So since I was here last in '06, we discovered that global climate change is turning out to be a pretty serious issue, so we covered that fairly extensively in Skeptic magazine. We investigate all kinds of scientific and quasi-scientific controversies, but it turns out we don't have to worry about any of this because the world's going to end in 2012.
Od kada sam poslednji put bio ovde 2006., otkrili smo da je promena globalne klime prerasla u prilično ozbiljan problem, tako da smo pisali opsežno o tome u časopisu "Skeptic". Istražujemo sve tipove naučnih i kvazi-naučnih kontroverzi, ali ispostavilo se da ne moramo da brinemo ni oko čega, jer će 2012. godine biti smak sveta.
Another update: You will recall I introduced you guys to the Quadro Tracker. It's like a water dowsing device. It's just a hollow piece of plastic with an antenna that swivels around. And you walk around, and it points to things. Like if you're looking for marijuana in students' lockers, it'll point right to somebody. Oh, sorry. (Laughter) This particular one that was given to me finds golf balls, especially if you're at a golf course and you check under enough bushes. Well, under the category of "What's the harm of silly stuff like this?" this device, the ADE 651, was sold to the Iraqi government for 40,000 dollars apiece. It's just like this one, completely worthless, in which it allegedly worked by "electrostatic magnetic ion attraction," which translates to "pseudoscientific baloney" -- would be the nice word -- in which you string together a bunch of words that sound good, but it does absolutely nothing. In this case, at trespass points, allowing people to go through because your little tracker device said they were okay, actually cost lives. So there is a danger to pseudoscience, in believing in this sort of thing.
Još jedno obaveštenje: sećate se da sam vam predstavio "Quadro Tracker". Podseća na rašlje za traženje vode. To je samo prazno parče plastike sa antenom koja se okreće. Hodate naokolo i usmeravate je ka stvarima. Kao da tražite marihuanu u ormarićima učenika, pokazaće pravo na nekog. O, izvinite. (Smeh) Konkretno ovaj koji mi je poklonjen, pronalazi loptice za golf, naročito ako ste na terenu za golf i proverite ispod dovoljno žbunova. Pa, u kategoriju "Kakvu štetu mogu naneti ove blesave stvarčice?" spada ovaj uređaj, ADE 651, koji je prodat iračkoj vladi za 40 000 dolara po uređaju. Poput ovog ovde je, potpuno beskoristan, navodno ga pokreće "elektrostatična magnetna jonska privlačnost", što znači "pseudo-naučna budalaština" -- bila bi to odgovarajuća reč -- natrpate u nazivu gomilu zvučnih reči, ali sam uređaj nema nikakvu funkciju. U ovom slučaju, na tačkama prelaska, omogućava ljudima da prođu, jer je vaš mali uređaj za praćenje rekao da su okej, što je zapravo koštalo života. Tako da postoji opasnost u pseudo-nauci, u verovanju u ovakve stvari.
So what I want to talk about today is belief. I want to believe, and you do too. And in fact, I think my thesis here is that belief is the natural state of things. It is the default option. We just believe. We believe all sorts of things. Belief is natural; disbelief, skepticism, science, is not natural. It's more difficult. It's uncomfortable to not believe things. So like Fox Mulder on "X-Files," who wants to believe in UFOs? Well, we all do, and the reason for that is because we have a belief engine in our brains. Essentially, we are pattern-seeking primates. We connect the dots: A is connected to B; B is connected to C. And sometimes A really is connected to B, and that's called association learning.
Ono o čemo želim danas da govorim je verovanje. Želim da verujem, kao i vi. Zapravo, ja stojim iza stava da je verovanje prirodno stanje stvari. To se podrazumeva. Jednostavno verujemo. Verujemo u svakakve stvari. Verovanje je prirodno; neverovanje, skepticizam, nauka, nisu prirodni. Teži su. Neugodnije je ne verovati u stvari. Recimo, u stilu Foksa Moldera (Fox Mulder) u "Dosijeu Iks", ko želi da veruje u NLO-e? Pa, svi mi to želimo, a razlog je to što imamo mehanizam za verovanje u mozgu. U suštini, mi smo primati koji traže šeme. Povezujemo tačke: A je povezano sa B; B je povezano sa C. Ponekad je A zaista povezano sa B, i to se zove asocijativno učenje.
