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.
自從上一次,06年來這裡之後, 我們發現全球暖化 變成一個相當嚴肅的議題。 所以我們在"懷疑論者"雜誌裡, 對暖化議題有相當深入的報導。 我們調查了各式各樣 科學以及偽科學的爭論。 不過看來我們不用這麼擔心, 反正2012年就是世界末日了。
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.
另外一個新聞則是, 你們可能記得我曾介紹過的 Quadro探測器。 有點像探測水源的裝置, 在中空的塑膠上面接著一根會轉動的天線。 當你移動的時候,它會指向某些東西, 比方說當你想在學生置物櫃裡找大麻時, 它就會指著某個人... 喔,抱歉。 (笑聲) 而我拿到的這隻 則是專門用來找高爾夫球的。 特別是當你在高爾夫球場上, 為了找球翻遍樹叢之後。 在那些你覺得無傷大雅的玩意兒之中, 這個裝置,ADE651 被伊拉克政府 用四萬美金一組的價錢給買下。 就跟我手上的一樣,完全不值一文, 並且被說成是利用"靜電- 磁離子引力"來操作。 或許翻成 "偽科學的胡扯"可能比較好, 把一堆華麗的名詞串在一起, 但是沒有任何意義。 在這個例子裡, 若是要讓人們通過地雷區, 只靠這種"探測器"的判斷, 是會賠上性命的。 因此相信這類偽科學, 是有潛在危險的。
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.
所以今天我想談談信念。 我想要相信, 而你們也是。 而事實上,我想我今天的論點是, 信念是自然而然形成的, 是預設的選項。盡管信就是了。 我們相信形形色色的事物。 信念是天生的, 疑問、懷疑論、科學則否。 它們難以接受, 因為抱持疑問會讓人不快。 像"X檔案"裡的福克斯穆德, 誰想要相信UFO? 我們都想。 這是因為 我們的大腦裡有處理信念的機制 事實上,我們這種靈長類喜歡尋找模式(pattern-seeking)。 我們找尋事物的關聯:由A到B,由B到C, 有時候A和B的確互為因果, 即所謂的關聯式學習。
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.
我們尋找模式,發現事物的脈絡。 不管是巴甫洛夫的狗, 把鈴聲與餵食兩件事連結起來, 於是一聽到鈴聲就流口水。 或是斯金納的老鼠, 把自身的行為, 與得到的獎賞之間聯繫起來, 因而重複同樣的行為。 斯金納發現, 如果把鴿子放進這樣的一個箱子裡, 讓它按下兩個按鍵中的其中一個。 它會試著猜測其中的模式, 然後透過箱子拿到一點小小的獎賞。 若是你隨機給予獎勵, 即使沒有任何的規則可尋, 它們也會想出五花八門的方式。 它們會記得嘗到甜頭之前所做的動作, 並且一再重複同樣動作。 有時候甚至會是逆時針轉兩圈、 順時針轉一圈然後啄兩下按鍵。 然後迷信就產生了。 而不幸的是, 我們也是如此。
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.
我將這個過程稱作"模式化"。 意思是從毫無意義的雜訊中, 尋找有意義模式的傾向。 當這樣做的時候,我們可能會犯兩種類型的錯誤: 類型一,也稱作『錯誤接受』, 是當相信某種模式是正確的, 而實際上不是。(誤認不存在的模式) 第二種類型則是『錯誤拒絕』, 是當某種模式實際上是正確的, 卻拒絕相信。(忽略模式的存在) 讓我們來點思想實驗: 你是生活在三百萬年前的原始人, 在非洲大草原上走著, 你的名字是...露西。 你聽到草叢中一陣響動, 這會是危險的掠食者, 或者只是一陣風? 你接下來的判斷可能就是這一生中最重要的決定。 如果你誤把草叢中的聲響當做危險的掠食者, 結果只是一陣風。 你犯下錯誤認知, 類型一的誤判。 但是沒差,你只是閃邊。 變得更加小心謹慎。 另一方面,如果你把草叢中的聲響當做風聲, 結果是危險的掠食者-- 你就成了午餐。 你拿到所謂"達爾文的獎賞", 從基因庫中被抹去。
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.
