science so when i look at it's not that that's what i was saying earlier is i believe every aspect of consciousness perception sensation emotion cognition you went through all those broken down here's the point here's the point neurophysiological responses maybe but this is that would counter that if consciousness is fundamental there's no debate that there's and how come if we get banged in the head our fundamental conscious that's skewed well that's what i was just going to say no one would argue that there is this relationship between consciousness no matter what it is and the physical instrument that is processing that consciousness okay the brain which is the brain okay that's why i think on that matthew so let me play this clip because where the research then takes me is then you got to go look and it's not my kind of choice it's just where the discussion goes well i'd rather just talk with you referencing other people's supporting what you're saying it's not it's why would we not reference why would we not want to reference the best experts in the world who looked at these questions why did we want to just hear two guys that have opinions and then i thought this and then i thought that no but i want to ask you but i want to know what you're thinking so you're saying there's the brain and you're saying admittedly the brain plays some role unconscious experience i'm just curious what what do you believe is the origin of the other part what is the transcendental quality that you believe resides in humans either in their heads or maybe it's in their toes wherever it's residing what is the unknown element that also plays a role if it's not just the brain what is the ghost in the machine to you well let me answer that question with another question okay when does consciousness begin a bunch of questions when does consciousness end what is necessary and sufficient to cause consciousness who is conscious are you conscious and i conscious how do you know are animals conscious is the cat that's meowing at my door to get in here because she doesn't like getting locked out is she conscious so these are the questions and the best research out there to begin to even answer these questions is the near-death experience research and that's the clip we'll play in a minute but first i'll give a chance to respond to that okay so i'm responding to what you rolled out you rolled out where does consciousness begin where does it end does the cat that meows of consciousness so what do you want me to dress all of it well i think the right yes you actually heard them perfectly because they're all wrapped into one when does consciousness begin when does consciousness end what is necessary and sufficient to cause conscious okay experience so i believe that pretty much i mean i don't know if i would say a plant or an amoeba has consciousness perhaps it's it could be defined by the beginnings of those species that first had a ganglia a collected center for where experiences comes from so does the cat have consciousness yes all of these various animals at least with ganglia and or a brain i would say have consciousness do they have self-conscious awareness as part of the experience no we'll start with the first consciousness are they aware of are they aware of a world around them do they interact with the world around them absolutely do they have feelings do they have sensations can they experience pain yes so if that makes consciousness we're all conscious however um as far as when does consciousness begin and if i'm assuming that it's true for the cat as much as is for me then i would say consciousness begins whenever i guess in the embryonic process when we are developing in our mother's wombs or in an egg or wherever we've evolved from that basically once the stirrings of a brain and the first stirrings of an awareness whatever that might be even maybe maybe most animals their first conscious experiences hearing their mother's heart if they're if they're a mammal yeah but matthew you're just kind of wing you're just kind of winging it here making stuff up let me play there is really the reason i went to near-death experience research is it gets right to this question if we can show that consciousness extends beyond a period when we have normal brain function or i should add if consciousness survives when the brain is severely compromised in a way that neuroscience can't explain how consciousness could exist then we have a whole different scenario we have an answer to your questions and your beliefs that you've said so that's what i went i'm interviewed some of the top near-death experience researchers in the world and real near-death experience again i know they're out there i've i've listened i've been you don't have any of them you don't have any of them in your book so let's play jeff long okay so dr long let me probe a little bit further about the types of near-death experience research that's out there because over the years i've interviewed a lot of near-death experience researchers and for example you know just the other day i interviewed this guy nice enough guy university of california he's doing his postdoctoral fellowship he's part of a team they receive four million dollar foundation to study near-death experiences so i speak to him about his research turns out he didn't really do any original research he didn't go into a hospital into a cardiac arrest ward and talk to patients there he didn't as you did develop a hundred and fifty medical survey and give it to hundreds of near-death experience researchers yet he published his results we talked about his book he concluded that near-death experiences aren't real in the way that we're talking about they don't suggest that consciousness seems to survive bodily death so i guess the question is for the average person who's trying to sort through this idea of near-death experience science research how do they sort through it how do they know what research really holds up out there the key thing is to know a few of the consistently seen elements of near-death experience that are the strongest evidence for their reality for example when you're under general anesthesia it should be impossible to have a lucid organized remembrance at that time in fact under anesthesia you're typically so far under with general anesthesia they often have to breathe for you i mean you're literally brain shut down to the level of the brain stem and at that point in time some people have a cardiac arrest their heart stops and of course that's a very well documented they monitor people very carefully that are having general anesthesia so i have dozens and dozens of near-death experiences that occurred under general anesthesia and at this time it should be if you will doubly impossible to have a conscious remembrance and yet they do have near-death experiences at this time and they're typical near-death experiences they have the same elements and a period of have them in the same order as near-death experiences occurring under all other circumstances in fact a critical survey question i asked was what their level of consciousness and alertness during the experience was well even under general anesthetics under those powerful chemicals to produce sedation if they had a near-death experience under general anesthesia their level of consciousness and alertness was identical to near-death experiences occurring under all other circumstances there's absolutely no way the skeptics can explain that way you can fill a convention center with believers in any religion any alternate science that you quoted in your book okay quoted or not quoted because of the because of the studies that he did not his studies are not supportive of i also i also quote Einstein i quote lots of people who are believers in all sorts of things this guy is still this guy is still alive and he's come out and said that's fine i don't care he can believe