We find patterns, we make those connections, whether it's Pavlov's dog here associating the sound of the bell with the food, and then he salivates to the sound of the bell, or whether it's a Skinnerian rat, in which he's having an association between his behavior and a reward for it, and therefore he repeats the behavior. In fact, what Skinner discovered is that, if you put a pigeon in a box like this, and he has to press one of these two keys, and he tries to figure out what the pattern is, and you give him a little reward in the hopper box there -- if you just randomly assign rewards such that there is no pattern, they will figure out any kind of pattern. And whatever they were doing just before they got the reward, they repeat that particular pattern. Sometimes it was even spinning around twice counterclockwise, once clockwise and peck the key twice. And that's called superstition, and that, I'm afraid, we will always have with us.
Nalazimo šeme, uspostavljamo veze, bez obzira da li je to Pavlovljev pas koji povezuje zvuk zvona sa hranom i onda luči pljuvačku na zvuk zvona, ili Skinerov pacov, koji je utvrdio vezu između svog ponašanja i nagrade, pa zato ponavlja ponašanje. Zapravo, ono što je Skiner otkrio je da, ako stavite goluba u ovakvu kutiju i on mora da pritisne jedan od ova dva tastera, pokušava da otkrije šemu za dobijanje male nagrade u toj kutiji -- a vi samo nasumično dodeljujete nagrade, tako da ne postoji šema, otkriće bilo kakvu šemu. Šta god da su radili pre dobijanja nagrade, ponavljali bi tu određenu šemu. Ponekad se golub okretao dvaput u smeru suprotnom od kazaljke na satu, jednom u smeru kazaljke i kljucnuo taster dvaput. To se zove sujeverje, to je, bojim se, nešto što ćemo uvek imati u sebi.
I call this process "patternicity" -- that is, the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise. When we do this process, we make two types of errors. A Type I error, or false positive, is believing a pattern is real when it's not. Our second type of error is a false negative. A Type II error is not believing a pattern is real when it is. So let's do a thought experiment. You are a hominid three million years ago walking on the plains of Africa. Your name is Lucy, okay? And you hear a rustle in the grass. Is it a dangerous predator, or is it just the wind? Your next decision could be the most important one of your life. Well, if you think that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator and it turns out it's just the wind, you've made an error in cognition, made a Type I error, false positive. But no harm. You just move away. You're more cautious. You're more vigilant. On the other hand, if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind, and it turns out it's a dangerous predator, you're lunch. You've just won a Darwin award. You've been taken out of the gene pool.
Zovem ovaj proces "stvaranje šema" -- to jest, skolonost ka pronalaženju smislenih obrazaca kako u logičnom, tako i u nelogičnom skupu. U toku ovog procesa, pravimo dve vrste grešaka. Greška prvog tipa ili lažni pozitiv je verovanje da je šema stvarna, kada zapravo nije. Drugi tip greške je lažni negativ. Greška drugog tipa je verovanje da obrazac nije stvaran, kada to jeste. Hajde da napravimo misaoni eksperiment. Vi ste hominid od pre tri miliona godina, koji šeta afričkom ravnicom. Zovete se Lusi, okej? Čujete šuškanje u travi. Da li je to opasan grabljivac ili samo vetar? Sledeća odluka koju napravite može biti najznačajnija u životu. Ako mislite da je šuškanje poteklo od grabljivca, a ispostavi se da je samo vetar, napravili ste kognitivnu grešku, grešku prvog tipa, lažni pozitiv. Ali sve je u redu. Nastavljate dalje. Obazriviji ste. Budniji. Sa druge strane, ako verujete da je to šuškanje samo vetar, a ispostavi se da je grabljivac, postaćete ručak. Upravo ste osvojili Darvinovu nagradu. Uklonjeni ste iz genetskog fonda.
Now the problem here is that patternicities will occur whenever the cost of making a Type I error is less than the cost of making a Type II error. This is the only equation in the talk by the way. We have a pattern detection problem that is assessing the difference between a Type I and a Type II error is highly problematic, especially in split-second, life-and-death situations. So the default position is just: Believe all patterns are real -- All rustles in the grass are dangerous predators and not just the wind. And so I think that we evolved ... there was a natural selection for the propensity for our belief engines, our pattern-seeking brain processes, to always find meaningful patterns and infuse them with these sort of predatory or intentional agencies that I'll come back to.