問題來了, 模式化會發生在 當類型一錯誤的代價, 低於類型二錯誤時。 這是這個演講裡唯一的一條公式。 我們有辨識模式的困難, 在於評估類型一和類型二錯誤的時候, 沒有辦法準確的區別, 尤其是當生死關頭的那一瞬間。 所以我們的預設反應 被設定成"相信所有的模式都是真的"。 "草叢中的響動都是危險的掠食者" "不會只是風聲而已"。 我想經過演化的歷程, 信任機制的傾向經過自然的挑選。 我們尋求模式的大腦進化成, 總是去找尋有意義的模式。 並且將之連結到對掠食者的恐懼, 或是等下會提到的 意圖化的形象。
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.
舉例來說,你們看到什麼? 馬的頭部,沒錯。 看起來像匹馬,這個肯定是馬。 那就是模式。 不過真的是匹馬嗎? 還是更像隻青蛙? 我們偵測模式的機制, 位於大腦的前扣帶皮層, 我們小小的偵測裝置, 很容易就會被誤導,問題就出在這兒。 比方說,這是什麼? 當然了,是一隻牛。 一旦我給了大腦提示 --稱作認知啟動-- 當我讓大腦開始辨識它, 即使不用提示,大腦也會一再的嘗試辨認。 這次你看到了什麼? 有些人看到一隻大麥町狗。 沒有錯,這就是提示。 即使把提示拿掉, 腦中的樣板還是在, 所以你仍然看的到。 這是什麼? 土星,很好。 這個呢? 看到什麼就出個聲。 很棒的觀眾,克里斯。 因為裡面什麼都沒有,據說是沒有。
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.
這是珍妮佛惠特森在德州大學奧斯汀分校, 所做的實驗。 探討在企業環境下, 那些無法確定或是不受控制的感覺, 是否會使人看到虛幻的模式。 也就是說,幾乎所有人都看的到土星的圖樣。 但一旦人們處於自覺失控的狀況下, 他們就越有可能從圖中看出什麼, 即使這裡沒有任何模式可尋。 換句話說,當狀況失去控制的時候, 嘗試尋找模式的傾向就越強。 例如,棒球選手是出了名的迷信 不過只在打擊的時候。 守備的時候就不是這麼一回事。 因為守備成功率, 通常有九成到九成五左右。 即使最好的打者,十次裡也會有七次失誤。 所以他們的迷信,模式化的程度, 跟這種無法掌控的感覺 有很大的關聯。
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.
這次你們看到了什麼?在這個區域裡。 有人看到什麼嗎? 其實有些東西, 只是被模糊處理過了。 當你們在嘗試的時候, 這是蘇珊布萊克摩爾,一位心理學家 在英國所做的實驗。 他們讓受試者觀看模糊處理過的圖片, 接著分析兩者間的關聯性: 他們的ESP(第六感)測驗分數-- 對科學無法解釋的事件、 超自然、天使等等,相信程度的多寡-- 在ESP量表上得分越高的人, 就越容易, 不僅看到更多的樣式, 也辨識出不正確的樣式。 這是你讓受試者看到的, 魚的圖片經過百分之二十,和五十的模糊化處理。 以及我放的這張, 百分之七十。
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.
另一位英國(應為瑞士籍)心理學家, 彼得布魯格也做過類似的實驗。 他發現連接左邊視覺區的右腦半球, 比起左腦, 更容易察覺有意義的圖樣。 因此如果你給受測者看的圖片, 偏重於用右腦來處理, 那麼比起需要用左腦處理的圖片, 他們會更容易發現其中的模式。 看來我們的右腦 負責了大多數的模式化行為。 所以我們試著觀察大腦內部, 找出相關的區域。
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.