what he wants like i said neils bore anyone who wants they can believe half of them were word here in christians half of them were adherent jews they've all believed in their various paradigms but here's the bigger picture you could fill a convention center with all of these people who believe write books showing they're a doctor they can prove near-death experiences and yet and yet of all of the greater picture the millions of scientists who represent scientific organizations you will not find one college one legitimate college that offers you a degree in near-death experiences now if it was a valid science i should be able to major in it like i could geology it's just so are you going to dismiss the you want to dismiss true you just say stuff that you just don't know whether it's true or not so you can go to the university of virginia and dr bruce grayson and there's plenty of people there are getting phd's and the research is primarily in near-death experience and perceptual studies and you go down there saying you're saying that you're you can you name one college even in america just did no no no that offers a major listen you can get a phd in whatever you feel like studying can you name one college in america whatever you're whenever you're pushed back you just kind of just ask a new question i just said university of virginia and i'll give you another one university in north texas janice holen i've interviewed phd candidates phd candidates but you're not answering my question can in any of those schools can i get a major in near-death experiences that's the criteria no i i think i think the way it means it was a validated and accepted validated is when your phd is accepted into the broader body of knowledge that is academia that is if someone offered me half a million dollars for a phd i'd say yeah you want to get a phd in two-headed bats with hitler's brain go for it you can't you can't do that you can't get a phd in two-headed bats well but but apparently you can because people you're saying are getting phd's in near-death experiences and to me that's the equivalence of a two-headed bat with hitler's brain well that's that's well said on your part is that to you their equivalence so that is the standard by which you measure it the matthew albert standard of what's real and i i get that and there's certainly a lot of people you know in your camp i just well it's not just there are a lot of people in my camp why don't you when feel free when you get all when we get off the radio to look up let's just say the top 10 schools in america and ask them call call the dean call the registrar say can i get a major can i major in near-death experiences can i major in reincarnation can i major in jesus can i major in zeus can i major in ufo alien technology now you could go to the tv channels and you could watch 50 shows about alien technologies and ghosts but there's nevertheless there's a there's a there's a there's a distinction between what you can watch on tv even with md's and phd's talking about it and what you can study in a valid university go to medical school and say i don't want to be an optometrist or a urologist i want to be a a a a a a a near-death experience and you won't get in because it's not real science okay all right that's i would just want to create a bigger picture than these few specialized voices that anyone can find i could like i said i could find a specialist with a phd and an md to tell me about that they can prove the existence of the virgin mary you name it it's out there again the lockness monster any imaginary thing there's someone out there with a voice behind it and that's because humans the bigger picture is because humans are hardwired to believe in magical thinking we need to believe that even though the body will die that somehow consciousness will persevere because without some version of that belief life is just too freaking painful and devastating for us to get through that's that's me the final word well i am not going to add to it because you should be allowed to have the final word i think these discussions always bring up interesting new points so i i do appreciate you coming on matthew again the god part of the brain he said he hasn't touched it since 2008 but i'm sure you'll find it a good read very well written in a good book and matthew thanks for coming on the show today sure thanks for having me on sorry i i know i frustrated you there but oh you know i've just heard this from skeptics all the time it's like you know whack-a-mole it's the same as arguing fundamentalist christians you know if you're hitting with science then that's not good science if you hit him with something that isn't science then why aren't you doing science so it's like you can't win but that's people who have fixed beliefs i don't have fixed beliefs i go with whatever i change my mind all the time based on the evidence but not everybody's like that all right i gotta run anyway i hope that'll be in any way satisfying to your listeners that's all i can hope so right on man see okay thank you thanks again to matthew helper for joining me today on skeptico the one question i guess i'd have to tee up from this interview and it's kind of outside of this interview because i thought his arguments were so pointless is should we continue to engage with skeptics should i continue engage in skeptics and publish interviews and put them out on the skeptical channel for you to listen to i kind of feel mixed you know on one hand i feel like these people are still out there and still have a lot of credibility with a lot of people even though their arguments are incredibly silly i mean here's someone who i really thought was going to back out of this interview because we did such a thorough job of debunking his nonsense in the skeptical forum before he came on and that was my goal is to kind of drive him away don't bring him on the show don't waste a lot of time but he comes on anyway and then he just fails at all these things that we already hashed out in the skeptical forum like he's quoting dr carl jensen the ketamine guy totally misquoting him and misrepresenting him i mean you just can't do that if you're serious about this but it just all rolls off the back of these true believers and that's frustrating but at the same time it's kind of worth i think putting it out there and maybe there's a different perspective of course there's a different perspective and let's hear your different perspective hey by the way i'd love to get some more traction over there on the skeptical forum it really is a go-to place for me and i love it when you all join me as i said when we were preparing for this interview there were some great comments there that really helped shape this interview so if you haven't been over there for a while please come over to the skeptical forum and join me i'm usually there i'm usually responding to almost every meaningful post that's there and i hope you join me over there also i'm going to be working on some new projects over there that i'd really like some audience participation in in particular this book that i'm working on so richard cox from the deep state consciousness podcast has actually agreed to kind of help me corral some of this in so you'll see him and i posting over there and we really like to have you come over there and join us because this audience this narrow audience that decides to dive deeply into this stuff is really important to this work that i'm doing and trying to move forward so that's my that's my plea there please come over to the skeptical forum and join me by the way you can also of course check out the skeptical website all the past shows are there download them use them share them and stay with me i have a number of i think really good interviews coming up i'm really excited to bring them to you so stay with me for all of that until next time take care and bye for now