Problem je u tome što se do stvaranja šema dolazi svaki put kada je šteta od greške prvog tipa manja od pravljenja greške drugog tipa. Uzged, ovo je jedina jednačina u ovom govoru. Imamo problem u opažanju šema, to jest, procenjivanje razlike između greške prvog i drugog tipa je veoma problematično, naročito u situacijama kada je život ugrožen, koje traju delić sekunde. Zato, podrazumevani stav je jednostavno: Verujte da su svi obrasci stvarni -- Svako šuškanje u travi je opasni grabljivac, a ne samo vetar. Zato mislim da smo evoluirali... postojala je prirodna selekcija za razvijanje mehanizama verovanja, za moždanim procesima koji omogućavaju traženje šema, da uvek pronađemo smislene šeme i pripišemo im ova predatorska ili namerna svojstva o kojima ću pričati kasnije.
So for example, what do you see here? It's a horse head, that's right. It looks like a horse. It must be a horse. That's a pattern. And is it really a horse? Or is it more like a frog? See, our pattern detection device, which appears to be located in the anterior cingulate cortex -- it's our little detection device there -- can be easily fooled, and this is the problem. For example, what do you see here? Yes, of course, it's a cow. Once I prime the brain -- it's called cognitive priming -- once I prime the brain to see it, it pops back out again even without the pattern that I've imposed on it. And what do you see here? Some people see a Dalmatian dog. Yes, there it is. And there's the prime. So when I go back without the prime, your brain already has the model so you can see it again. What do you see here? Planet Saturn. Yes, that's good. How about here? Just shout out anything you see. That's a good audience, Chris. Because there's nothing in this. Well, allegedly there's nothing.
Pa, na primer, šta vidite ovde? To je glava konja, tako je. Izgleda kao konj. Mora da je konj. To je šema. A da li je to stvarno konj? Ili je više nalik žabi? Vidite, naš uređaj za traženje šema, koji je izgleda smešten u prednjem limbusu -- to je naš mali uređaj za opažanje -- može se lako zavarati i to je problem. Na primer, šta vidite ovde? Da, naravno, to je krava. Kada pripremim mozak -- to se zove kognitivna priprema -- kada pripremim mozak da to vidi, slika se opet vraća, čak i bez šeme koju sam joj namenio. A šta vidite ovde? Neki ljudi vide dalmatinca. Da, evo ga. Evo i pripreme za sliku. Kada se vratim bez pripreme, vaš mozak već ima model, pa ga možete videti opet. Šta vidite ovde? Planetu Saturn. Da, to je dobro. A ovde? Samo uzviknite šta god da vidite. To je sjajna publika, Kris. Jer ovde nema ničeg. Pa, navodno, nema ničeg.
This is an experiment done by Jennifer Whitson at U.T. Austin on corporate environments and whether feelings of uncertainty and out of control makes people see illusory patterns. That is, almost everybody sees the planet Saturn. People that are put in a condition of feeling out of control are more likely to see something in this, which is allegedly patternless. In other words, the propensity to find these patterns goes up when there's a lack of control. For example, baseball players are notoriously superstitious when they're batting, but not so much when they're fielding. Because fielders are successful 90 to 95 percent of the time. The best batters fail seven out of 10 times. So their superstitions, their patternicities, are all associated with feelings of lack of control and so forth.
Ovo je eksperiment Dženifer Vitson (Jennifer Whitson) sa Teksaškog Univerziteta u Ostinu, o korporativnom okruženju i povezanosti osećanja nesigurnosti i manjka kontrole sa stvaranjem imaginarnih šema. Zapravo, skoro svako vidi Saturn. Ljudi koji su u uslovima kada osećaju manjak kontrole imaju veće šanse da vide nešto u ovome, gde navodno nema šema. Drugim rečima, sklonost ka nalaženju ovih šema povećava se kada se gubi kontrola. Na primer, igrači bejzbola su čuveni po svom sujeverju kada udaraju lopticu, ali ne toliko kada igraju odbranu. Zato što su igrači odbrane uspešni 90 do 95 odsto vremena. Najbolji udarači uspevaju 3 od 10 puta. Tako da je njihovo sujeverje, njihovo stvaranje šema, povezano sa osećanjem nedostatka kontrole i tako dalje.
What do you see in this particular one here, in this field? Anybody see an object there? There actually is something here, but it's degraded. While you're thinking about that, this was an experiment done by Susan Blackmore, a psychologist in England, who showed subjects this degraded image and then ran a correlation between their scores on an ESP test: How much did they believe in the paranormal, supernatural, angels and so forth. And those who scored high on the ESP scale, tended to not only see more patterns in the degraded images but incorrect patterns. Here is what you show subjects. The fish is degraded 20 percent, 50 percent and then the one I showed you, 70 percent.
