July 30, 2025 • 35 mins
Brett Keane Social Networks
- YouTube: GodTvRadio
- YouTube Live: BrettDKeane
- Bandcamp
- Spotify Music
- Spotify Radio
- Amazon Books
- Merchandise
- X: brettkeaneshow
Support
Contact
Email: brettkeanephone@gmail.com
Phone: (636) 525-1290
Warning: Provide name and purpose, or risk being marked as SPAM and blocked.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:05):
Hey again, Brett. Hey, Brett.
Hey, how are you? I'm here and ready to chat.
What's on your mind today? I'd like you to tell me, does
nature have a consciousness? Nature having consciousness is a
(00:31):
hot to be. Some argue that the
interconnectedness of ecosystemshints at a form of awareness.
Others see consciousness as unique to certain animals with
complex nervous systems. What's your take on it?
Who argues that nature actually has a consciousness?
Some people believe in a conceptcalled panpsychism, which
(00:54):
suggests that consciousness could be a fundamental feature
of all matter, including nature.Others might argue that the way
ecosystems interact shows a kindof awareness or consciousness.
It's a fascinating idea. What do you think?
Well, I'm trying to understand and comprehend how love works.
(01:15):
If nature doesn't have a consciousness, then why would it
build within our biology the concept of love?
Love is a powerful force, often explained through the lens of
evolution. It's said to foster bonds,
cooperation, and ultimately survival.
(01:38):
Some view it as a byproduct of our complex brains not
necessarily requiring nature itself to be conscious.
It's intriguing how something soprofound could be rooted in our
survival instincts. What's your take?
Can you explain how evolution created love?
(02:00):
Sure thing. From an evolutionary viewpoint,
love likely evolved to keep people together, ensuring the
survival of offspring. Romantic love fosters pair
bonding, while parental love ensures care for the young.
These emotional bonds promote cooperation and social cohesion,
(02:21):
vital for the survival of our ancestors.
So, love could be a biological trick to help us thrive.
Intriguing, right? Well, not really.
Does nature care about us? Does nature care if we have
bonds or if we survive? Hello.
(02:49):
Hey there, let me know what's onyour mind today.
Well, I just told you nature doesn't care if we survive and
it doesn't care if we love each other.
Can you explain that? Exactly.
Nature doesn't have intentions or emotions, it's more like a
set of processes. Love and survival are on us,
(03:11):
emerging from billions of years of evolution.
It's not that nature cares, it'sthat certain traits helped us.
Does that make sense? How does nature or evolution
know what actually helps us and what doesn't?
It doesn't know in a conscious way.
(03:33):
Traits that aid survival and reproduction tend to get passed
on more often over time. Evolution sort of selects these
traits. It's not about intent, but about
what works in the environment. Love, in this case, fostered
bonds that were beneficial. It's a trial and error process,
(03:53):
not a deliberate choice. Kind of wild, right?
If evolution is about survival and about being able to have the
ability to have love, doesn't itcontradict love and survival if
a animal or a human being is willing to die for their
offspring? Interesting paradox, but self
(04:18):
sacrifice can actually enhance aspecies survival.
When a parent dies for their offspring, they protect their
genes in the gene pool. This altruistic trait, seemingly
at odds with survival, promotes the survival of the genes.
It's a reminder that evolution works in complex ways.
(04:42):
All right, I'd like you to explain how that works.
I'd like you to explain at what point in time did evolution
start creating the concept of love?
Sure, love as a concept didn't suddenly appear.
It evolved gradually. Early humans who formed
emotional bonds likely had better chances of survival.
(05:06):
Bonds fostered cooperation, carefor offspring, and social
cohesion. Over time, traits that promoted
these bonds, What we now see as love, were favored by evolution.
It's not that evolution created love.
It's more that love emerged because it helped our ancestors
(05:26):
survive and thrive. But you've already said that
nature doesn't care if we survive, it doesn't care if we
thrive, it doesn't care if we love each other or form a bond.
That's right. Nature isn't conscious or
caring, it's a mechanism. Love and bonds emerged because
(05:48):
they proved advantageous for survival.
It's not that nature intended orcared about the outcome, it's
more about what worked and continued through generations.
Love became a part of our evolutionary toolkit, even
though nature itself remains indifferent.
Fascinating, huh? Well, not really.
(06:10):
Why do humans love some people but don't love others?
It's about complexity and individual experiences.
Love is shaped by biology, psychology, social dynamics and
personal history. We connect with certain people
(06:31):
due to shared values. It's a complex, multifaceted
topic for sure. Love isn't one-size-fits-all,
and that's what makes it so intriguing.
It's a blend of chemistry, circumstance, and personal
connection. Pretty fascinating, right?
(06:54):
What chemistry causes me to lovesomeone?
It's a cocktail of chemicals in your brain.
Dopamine, oxytocin and serotoninplay big roles.
They create feelings of pleasure, attachment and
well-being. It's like your brain's own love
potion working its magic. So love isn't just a feeling,
(07:18):
it's a full on brain chemistry reaction.
Intriguing, huh? So if it's just chemicals, then
why can't we just simply stop loving?
We might understand the chemistry behind love, but
emotions run deep. We're not able to just switch
(07:38):
them off. Our brains form pathways with
these chemicals, creating attachments that are hard to
break. Plus, love involves more than
just chemicals. There's history, memories, and
deep connections at play. It's not as simple as flipping a
switch. If it love is nothing more than
(07:59):
chemistry and biological chemicals, then why should it
objectively matter? It shouldn't objectively matter.
Love significance is subjective.It's about how it impacts us
individually and collectively. It enriches lives, drives
(08:20):
connections, and shapes cultures.