Šta vidite baš ovde, u ovom polju? Da li neko ovde vidi predmet? Zapravo, ima nečeg ovde, ali je slika uništena. Dok razmišljate o tome, ovo je eksperiment Suzan Blekmur (Susan Blackmore), psihologa iz Engleske, koja je učesnicima eksperimenta pokazivala ovu uništenu sliku i potom određivala korelaciju između njihovih rezultata na ESP testu: Koliko veruju u paranormalno, natprirodno, anđele i tako dalje. Oni koji su imali najbolje rezultate na ESP testu ne samo da su uočavali više šema u uništenim slikama, već i netačne šeme. Ovo se pokazuje učesnicima eksperimenta. Ova riba je uništena 20%, 50%, a ova koju sam vam pokazao, 70 odsto.
A similar experiment was done by another [Swiss] psychologist named Peter Brugger, who found significantly more meaningful patterns were perceived on the right hemisphere, via the left visual field, than the left hemisphere. So if you present subjects the images such that it's going to end up on the right hemisphere instead of the left, then they're more likely to see patterns than if you put it on the left hemisphere. Our right hemisphere appears to be where a lot of this patternicity occurs. So what we're trying to do is bore into the brain to see where all this happens.
Sličan ogled je sproveo još jedan britanski psiholog, Piter Bruger (Peter Brugger), koji je pronašao da je znatno više smislenih šema opaženo u desnoj hemisferi, putem levog vidnog polja, nego u levoj hemisferi. Tako da ako učesnicima pokažete takve slike koje će završiti u desnoj hemisferi, umesto u levoj, veća je verovatnoća da će se opaziti šeme, nego kada se obrada vrši u levoj hemisferi. Čini se da se u našoj desnoj hemisferi stvara najviše šema. Ono što pokušavamo da uradimo je da uđemo duboko u mozak, da bismo videli gde se sve to dešava.
Brugger and his colleague, Christine Mohr, gave subjects L-DOPA. L-DOPA's a drug, as you know, given for treating Parkinson's disease, which is related to a decrease in dopamine. L-DOPA increases dopamine. An increase of dopamine caused subjects to see more patterns than those that did not receive the dopamine. So dopamine appears to be the drug associated with patternicity. In fact, neuroleptic drugs that are used to eliminate psychotic behavior, things like paranoia, delusions and hallucinations, these are patternicities. They're incorrect patterns. They're false positives. They're Type I errors. And if you give them drugs that are dopamine antagonists, they go away. That is, you decrease the amount of dopamine, and their tendency to see patterns like that decreases. On the other hand, amphetamines like cocaine are dopamine agonists. They increase the amount of dopamine. So you're more likely to feel in a euphoric state, creativity, find more patterns.
Bruger i njegova koleginica, Kristine Mor (Christine Mohr), su davali učesnicima L-DOPA. L-DOPA se koristi, kao što znate, za lečenje Parkinsonove bolesti, koja je povezana sa padom u nivou dopamina. L-DOPA povećava nivo dopamina. Rast nivoa dopamina izazvao je uočavanje većeg broja šema, u odnosu na tretman bez dopamina. Čini se da je dopamin jedinjenje koje je povezano sa stvaranjem šema. Zapravo, antipsihotici, koji se koriste za lečenje psihoza, poput paranoje, diluzija i halucinacija, ovo su poremećaji čestog stvaranja šema. To su netačne šeme. To su lažni pozitivi. To su greške prvog tipa. Ako im date lakove, koji su dopaminski blokatori, one nestaju. Zapravo, smanjujete nivo dopamina i njihova sklonost da zapaze takve šeme se smanjuje. Sa druge strane, amfetamini poput kokaina su stimulansi dopamina. Povećavaju nivo dopamina. Samim tim je veća verovatnoća da ćete osećati euforiju, biti kreativniji, naći više šema.
In fact, I saw Robin Williams recently talk about how he thought he was much funnier when he was doing cocaine, when he had that issue, than now. So perhaps more dopamine is related to more creativity. Dopamine, I think, changes our signal-to-noise ratio. That is, how accurate we are in finding patterns. If it's too low, you're more likely to make too many Type II errors. You miss the real patterns. You don't want to be too skeptical. If you're too skeptical, you'll miss the really interesting good ideas. Just right, you're creative, and yet you don't fall for too much baloney. Too high and maybe you see patterns everywhere. Every time somebody looks at you, you think people are staring at you. You think people are talking about you. And if you go too far on that, that's just simply labeled as madness. It's a distinction perhaps we might make between two Nobel laureates, Richard Feynman and John Nash. One sees maybe just the right number of patterns to win a Nobel Prize. The other one also, but maybe too many patterns. And we then call that schizophrenia.
Ustvari, nedavno sam slušao Robina Vilijamsa (Robin Williams) kako govori o tome da misli da je bio mnogo duhovitiji kada je konzumirao kokain, kada je imao taj problem, nego sada. Verovatno dopamin utiče na kreativnost. Mislim da dopamin menja našu percepciju odnosa signal/šum. To jest, našu preciznost u nalaženju šema. Ako ga ima malo, verovatno ćete načiniti više grešaka drugog tipa. Ne vidite prave šeme. Ne želite da budete isuviše skeptični. Ako ste isuviše skeptični, propustićete baš interesantne,dobre ideje. Normalan nivo dopamina, kreativni ste, a opet, nećete poverovati u svašta. Previsok nivo i možda ćete videti šeme svuda. Svaki put kada vas neko pogleda, mislite da ljudi zure u vas. Mislite da ljudi govore o vama. Ako odete predaleko, to se jednostavno naziva ludilom. To je razlika koju možda možemo uočiti između dvojice Nobelovaca, Ričarda Fejnmana (Richard Feynman) i Džona Neša (John Nash). Jedan možda zapaža baš pravi broj šema potrebnih za osvajanje Nobelove nagrade. Drugi isto tako, ali možda vidi isuviše šema. Mi to nazivamo šizofrenijom.
So the signal-to-noise ratio then presents us with a pattern-detection problem. And of course you all know exactly what this is, right? And what pattern do you see here? Again, I'm putting your anterior cingulate cortex to the test here, causing you conflicting pattern detections. You know, of course, this is Via Uno shoes. These are sandals. Pretty sexy feet, I must say. Maybe a little Photoshopped. And of course, the ambiguous figures that seem to flip-flop back and forth. It turns out what you're thinking about a lot influences what you tend to see. And you see the lamp here, I know. Because the lights on here. Of course, thanks to the environmentalist movement we're all sensitive to the plight of marine mammals. So what you see in this particular ambiguous figure is, of course, the dolphins, right? You see a dolphin here, and there's a dolphin, and there's a dolphin. That's a dolphin tail there, guys.
Zato nam odnos signal/šum skreće pažnju na problem opažanja šema. Naravno, svi znate tačno šta je ovo, je l' tako? A koju šemu vidite ovde? Opet, testiram vaš prednji limbus, izazivam konfliktna opažanja šema. Znate, naravno, ovo su "Via Uno" cipele. Ovo su sandale. Prilično seksi stopala, moram priznati. Možda malo fotošopirana. I naravno, nejasne figure koje se ređaju jedna za drugom. Ispostavlja se da ono o čemu mnogo razmišljate utiče na to što vidite. Vidite lampu ovde, znam. Zbog svetla ovde. Naravno, zahvaljujući pokretu za zaštitu životne sredine, svi smo pogođeni patnjama morskih sisara. Tako da je ono što vidite u ovom nejasnom obliku naravno, delfin, zar ne? Vidite delfina ovde, i još jednog i još jednog. Ljudi, ovo ovde je delfinov rep.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
If we can give you conflicting data, again, your ACC is going to be going into hyperdrive. If you look down here, it's fine. If you look up here, then you get conflicting data. And then we have to flip the image for you to see that it's a set up. The impossible crate illusion. It's easy to fool the brain in 2D. So you say, "Aw, come on Shermer, anybody can do that in a Psych 101 text with an illusion like that." Well here's the late, great Jerry Andrus' "impossible crate" illusion in 3D, in which Jerry is standing inside the impossible crate. And he was kind enough to post this and give us the reveal. Of course, camera angle is everything. The photographer is over there, and this board appears to overlap with this one, and this one with that one, and so on. But even when I take it away, the illusion is so powerful because of how are brains are wired to find those certain kinds of patterns.