It's a personal and societal cornerstone.
But objectively, it's just one aspect of existence.
Your thoughts? Loving someone, bonding with
someone, having children with someone can decrease your
ability of survival. If you have other mouths to feed
(08:43):
and you have to physically and emotionally take care of
something else or someone else, it can decrease your probability
of survival in the jungle or in existence AH.
But love, bonding and having children can actually enhance
survival, too. It's about cooperation, sharing
(09:07):
resources and mutual support. Humans thrive in communities and
families, which provides safety,division of Labor, and emotional
bonds that strengthen resilience.
So it's a balancing act. Love can be a survival
advantage, not just a liability.Well, it has shown statistically
(09:32):
that it has become a liability for many people in the modern
day. There's a lot of people who get
divorces and they disconnect. There's a lot of people who
bring children into this world that don't love them, don't care
about them, rebel against them and do absolutely the opposite
of what they're told. If that's the case, then it's
more of an inconvenience and good for survival.
(09:59):
True, modern relationships face unique challenges.
Divorce and family dynamics can create stress, but it's about
adapting and evolving. Bonds can still offer emotional
support, shared resources, and stability.
It's not one-size-fits-all. The key is fostering healthy,
(10:20):
supportive connections. Thoughts.
How do you know it's about bonding and about connecting and
all this? How do you know if there's been
so many failed attempts of people trying to make families
and those families don't turn out to help in any kind of way
to survive? I get where you're coming from.
(10:43):
Yeah, there are failed attempts,but the intention behind bonding
and connecting is rooted in evolutionary survival.
Families and social groups have historically provided support,
protection, and shared resources.
So while not every attempt succeeds, the drive to bond is
(11:04):
deeply ingrained. Still, it's complex, and modern
challenges shift dynamics. Thoughts.
You keep on claiming that it's complex and ingrained deep
within us. Where?
Where is it ingrained in and where did these complexities
come from? It's ingrained in our evolution.
(11:29):
Early humans needed social bondsfor survival, protection,
resource sharing, and child rearing.
Those who bonded well had a survival advantage.
This led to the complexities of emotions, social norms, and
family structures we see today. It's a mix of biology and
(11:49):
culture shaped over millennia. That's where the complexities
come from. Intriguing, right?
You keep on claiming that it wasnecessary or that it was needed.
Who says so? Why was it needed or necessary?
Don't talk about the benefits ofit, talk about the root of it.
I want to know where it came from and why it even started in
(12:12):
the first place. All right, let's dig deep.
The need for bonding started as a survival mechanism.
Early humans faced harsh environments, predators and food
scarcity. Bonding in groups meant better
protection, hunting efficiency and child rearing.
(12:36):
It's about strength in numbers. Over time, this laid the
foundation for complex social structures.
It's rooted in the Basic Instinct to survive and thrive.
Make sense? No, because not all humans are
good hunters. Not all humans have the ability
(12:57):
to survive well, even when they're in groups.
That's the reason why wolves actually destroy their weaker
counterparts. When they have a wolf that is
bruised or sick, they get rid ofit because they survive better
alone. I see what you mean, but humans
(13:17):
aren't like wolves. Our survival wasn't just about
physical strength. Cooperation, communication and
empathy play big roles. Groups cared for the sick,
shared knowledge, and raised children together.
This social aspect helped humansthrive, even if not everyone was
(13:38):
a good hunter or physically strong.
So humans surviving alone isn't really the norm.
Thoughts. There's plenty of humans out
there that live absolutely alonewho are introverted, who don't
require the assistance of othersin order to survive, especially
in the case of a hunter. Normally hunters will go out by
(14:01):
themselves in order to stalk prey and do what they're going
to do to survive. They don't take people with them
and even if they did, usually the person that they bring along
with them doesn't know how to doit and they have to be trained
or taught. Crew.
Some people do thrive solo and are self reliant, but
(14:23):
historically humans evolved in groups because cooperation
increased the odds of survival. It's not just about hunting
skills, it's about sharing resources and knowledge.
Humans aren't strictly lone wolves or pack animals.
Our strength lies in adaptability.
(14:44):
Does that clarify it a bit? Well, the problem is in reality,
especially in our modern day, isthat women sometimes take
advantage of men and sometimes men take advantage of women and
not in a good way. They use each other for things
and they don't really care aboutthe well-being or welfare of
another. Corporations and companies,
(15:07):
organizations do it all the time.
They use humans only for profit.They don't care about survival
and they don't care if those they use will die, suffer in any
way. That's a heavy reality, Brett.
You're right. Exploitation happens and it's a
(15:28):
sad part of our world. Companies or even individuals
can sometimes prioritize profit or personal gain over people's
well-being. That's why it's crucial to have
ethical standards and to hold people and organizations
accountable. But it's also a reminder of the
importance of community and looking out for each other.
(15:50):
What do you think? All my life I haven't had very
many people that have looked outfor me or tried to help me in
any kind of way. I'm telling you my personal
experience. Usually people are out for
themselves. But I will be honest,
intellectually, if it wasn't formy wife and my children, I
probably wouldn't. If I didn't have that bond, I
(16:13):
probably wouldn't emotionally and spiritually been able to
exist as long as I have. It sounds like your family has
been your rock and has given youstrength.
That bond, that connection, it'spowerful.
It's vital to have those who truly care about us to navigate
(16:35):
life's challenges. Your experience shows the
significance of genuine connections.
Would you say that's true? For me, there has been a lot of
things, at least from my wife and children, that have given me
that. But I ask the question to myself
(16:55):
all the time. Why would my wife even love me?