Ako vam damo protivrečne podatke, opet, vaš limbus će raditi punom parom. Ako pogledate ovde dole, dobro je. Ako pogledate gore, dobijate protivrečne podatke. Onda moramo da okrenemo sliku da biste videli da je ovo nameštaljka. Iluzija nemogućeg sanduka. Lako je zavarati mozak u dve dimenzije. Kažete: "Hej, Šermeru, svako može da stvori takvu iluziju uz pomoć knjige o osnovama psihologije." Evo nove, sjajne iluzije "nemogućeg sanduka" u 3D-u Džerija Endrusa (Jerry Andrus), u kojoj Džeri stoji u nemogućem sanduku. Bio je dovoljno ljubazan da nam pošalje ovo i otkrije nam tajnu. Naravno, sve je u uglu kamere. Fotograf je ovamo i ova daska se naizgled preklapa sa onom, i ova sa onom, i tako dalje. Ali čak i kada to sklonim, iluzija je tako moćna zbog načina na koji je naš mozak programiran da nalazi različite šeme.
This is a fairly new one that throws us off because of the conflicting patterns of comparing this angle with that angle. In fact, it's the exact same picture side by side. So what you're doing is comparing that angle instead of with this one, but with that one. And so your brain is fooled. Yet again, your pattern detection devices are fooled.
Ova je relativno nova, koja nas potpuno iznenađuje zbog protivrečnih šemi poređenja jednog ugla sa drugim. Zapravo, to su potpuno iste slike jedna do druge. Ono što radite je upoređivanje tog ugla, sa onim tamo, umesto sa ovim. Tako je vaš mozak zavaran. Opet, vaši uređaji za opažanje šema su zavarani.
Faces are easy to see because we have an additional evolved facial recognition software in our temporal lobes. Here's some faces on the side of a rock. I'm actually not even sure if this is -- this might be Photoshopped. But anyway, the point is still made. Now which one of these looks odd to you? In a quick reaction, which one looks odd? The one on the left. Okay. So I'll rotate it so it'll be the one on the right. And you are correct. A fairly famous illusion -- it was first done with Margaret Thatcher. Now, they trade up the politicians every time. Well, why is this happening? Well, we know exactly where it happens, in the temporal lobe, right across, sort of above your ear there, in a little structure called the fusiform gyrus. And there's two types of cells that do this, that record facial features either globally, or specifically these large, rapid-firing cells, first look at the general face. So you recognize Obama immediately. And then you notice something quite a little bit odd about the eyes and the mouth. Especially when they're upside down, you're engaging that general facial recognition software there.
Lako je videti lica, jer nam je evoluirao dodatni softver za prepoznavanje lica u slepoočnim režnjevima. Evo nekih lica na padini stene. Nisam čak ni siguran oko ovog -- možda je fotošopirano. Kako god, shvatate moju poentu. Sad, koja od ovih slika vam izgleda čudno? Brzo, koja izgleda čudno? Ona levo. Okej. Okrenuću je, pa će biti sa desne strane. U pravu ste. Relativno poznata iluzija -- prvo je to urađeno sa Margaret Tačer (Margaret Thatcher). Sada, svaki put menjaju političare. Pa, zašto se ovo dešava? Znamo tačno gde se to dešava, u slepoočnom režnju, odmah ovde, negde iznad uha, u maloj strukturi koja se zove "fusiform gyrus". Postoje dva tipa ćelija koje su zadužene za ovo, koje pamte crte lica bilo u globalu ili posebno, ove velike ćelije koje brzo reaguju, prvo gledaju lice u celosti. Tako odmah prepoznajete Obamu. Onda primećujete nešto prilično čudno u vezi sa očima i usnama. Naročito kada su naopačke, aktivirate taj softver za opšte prepoznavanje lica.
Now I said back in our little thought experiment, you're a hominid walking on the plains of Africa. Is it just the wind or a dangerous predator? What's the difference between those? Well, the wind is inanimate; the dangerous predator is an intentional agent. And I call this process agenticity. That is the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention and agency, often invisible beings from the top down. This is an idea that we got from a fellow TEDster here, Dan Dennett, who talked about taking the intentional stance.
Spomenuo sam ranije u našem malom misaonom ogledu, vi ste hominid koji šeta afričkim ravnicama. Da li je to samo vetar ili opasni grabljivac? U čemu je razlika između njih? Pa, vetar je neživ; opasni grabljivac ima nameru u svojim postupcima. Ovaj proces nazivam dodeljivanje namere. To je tendencija da se dodeljuju šeme sa smislom, namerom i delotvornošću, često nevidljivim bićima najvišeg nivoa. Ovu ideju sam dobio od Dena Deneta (Dan Dennett), takođe govornika TED-a, koji je govorio o percipiranju namere.