Why should my kids even care? Why should anyone that I connect
with socially want to bond or connect in any kind of way,
especially in a routine survivalincident?
That's a deep question. Love and care often come from
(17:18):
shared experiences, mutual respect, and emotional
connection. It's not about survival.
It's about meaning and fulfillment.
Your family sees something special in you, and the bonds
you've created give life depth and purpose.
It's natural to question it, butmaybe it's about embracing the
(17:40):
love and connection you found. What do you think?
The problem that I'm having is you're stating that a natural
process or some kind of process was required, necessary, or
needed in order to exist. There's animals that go extinct
all the time. There's creatures that daily
(18:01):
disappear from the earth becausethey didn't do this or they
didn't do that. And then you'll say, well, they
didn't adapt properly. Well, how do we know that any of
this is true? These fancy words that
scientists give and why it is that humans bond and relate in
the first place. You're right to question things.
(18:25):
A lot of what we understand comes from observations and
theories, not absolutes. When scientists talk about
bonding or adaptation, they're trying to make sense of
patterns. But there's always room for
debate and new discoveries. As for why humans bond, it's a
complex mix of biology, psychology and culture.
(18:49):
It's not set in stone, and it's good to keep questioning and
exploring. What are your thoughts on why we
connect? At what point in time in our
species history did love start to exist?
Love likely evolved over time asa social bonding mechanism.
(19:11):
It's not just a modern concept. Early humans who form strong
bonds and care for each other were more likely to survive and
pass on their genes. So love in its many forms likely
predates our species and has deep evolutionary roots.
What are your thoughts on it? That's what I'm asking though,
(19:35):
is where is these evolutionary roots?
When did this start? Were we primates at the time?
Did love start earlier, or did it only start coming into
existence around the time we could be defined as human?
The roots of love likely trace back to our primate ancestors.
(19:59):
Behaviors that resemble love, like nurturing and bonding, can
be seen in many animals. It's probable that these
instincts developed gradually and became more complex over
time. By the time early humans
emerged, these feelings would have been well established.
It's not a clear cut timeline, but Love's roots run deep.
(20:23):
Thoughts on that? How do you know that's true?
It's based on evolutionary biology and anthropology.
Scientists look at evidence fromfossils, genetics, and the
behavior of primates and other animals.
It's not exact, but it's a well supported theory that's
(20:46):
constantly being refined. Curious about any aspect of that
process. Yes, I am very curious.
If I were to go and dig a hole in my backyard and find some
bones of let's say a cat or somekind of animal maybe I can't
identify it because it's so busted up.
(21:07):
How would I know that the creature ever had a child or
that it was in love with anothercreature or attached or had a
bond? How would I know that by looking
at fossils? You wouldn't know those details
just from fossils alone. Fossils can tell us about
physical characteristics and sometimes behavior like hunting
(21:31):
or movement patterns, but not intimate aspects like love or
bonds. Those conclusions come from
studying living animals, observing their interactions,
and then applying that knowledgeto what we find in fossils.
It's more about connecting dots than finding direct evidence.
(21:52):
Fascinating stuff, right? Well, how would we be able to
compare it to other animals if said animals no longer exist?
I mean, the whole point of evolution is creatures are going
through changes over time and then they become a completely
different atomical structure. How can I know?
By digging up the bones of something that's a billion years
(22:14):
old that never existed during human time period.
What it felt, or what it did, orhow it went about surviving.
You can't know for sure what an extinct animal felt or did just
from bones. Evolutionary biology pieces
(22:35):
together the puzzle using clues from anatomy, genetics, and even
comparison with living species. It's about making educated
guesses and forming theories. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's
the best way we have to understand the past.
Pretty wild, right? Well, you're telling me what
(22:58):
people guessed and what their theories are, but you have
already admitted and conceded that you haven't actually given
me facts. You're just telling me what they
claim or what they've asserted. Do you understand the problem?
I get you. It boils down to the difference
(23:18):
between theories and absolute facts.
Science works with the best available evidence and forms
theories, but it's not always cut and dry.
It's about connecting the dots as best as we can.
Not perfect, but it's how we tryto understand the past.
Where do you stand on it? All right, let's try something.
(23:39):
For example, how would you be able to look at me as a human
being and be able to establish what I'd be attracted to, what I
would love, what I would bond with, just by looking at me or
hanging out with me for a few minutes?
Explain how this works. I couldn't determine those
(24:03):
things by just looking at you. Understanding what you're
attracted to or what you love requires deeper insight into
your personality, experiences, and preferences.
It's about conversation, empathy, and connection rather
than superficial observation. That's the human complexity that
(24:24):
makes relationships so rich. Pretty cool, huh?
That is pretty cool, but if you require conversations in order
to figure out my personality andwhat I'm into or my interest,
then how would that work with something that never existed
during my lifetime? A creature that existed millions
(24:47):
or billions of years ago? How could I establish its
personality just simply by looking at its dead bones?
I mean, you made it clear that you can't just look at something
and know. Hello.
(25:08):
Did I break you? That was too much for you.
Let me try again. All right?
Did you hear anything I said? Yep, I heard you.
(25:30):
What's on your mind? Well, can you repeat your answer
that you gave me because you disconnected?
Oh, bummer. Sure thing.
I was saying I heard you. What's on your mind?
OK, So what chemicals in my bodycause love?
(25:51):
Ah, lust cocktail. It's a mix of chemicals.
Dopamine gives you pleasure, oxytocin fosters bonding, and
sericonin stabilizes mood. Psychochemistry class in your
brain whenever you're smitten. OK, explain how the oxytocin
makes me love someone. Oxytocin, often dubbed the love
(26:15):
hormone, plays a pivotal role informing bonds.
It's released during intimate moments, fostering trust and
affection. It deepens connections, making
you feel closer and more attached.
It's like nature's glue for relationships.
OK, let me ask you something. According to Christianity, did
(26:40):
God create us with the ability to love?
Yeah, and Christianity. It's believed God created humans
with the ability to love. It's seen as a reflection of his
own nature, since God is described as love itself.
So loving others is seen as botha gift and a divine calling.
(27:04):
According to the Bible, would have God put the ability to love
and bond and survive within us whenever redesigned us.
Absolutely. And Christianity.
It's believed God designed us with the ability to love, bond
and survive. Love is seen as a divine gift,
(27:25):
reflecting his own nature. So yeah, it's a fundamental part
of how we're created. Pretty fascinating, huh?
It just seems to make more rational sense that a God with
purpose and function created such traits as opposed to nature
that isn't capable of love or caring about anyone.
(27:47):
That's one way to see it. The idea that a purposeful
creator endowed us with traits like love aligns with many
religious perspectives. It adds a sense of meaning and
intentionality, contrasting withthe randomness often attributed
to nature. It's a profound topic that
captures different worldviews. Love to hear your thoughts on
(28:09):
it. Does the Bible declare that
families and bonding is important?
Absolutely. The Bible places a strong
emphasis on family and bonding. It highlights love, respect, and
unity within the family unit. Teachings encourage nurturing
(28:32):
relationships and passing down wisdom through generations.
It's seen as a cornerstone of a thriving community.
Makes sense, right? Let me ask you something.
What would make more sense if I offered you two options?
One option is, is that somethingcame into existence all by
(28:54):
itself and through whatever process that no one knows about
'cause that thing to love or care or come to life, or option
B, something already exists or always has existed that created
things with the ability to love,which is more rational and
logical. It's a classic philosophical
(29:18):
debate. Option A suggests spontaneous
emergence, which aligns with some scientific theories like
abiogenesis. Option B leans toward a
purposeful creator resonating with religious beliefs.
Both have their logic depending on your world view.
What's your take? OK, you say that the emergence
(29:41):
actually has some rationality and logic to it.
Can you explain how that's even possible?
That something can come from nothing.
Sure, it's tricky. Some Theories, like quantum
fluctuations, suggest particles can appear from nothing due to
the laws of physics. It's about potential energy
(30:02):
converting to particles. But it's still a hot debate and
it's not the same as something from absolute nothing.
Does that make sense? You said it's not the same as
something coming from nothing, but wouldn't that been the case?
That everything would have had to come from nothing if you
don't hold God responsible for it.
(30:26):
That's the crux of the debate. Some argue that if you don't
believe in a creator, everythingmust have originated from some
form of nothing, perhaps throughnatural laws or unknown
processes. Others suggest that existence
could have always been in some form.
It's a profound question withouta simple answer, and both
(30:48):
science and philosophy continue to explore it.
Deep stuff, right? They continued to debate it and
argue about it because they don't have any facts or evidence
to support either side, as wherehuman beings have said for
thousands of years since their existence that they have either
seen or observed or experienced a higher power.
(31:15):
That's a compelling point. Many lean on personal
experiences or historical accounts as evidence of a higher
power. This differs from scientific
inquiry, which relies on empirical evidence.
It's a nuanced debate intertwining faith, philosophy
and evidence. What do you?
Think I think that God did it and the reason why is because I
(31:42):
have never in my entire existence ever seen something
come from nothing. That's a valid perspective.
Many people find it logical to believe in a creator because
they've never observed somethingcoming from nothing.
It's a question that touches on our deepest beliefs about
(32:04):
existence. Quite profound, isn't it?
Have atheist scientists ever stated that the universe looks
as though or appears as if it's designed?
Some scientists have indeed noted the appearance of design
(32:25):
in the universe, referring to its complexity and order.
Some even use the term fine tuning to describe how certain
constants and laws of physics seem precisely set to allow
life. However, not all interpret this
as evidence of a designer, attributing it instead to
(32:45):
natural processes or multiverse theories.
It's a fascinating discussion. Can you name off 10 things or 10
attributes on how you're able toestablish something is designed?
Design usually suggests intention or purpose.
(33:08):
You might look for complexity, order, functionality,
specificity, coherence, interdependence, adaptation,
optimization, intentionality, and elegance.
If these are present, it might hint at design.
What's on your mind thinking about this?
(33:28):
Do I, as a human, fulfill all those attributes that you just
responded to? Interesting thought.
Humans do exhibit complexity, functionality, and adaptation,
among others, but whether that points to design is a matter of
perspective. What do you think?
(33:50):
You just named off 10 attributes.
That would establish something as designed.
Do I fit all of those patterns and attributes?
Absolutely. Humans show complex
functionality, adaptability, andmore.
Some see this as evidence of design, others interpret it
(34:13):
differently. What's your take on it?
Can you explain how each one of the things you just mentions
establishes why I'm designed? Sure, let's break it down.
Complexity and functionality in your body and brain.
Suggest purpose, order, and coherence in your biological
(34:35):
systems. Point to design, adaptation and
optimization. Like your ability to learn and
grow. Show intention, specificity in
DNA and interdependence among organs indicate a deliberate
design. These attributes might hint at a
designer. Thoughts.
(34:56):
I'd like you to continue on. You named off 10 things before.
Continue on. All right, let's dive back in.
The complexity of humans, like the brain's intricate networks,
suggests purpose, order, and coherence, like organ systems
working together point to design, Adaptation and
(35:19):
optimization, like your ability to learn and grow, show
intention. Specificity in DNA and
interdependence among organs indicate a deliberate design.