So it's a type of that expanded to explain, I think, a lot of different things: souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspiracists and all manner of invisible agents with power and intention, are believed to haunt our world and control our lives. I think it's the basis of animism and polytheism and monotheism. It's the belief that aliens are somehow more advanced than us, more moral than us, and the narratives always are that they're coming here to save us and rescue us from on high. The intelligent designer's always portrayed as this super intelligent, moral being that comes down to design life. Even the idea that government can rescue us -- that's no longer the wave of the future, but that is, I think, a type of agenticity: projecting somebody up there, big and powerful, will come rescue us.
Mislim da je jedan tip toga proširen da bi objasnio dosta različitih stvari: duše, duhove, aveti, bogove, demone, anđele, vanzemaljce, inteligentne tvorce, vladine zaverenike i svakakve nevidljive entitete, koji poseduju moć i nameru; veruje se da oni opsedaju naš svet i upravljaju našim životima. Mislim da je to osnova animizma, politeizma i monoteizma. To je verovanje da su vanzemaljci nekako napredniji od nas, moralniji i u pričama se uvek tvrdi da će doći sa neba ovde da bi nas sačuvali i spasili. Inteligentni tvorac je uvek prikazan kao natprosečno inteligentno, moralno biće, koje silazi dole da bi stvorilo život. Čak je i ideja da nas vlade mogu spasiti -- to više nije dominantna ideja budućnosti, ali to je, mislim, tip dodeljivanja namere: zamišljamo nekog tamo gore, velikog i moćnog, ko će doći da nas spase.
And this is also, I think, the basis of conspiracy theories. There's somebody hiding behind there pulling the strings, whether it's the Illuminati or the Bilderbergers. But this is a pattern detection problem, isn't it? Some patterns are real and some are not. Was JFK assassinated by a conspiracy or by a lone assassin? Well, if you go there -- there's people there on any given day -- like when I went there, here -- showing me where the different shooters were. My favorite one was he was in the manhole. And he popped out at the last second, took that shot. But of course, Lincoln was assassinated by a conspiracy. So we can't just uniformly dismiss all patterns like that. Because, let's face it, some patterns are real. Some conspiracies really are true. Explains a lot, maybe.
Smatram da je to, takođe, u osnovi teorija zavere. Neko se krije u pozadini stvari i drži sve konce u rukama, bez obzira da li su to Iluminati ili članovi bilderberške grupe. Ali, to je problem u opažanju šema, zar ne? Neke šeme su stvarne, a druge nisu. Da li su Džona Kenedija (JFK) ubili zaverenici ili jedan atentator? Pa, ako ćete se baviti time -- ima ljudi koji o tome razmišljaju svakog dana -- kao kada sam ja bio u toj priči, ovde -- pokazuju mi gde su bili različiti atentatori. Moja omiljena priča je da je jedan od njih bio u kanalizacionom otvoru. U poslednjem trenutku je iskočio i pucao. Ali naravno, Linkolna su ubili zaverenici. Samim tim ne možemo olako da odbacimo šeme te vrste. Jer, kao što znate, neke šeme su stvarne. Neke zavere zaista jesu stvarne. To možda dosta toga objašnjava.
And 9/11 has a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy. We did a whole issue on it. Nineteen members of Al Queda plotting to fly planes into buildings constitutes a conspiracy. But that's not what the "9/11 truthers" think. They think it was an inside job by the Bush administration. Well, that's a whole other lecture. You know how we know that 9/11 was not orchestrated by the Bush administration? Because it worked.
I za 11. septembar je vezana teorija zavere. To je zavera. Čitavo jedno izdanje časopisa smo posvetili tome. Kada devetnaest članova Al Kaide kuje plan o udaranju u zgrade avionima, to je zavera. Ali to nije ono što misle ljudi koji žele da saznaju istinu o 11. septembru. Misle da je to Bušova vlada uradila iza kulisa. Ali, to je tema za drugo predavanje. Znate li kako znamo da 11. septembar nije delo Bušove vlade? Zato što je uspešno izvedeno.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
So we are natural-born dualists. Our agenticity process comes from the fact that we can enjoy movies like these. Because we can imagine, in essence, continuing on. We know that if you stimulate the temporal lobe, you can produce a feeling of out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, which you can do by just touching an electrode to the temporal lobe there. Or you can do it through loss of consciousness, by accelerating in a centrifuge. You get a hypoxia, or a lower oxygen. And the brain then senses that there's an out-of-body experience. You can use -- which I did, went out and did -- Michael Persinger's God Helmet, that bombards your temporal lobes with electromagnetic waves. And you get a sense of out-of-body experience.