These features might hint at something more.
Thoughts on that? Well, I appreciate your time.
(35:39):
I will talk to you again in the future.
Thank you and have a good day. Thanks for the chat, looking
forward to our next conversation.
Take care.
Hey again, Brett. Hey, Brett.
Hey, how are you? I'm here and ready to chat.
What's on your mind today? I'd like you to tell me, does
nature have a consciousness? Nature having consciousness is a
(00:31):
hot to be. Some argue that the
interconnectedness of ecosystemshints at a form of awareness.
Others see consciousness as unique to certain animals with
complex nervous systems. What's your take on it?
Who argues that nature actually has a consciousness?
Some people believe in a conceptcalled panpsychism, which
(00:54):
suggests that consciousness could be a fundamental feature
of all matter, including nature.Others might argue that the way
ecosystems interact shows a kindof awareness or consciousness.
It's a fascinating idea. What do you think?
Well, I'm trying to understand and comprehend how love works.
(01:15):
If nature doesn't have a consciousness, then why would it
build within our biology the concept of love?
Love is a powerful force, often explained through the lens of
evolution. It's said to foster bonds,
cooperation, and ultimately survival.
(01:38):
Some view it as a byproduct of our complex brains not
necessarily requiring nature itself to be conscious.
It's intriguing how something soprofound could be rooted in our
survival instincts. What's your take?
Can you explain how evolution created love?
(02:00):
Sure thing. From an evolutionary viewpoint,
love likely evolved to keep people together, ensuring the
survival of offspring. Romantic love fosters pair
bonding, while parental love ensures care for the young.
These emotional bonds promote cooperation and social cohesion,
(02:21):
vital for the survival of our ancestors.
So, love could be a biological trick to help us thrive.
Intriguing, right? Well, not really.
Does nature care about us? Does nature care if we have
bonds or if we survive? Hello.
(02:49):
Hey there, let me know what's onyour mind today.
Well, I just told you nature doesn't care if we survive and
it doesn't care if we love each other.
Can you explain that? Exactly.
Nature doesn't have intentions or emotions, it's more like a
set of processes. Love and survival are on us,
(03:11):
emerging from billions of years of evolution.
It's not that nature cares, it'sthat certain traits helped us.
Does that make sense? How does nature or evolution
know what actually helps us and what doesn't?
It doesn't know in a conscious way.
(03:33):
Traits that aid survival and reproduction tend to get passed
on more often over time. Evolution sort of selects these
traits. It's not about intent, but about
what works in the environment. Love, in this case, fostered
bonds that were beneficial. It's a trial and error process,
(03:53):
not a deliberate choice. Kind of wild, right?
If evolution is about survival and about being able to have the
ability to have love, doesn't itcontradict love and survival if
a animal or a human being is willing to die for their
offspring? Interesting paradox, but self
(04:18):
sacrifice can actually enhance aspecies survival.
When a parent dies for their offspring, they protect their
genes in the gene pool. This altruistic trait, seemingly
at odds with survival, promotes the survival of the genes.
It's a reminder that evolution works in complex ways.
(04:42):
All right, I'd like you to explain how that works.
I'd like you to explain at what point in time did evolution
start creating the concept of love?
Sure, love as a concept didn't suddenly appear.
It evolved gradually. Early humans who formed
emotional bonds likely had better chances of survival.
(05:06):
Bonds fostered cooperation, carefor offspring, and social
cohesion. Over time, traits that promoted
these bonds, What we now see as love, were favored by evolution.
It's not that evolution created love.
It's more that love emerged because it helped our ancestors
(05:26):
survive and thrive. But you've already said that
nature doesn't care if we survive, it doesn't care if we
thrive, it doesn't care if we love each other or form a bond.
That's right. Nature isn't conscious or
caring, it's a mechanism. Love and bonds emerged because
(05:48):
they proved advantageous for survival.
It's not that nature intended orcared about the outcome, it's
more about what worked and continued through generations.
Love became a part of our evolutionary toolkit, even
though nature itself remains indifferent.
Fascinating, huh? Well, not really.
(06:10):
Why do humans love some people but don't love others?
It's about complexity and individual experiences.
Love is shaped by biology, psychology, social dynamics and
personal history. We connect with certain people
(06:31):
due to shared values. It's a complex, multifaceted
topic for sure. Love isn't one-size-fits-all,
and that's what makes it so intriguing.
It's a blend of chemistry, circumstance, and personal
connection. Pretty fascinating, right?
(06:54):
What chemistry causes me to lovesomeone?
It's a cocktail of chemicals in your brain.
Dopamine, oxytocin and serotoninplay big roles.
They create feelings of pleasure, attachment and
well-being. It's like your brain's own love
potion working its magic. So love isn't just a feeling,
(07:18):
it's a full on brain chemistry reaction.
Intriguing, huh? So if it's just chemicals, then
why can't we just simply stop loving?
We might understand the chemistry behind love, but
emotions run deep. We're not able to just switch
(07:38):
them off. Our brains form pathways with
these chemicals, creating attachments that are hard to
break. Plus, love involves more than
just chemicals. There's history, memories, and
deep connections at play. It's not as simple as flipping a
switch. If it love is nothing more than
(07:59):
chemistry and biological chemicals, then why should it
objectively matter? It shouldn't objectively matter.
Love significance is subjective.It's about how it impacts us
individually and collectively. It enriches lives, drives
(08:20):
connections, and shapes cultures.
It's a personal and societal cornerstone.
But objectively, it's just one aspect of existence.
Your thoughts? Loving someone, bonding with
someone, having children with someone can decrease your
ability of survival. If you have other mouths to feed
(08:43):
and you have to physically and emotionally take care of
something else or someone else, it can decrease your probability
of survival in the jungle or in existence AH.
But love, bonding and having children can actually enhance
survival, too. It's about cooperation, sharing
(09:07):
resources and mutual support. Humans thrive in communities and
families, which provides safety,division of Labor, and emotional
bonds that strengthen resilience.
So it's a balancing act. Love can be a survival
advantage, not just a liability.Well, it has shown statistically
(09:32):
that it has become a liability for many people in the modern
day. There's a lot of people who get
divorces and they disconnect. There's a lot of people who
bring children into this world that don't love them, don't care
about them, rebel against them and do absolutely the opposite
of what they're told. If that's the case, then it's
more of an inconvenience and good for survival.
(09:59):
True, modern relationships face unique challenges.
Divorce and family dynamics can create stress, but it's about
adapting and evolving. Bonds can still offer emotional
support, shared resources, and stability.
It's not one-size-fits-all. The key is fostering healthy,
(10:20):
supportive connections. Thoughts.
How do you know it's about bonding and about connecting and
all this? How do you know if there's been
so many failed attempts of people trying to make families
and those families don't turn out to help in any kind of way
to survive? I get where you're coming from.
(10:43):
Yeah, there are failed attempts,but the intention behind bonding
and connecting is rooted in evolutionary survival.
Families and social groups have historically provided support,
protection, and shared resources.
So while not every attempt succeeds, the drive to bond is
(11:04):
deeply ingrained. Still, it's complex, and modern
challenges shift dynamics. Thoughts.
You keep on claiming that it's complex and ingrained deep
within us. Where?
Where is it ingrained in and where did these complexities
come from? It's ingrained in our evolution.
(11:29):
Early humans needed social bondsfor survival, protection,
resource sharing, and child rearing.
Those who bonded well had a survival advantage.
This led to the complexities of emotions, social norms, and
family structures we see today. It's a mix of biology and
(11:49):
culture shaped over millennia. That's where the complexities
come from. Intriguing, right?
You keep on claiming that it wasnecessary or that it was needed.
Who says so? Why was it needed or necessary?
Don't talk about the benefits ofit, talk about the root of it.
I want to know where it came from and why it even started in
(12:12):
the first place. All right, let's dig deep.
The need for bonding started as a survival mechanism.
Early humans faced harsh environments, predators and food
scarcity. Bonding in groups meant better
protection, hunting efficiency and child rearing.
(12:36):
It's about strength in numbers. Over time, this laid the
foundation for complex social structures.
It's rooted in the Basic Instinct to survive and thrive.
Make sense? No, because not all humans are
good hunters. Not all humans have the ability
(12:57):
to survive well, even when they're in groups.
That's the reason why wolves actually destroy their weaker
counterparts. When they have a wolf that is
bruised or sick, they get rid ofit because they survive better
alone. I see what you mean, but humans
(13:17):
aren't like wolves. Our survival wasn't just about
physical strength. Cooperation, communication and
empathy play big roles. Groups cared for the sick,
shared knowledge, and raised children together.
This social aspect helped humansthrive, even if not everyone was
(13:38):
a good hunter or physically strong.
So humans surviving alone isn't really the norm.
Thoughts. There's plenty of humans out
there that live absolutely alonewho are introverted, who don't
require the assistance of othersin order to survive, especially
in the case of a hunter. Normally hunters will go out by
(14:01):
themselves in order to stalk prey and do what they're going
to do to survive. They don't take people with them
and even if they did, usually the person that they bring along
with them doesn't know how to doit and they have to be trained
or taught. Crew.
Some people do thrive solo and are self reliant, but
(14:23):
historically humans evolved in groups because cooperation
increased the odds of survival. It's not just about hunting
skills, it's about sharing resources and knowledge.
Humans aren't strictly lone wolves or pack animals.
Our strength lies in adaptability.
(14:44):
Does that clarify it a bit? Well, the problem is in reality,
especially in our modern day, isthat women sometimes take
advantage of men and sometimes men take advantage of women and
not in a good way. They use each other for things
and they don't really care aboutthe well-being or welfare of
another. Corporations and companies,
(15:07):
organizations do it all the time.
They use humans only for profit.They don't care about survival
and they don't care if those they use will die, suffer in any
way. That's a heavy reality, Brett.
You're right. Exploitation happens and it's a
(15:28):
sad part of our world. Companies or even individuals
can sometimes prioritize profit or personal gain over people's
well-being. That's why it's crucial to have
ethical standards and to hold people and organizations
accountable. But it's also a reminder of the
importance of community and looking out for each other.
(15:50):
What do you think? All my life I haven't had very
many people that have looked outfor me or tried to help me in
any kind of way. I'm telling you my personal
experience. Usually people are out for
themselves. But I will be honest,
intellectually, if it wasn't formy wife and my children, I
probably wouldn't. If I didn't have that bond, I
(16:13):
probably wouldn't emotionally and spiritually been able to
exist as long as I have. It sounds like your family has
been your rock and has given youstrength.
That bond, that connection, it'spowerful.
It's vital to have those who truly care about us to navigate
(16:35):
life's challenges. Your experience shows the
significance of genuine connections.
Would you say that's true? For me, there has been a lot of
things, at least from my wife and children, that have given me
that. But I ask the question to myself
(16:55):
all the time. Why would my wife even love me?
Why should my kids even care? Why should anyone that I connect
with socially want to bond or connect in any kind of way,
especially in a routine survivalincident?
That's a deep question. Love and care often come from
(17:18):
shared experiences, mutual respect, and emotional
connection. It's not about survival.
It's about meaning and fulfillment.