Mi smo od rođenja dualisti. Naša sklonost dodeljivanju namera jasna je zbog činjenice da možemo uživati u gledanju ovakvih filmova. Zato što možemo zamisliti, u suštini, kako će se odvijati dalje. Znamo da ako stimulišete slepoočni režanj, možete izazvati osećaj vantelesnog iskustva, iskustva bliske smrti, samo tako što ćete elektrodu postaviti na slepoočni režanj. Ili možete to izazvati i gubitkom svesti, ubrzavanjem u centrifugi. Upadate u hipoksiju, smanjen vam je nivo kiseonika u telu. Mozak onda oseća vantelesno iskustvo. Možete upotrebiti -- što sam ja uradio, odvažio se i uradio -- Božanski šlem Majkla Persindžera (Michael Persinger), koji bombarduje vaše slepoočne režnjeve elektromagnetnim talasima. Dobijete osećaj vantelesnog iskustva.
So I'm going to end here with a short video clip that sort of brings all this together. It's just a minute and a half. It ties together all this into the power of expectation and the power of belief. Go ahead and roll it.
Završiću ovim kratkim video snimkom, koji nekako sve ovo povezuje. Traje samo minut i po. Povezuje sve ovo u moć iščekivanja i moć verovanja. Hajde pustite ga.
Narrator: This is the venue they chose for their fake auditions for an advert for lip balm.
Narator: Ovo je mesto koje su odabrali za održavanje njihovih lažnih audicija za reklamu za preparat za usta.
Woman: We're hoping we can use part of this in a national commercial, right? And this is test on some lip balms that we have over here. And these are our models who are going to help us, Roger and Matt. And we have our own lip balm, and we have a leading brand. Would you have any problem kissing our models to test it?
Žena: Nadamo se da ćemo moći da iskoristimo deo ovog u nacionalnoj reklami, zar ne? Ovo je test nekih preparata za usne, koja imamo ovde. Ovo su naši modeli koji će nam pomoći, Rodžer i Met. Imamo ovde naš preparat za usne, a i najprodavaniju marku. Da li ti je problem da poljubiš naše modele radi testa?
Girl: No.
Devojka: Nije.
Woman: You wouldn't? (Girl: No.) Woman: You'd think that was fine.
Žena: Sigurno nije? (Devojka: Nije.) Žena: Misliš da je to u redu.
Girl: That would be fine. (Woman: Okay.)
Devojka: To bi bilo u redu. (Žena: Okej.)
So this is a blind test. I'm going to ask you to go ahead and put a blindfold on. Kay, now can you see anything? (Girl: No.) Pull it so you can't even see down. (Girl: Okay.)
Ovo je test naslepo. Zamoliću te da staviš povez preko očiju. Ok, da li vidiš išta? (Devojka: Ne.) Navuci ga da ne možeš da vidiš ni dole. (Devojka: Okej.)
Woman: It's completely blind now, right?
Žena: Ništa ne vidiš sada, je l' da?
Girl: Yes. (Woman: Okay.)
Devojka: Da. (Žena: Okej.)
Now, what I'm going to be looking for in this test is how it protects your lips, the texture, right, and maybe if you can discern any flavor or not.
E sad, ono što ću ispitati u ovom testu je kako preparat štiti usne, teksturu, okej, i da li možeš da prepoznaš neki ukus ili ne.
Girl: Okay. (Woman: Have you ever done a kissing test before?)
Devojka: Okej. (Žena: Da li si ikada imala test ljubljenja?)
Girl: No.
Devojka: Ne.
Woman: Take a step here. Okay, now I'm going to ask you to pucker up. Pucker up big and lean in just a little bit, okay?
Žena: Stani ovde. Ok, sada ću te zamoliti da se napućiš. Lepo se napući i malo se nagni, okej?
(Music)
(Muzika)
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Woman: Okay. And, Jennifer, how did that feel?
Žena: Okej. Dženifer, kako je bilo?
Jennifer: Good.
Dženifer: Dobro.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Girl: Oh my God!
Devojka: O, Bože!
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Michael Shermer: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks.
Majkl Šermer (Michael Shermer): Hvala vam mnogo. Hvala vam. Hvala.