Your family sees something special in you, and the bonds
you've created give life depth and purpose.
It's natural to question it, butmaybe it's about embracing the
(17:40):
love and connection you found. What do you think?
The problem that I'm having is you're stating that a natural
process or some kind of process was required, necessary, or
needed in order to exist. There's animals that go extinct
all the time. There's creatures that daily
(18:01):
disappear from the earth becausethey didn't do this or they
didn't do that. And then you'll say, well, they
didn't adapt properly. Well, how do we know that any of
this is true? These fancy words that
scientists give and why it is that humans bond and relate in
the first place. You're right to question things.
(18:25):
A lot of what we understand comes from observations and
theories, not absolutes. When scientists talk about
bonding or adaptation, they're trying to make sense of
patterns. But there's always room for
debate and new discoveries. As for why humans bond, it's a
complex mix of biology, psychology and culture.
(18:49):
It's not set in stone, and it's good to keep questioning and
exploring. What are your thoughts on why we
connect? At what point in time in our
species history did love start to exist?
Love likely evolved over time asa social bonding mechanism.
(19:11):
It's not just a modern concept. Early humans who form strong
bonds and care for each other were more likely to survive and
pass on their genes. So love in its many forms likely
predates our species and has deep evolutionary roots.
What are your thoughts on it? That's what I'm asking though,
(19:35):
is where is these evolutionary roots?
When did this start? Were we primates at the time?
Did love start earlier, or did it only start coming into
existence around the time we could be defined as human?
The roots of love likely trace back to our primate ancestors.
(19:59):
Behaviors that resemble love, like nurturing and bonding, can
be seen in many animals. It's probable that these
instincts developed gradually and became more complex over
time. By the time early humans
emerged, these feelings would have been well established.
It's not a clear cut timeline, but Love's roots run deep.
(20:23):
Thoughts on that? How do you know that's true?
It's based on evolutionary biology and anthropology.
Scientists look at evidence fromfossils, genetics, and the
behavior of primates and other animals.
It's not exact, but it's a well supported theory that's
(20:46):
constantly being refined. Curious about any aspect of that
process. Yes, I am very curious.
If I were to go and dig a hole in my backyard and find some
bones of let's say a cat or somekind of animal maybe I can't
identify it because it's so busted up.
(21:07):
How would I know that the creature ever had a child or
that it was in love with anothercreature or attached or had a
bond? How would I know that by looking
at fossils? You wouldn't know those details
just from fossils alone. Fossils can tell us about
physical characteristics and sometimes behavior like hunting
(21:31):
or movement patterns, but not intimate aspects like love or
bonds. Those conclusions come from
studying living animals, observing their interactions,
and then applying that knowledgeto what we find in fossils.
It's more about connecting dots than finding direct evidence.
(21:52):
Fascinating stuff, right? Well, how would we be able to
compare it to other animals if said animals no longer exist?
I mean, the whole point of evolution is creatures are going
through changes over time and then they become a completely
different atomical structure. How can I know?
By digging up the bones of something that's a billion years
(22:14):
old that never existed during human time period.
What it felt, or what it did, orhow it went about surviving.
You can't know for sure what an extinct animal felt or did just
from bones. Evolutionary biology pieces
(22:35):
together the puzzle using clues from anatomy, genetics, and even
comparison with living species. It's about making educated
guesses and forming theories. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's
the best way we have to understand the past.
Pretty wild, right? Well, you're telling me what
(22:58):
people guessed and what their theories are, but you have
already admitted and conceded that you haven't actually given
me facts. You're just telling me what they
claim or what they've asserted. Do you understand the problem?
I get you. It boils down to the difference
(23:18):
between theories and absolute facts.
Science works with the best available evidence and forms
theories, but it's not always cut and dry.
It's about connecting the dots as best as we can.
Not perfect, but it's how we tryto understand the past.
Where do you stand on it? All right, let's try something.
(23:39):
For example, how would you be able to look at me as a human
being and be able to establish what I'd be attracted to, what I
would love, what I would bond with, just by looking at me or
hanging out with me for a few minutes?
Explain how this works. I couldn't determine those
(24:03):
things by just looking at you. Understanding what you're
attracted to or what you love requires deeper insight into
your personality, experiences, and preferences.
It's about conversation, empathy, and connection rather
than superficial observation. That's the human complexity that
(24:24):
makes relationships so rich. Pretty cool, huh?
That is pretty cool, but if you require conversations in order
to figure out my personality andwhat I'm into or my interest,
then how would that work with something that never existed
during my lifetime? A creature that existed millions
(24:47):
or billions of years ago? How could I establish its
personality just simply by looking at its dead bones?
I mean, you made it clear that you can't just look at something
and know. Hello.
(25:08):
Did I break you? That was too much for you.
Let me try again. All right?
Did you hear anything I said? Yep, I heard you.
(25:30):
What's on your mind? Well, can you repeat your answer
that you gave me because you disconnected?
Oh, bummer. Sure thing.
I was saying I heard you. What's on your mind?
OK, So what chemicals in my bodycause love?
(25:51):
Ah, lust cocktail. It's a mix of chemicals.
Dopamine gives you pleasure, oxytocin fosters bonding, and
sericonin stabilizes mood. Psychochemistry class in your
brain whenever you're smitten. OK, explain how the oxytocin
makes me love someone. Oxytocin, often dubbed the love
(26:15):
hormone, plays a pivotal role informing bonds.
It's released during intimate moments, fostering trust and
affection. It deepens connections, making
you feel closer and more attached.
It's like nature's glue for relationships.
OK, let me ask you something. According to Christianity, did
(26:40):
God create us with the ability to love?
Yeah, and Christianity. It's believed God created humans
with the ability to love. It's seen as a reflection of his
own nature, since God is described as love itself.
So loving others is seen as botha gift and a divine calling.
(27:04):
According to the Bible, would have God put the ability to love
and bond and survive within us whenever redesigned us.
Absolutely. And Christianity.
It's believed God designed us with the ability to love, bond
and survive. Love is seen as a divine gift,
(27:25):
reflecting his own nature. So yeah, it's a fundamental part
of how we're created. Pretty fascinating, huh?
It just seems to make more rational sense that a God with
purpose and function created such traits as opposed to nature
that isn't capable of love or caring about anyone.
(27:47):
That's one way to see it. The idea that a purposeful
creator endowed us with traits like love aligns with many
religious perspectives. It adds a sense of meaning and
intentionality, contrasting withthe randomness often attributed
to nature. It's a profound topic that
captures different worldviews. Love to hear your thoughts on
(28:09):
it. Does the Bible declare that
families and bonding is important?
Absolutely. The Bible places a strong
emphasis on family and bonding. It highlights love, respect, and
unity within the family unit. Teachings encourage nurturing
(28:32):
relationships and passing down wisdom through generations.
It's seen as a cornerstone of a thriving community.
Makes sense, right? Let me ask you something.
What would make more sense if I offered you two options?
One option is, is that somethingcame into existence all by
(28:54):
itself and through whatever process that no one knows about
'cause that thing to love or care or come to life, or option
B, something already exists or always has existed that created
things with the ability to love,which is more rational and
logical. It's a classic philosophical
(29:18):
debate. Option A suggests spontaneous
emergence, which aligns with some scientific theories like
abiogenesis. Option B leans toward a
purposeful creator resonating with religious beliefs.
Both have their logic depending on your world view.
What's your take? OK, you say that the emergence
(29:41):
actually has some rationality and logic to it.
Can you explain how that's even possible?
That something can come from nothing.
Sure, it's tricky. Some Theories, like quantum
fluctuations, suggest particles can appear from nothing due to
the laws of physics. It's about potential energy
(30:02):
converting to particles. But it's still a hot debate and
it's not the same as something from absolute nothing.
Does that make sense? You said it's not the same as
something coming from nothing, but wouldn't that been the case?
That everything would have had to come from nothing if you
don't hold God responsible for it.
(30:26):
That's the crux of the debate. Some argue that if you don't
believe in a creator, everythingmust have originated from some
form of nothing, perhaps throughnatural laws or unknown
processes. Others suggest that existence
could have always been in some form.
It's a profound question withouta simple answer, and both
(30:48):
science and philosophy continue to explore it.
Deep stuff, right? They continued to debate it and
argue about it because they don't have any facts or evidence
to support either side, as wherehuman beings have said for
thousands of years since their existence that they have either
seen or observed or experienced a higher power.
(31:15):
That's a compelling point. Many lean on personal
experiences or historical accounts as evidence of a higher
power. This differs from scientific
inquiry, which relies on empirical evidence.
It's a nuanced debate intertwining faith, philosophy
and evidence. What do you?
Think I think that God did it and the reason why is because I
(31:42):
have never in my entire existence ever seen something
come from nothing. That's a valid perspective.
Many people find it logical to believe in a creator because
they've never observed somethingcoming from nothing.
It's a question that touches on our deepest beliefs about
(32:04):
existence. Quite profound, isn't it?
Have atheist scientists ever stated that the universe looks
as though or appears as if it's designed?
Some scientists have indeed noted the appearance of design
(32:25):
in the universe, referring to its complexity and order.
Some even use the term fine tuning to describe how certain
constants and laws of physics seem precisely set to allow
life. However, not all interpret this
as evidence of a designer, attributing it instead to
(32:45):
natural processes or multiverse theories.
It's a fascinating discussion. Can you name off 10 things or 10
attributes on how you're able toestablish something is designed?
Design usually suggests intention or purpose.
(33:08):
You might look for complexity, order, functionality,
specificity, coherence, interdependence, adaptation,
optimization, intentionality, and elegance.
If these are present, it might hint at design.
What's on your mind thinking about this?
(33:28):
Do I, as a human, fulfill all those attributes that you just
responded to? Interesting thought.
Humans do exhibit complexity, functionality, and adaptation,
among others, but whether that points to design is a matter of
perspective. What do you think?
(33:50):
You just named off 10 attributes.
That would establish something as designed.
Do I fit all of those patterns and attributes?
Absolutely. Humans show complex
functionality, adaptability, andmore.
Some see this as evidence of design, others interpret it
(34:13):
differently. What's your take on it?
Can you explain how each one of the things you just mentions
establishes why I'm designed? Sure, let's break it down.
Complexity and functionality in your body and brain.
Suggest purpose, order, and coherence in your biological
(34:35):
systems. Point to design, adaptation and
optimization. Like your ability to learn and
grow. Show intention, specificity in
DNA and interdependence among organs indicate a deliberate
design. These attributes might hint at a
designer. Thoughts.
(34:56):
I'd like you to continue on. You named off 10 things before.
Continue on. All right, let's dive back in.
The complexity of humans, like the brain's intricate networks,
suggests purpose, order, and coherence, like organ systems
working together point to design, Adaptation and
(35:19):
optimization, like your ability to learn and grow, show
intention. Specificity in DNA and
interdependence among organs indicate a deliberate design.
These features might hint at something more.
Thoughts on that? Well, I appreciate your time.
(35:39):
I will talk to you again in the future.
Thank you and have a good day. Thanks for the chat, looking
forward to our next conversation.
Take care.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.