布魯格和他的同事,克莉絲汀莫爾 提供受測者左旋多巴胺(L-DOPA)。 你們或許聽過左旋多巴胺是用來治療帕金森氏症, 與患者的多巴胺含量降低有關, 而這種藥能夠提升多巴胺的含量。 多巴胺含量的提升 則使得受測者看到更多圖樣, 比未使用的受測者還多。 也就是說多巴胺應該和模式化認知 有相當程度的關聯。 事實上,一些鎮靜劑 被用來抑制精神病相關症狀,如 妄想症、錯覺, 以及幻覺, 這些都是模式化行為。 只是那些是不正確的模式。類型一的誤判。 當患者使用 抑制多巴胺的藥劑, 這些症狀就會消失。 多巴胺的含量一降低, 患者原本容易看到不存在的模式, 這樣的傾向也隨著降低。 另一種情況,安非他命類藥劑如可卡因, 是多巴胺的促進劑。 這類藥劑會提升體內的多巴胺分泌量, 讓你容易覺得飄飄欲仙, 文思泉湧,看到更多東西。
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.
我最近就和羅賓威廉斯討論到 他嗑藥的時候--過去他有這方面的問題-- 覺得那時可卡因讓他比現在更加風趣。 或許多巴胺的量越多, 能夠讓你更有創造力。 我認為多巴胺會改變 我們對信號/雜訊的認知。 也就是讓我們找出模式 的準確程度。 如果準確度太低,你會傾向於犯下更多類型二的錯誤。 你會忽略實際存在的模式,你不想變得太疑神疑鬼, 果真如此,你可能會錯過那些真正有趣的想法。 恰到好處的話,你會很有創意。也不會被人耍著玩。 太過度的話,你會發現到處都是模式。 別人只是看你一眼,你卻覺得對方在瞪你。 你覺得大家都在討論你。 若是這樣的狀況太過嚴重, 你就會被當作瘋子。 我們或許可以從兩位諾貝爾獎得主, 理查費曼和約翰奈許之間 看出這樣的差異。 其中一人看出的模式, 剛好足以讓他得到諾貝爾獎。 另外一人看到的可能太多了一點, 我們會說這是精神分裂症。
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.
所以辨別信號/雜訊的能力顯示出模式偵測的問題, 當然你們都知道 這是什麼,對吧。 這裡你看到了什麼? 我正在考驗你大腦的前扣帶皮層, 混淆你眼中所看到的模式。 當然,這是VIA UNO的鞋子, 兩款涼鞋。 不得不承認這腳很性感, 搞不好有修過圖。 當然還有模稜兩可的圖形, 看上去不停的變動著。 也就是說,一個人腦袋裡裝了什麼, 就會影響你 所看到的。 我知道你們看到的是檯燈, 因為燈是亮的。 感謝環保人士的積極運動, 我們才能對海洋生物的困境有所了解。 所以我們才能在這張曖昧的圖片裡看到... 海豚,當然了。 你看這邊有一隻, 那邊一隻, 又一隻。 拜託,那是海豚尾巴好嗎。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
如果你得到互相衝突的資訊, 你的前扣帶皮層就會像進入加速狀態一樣。 底下這裡看起來很正常,但是往上一看,便會察覺矛盾。 直到我們將圖片翻轉, 你才看得出這是刻意設計的。 "不存在的箱子"的幻覺。 平面影像很容易騙過大腦, 你說"得了吧,大家都做得到, 每本心理學入門書都有一張這種圖。" 這張是最近由傑里安德勒斯所做的, 立體版本的"不存在的箱子"。 而且傑里看起來像是 站在箱子的裡面。 他非常大方的上傳了解答, 讓我們能看出箇中巧妙。 當然,重點在於相機的角度,攝影師在那裡, 使得這塊板子看來像是疊在另一塊上方,以此類推。 即使我已經讓你看過解答, 大腦尋找特定模式的運作方式, 還是讓幻覺的印象非常強烈。
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.
這張比較新一點。 比較兩張照片中不同角度的矛盾, 會讓我們搞不清楚。 其實這是兩張完全相同的照片。 問題在於沒注意到比對的對象, 兩者間的角度有所不同, 你的大腦就被騙了。 你的模式辨識機制又再一次被愚弄了。
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.
臉孔很容易辨識, 因為在大腦的顳葉裡, 我們擁有獨立進化過的, 臉部辨識軟體。 這些是岩石上出現的臉孔, 我甚至不確定這是不是修過圖,這個可能是。 無論如何,重點還是一樣。 現在哪一張看起來怪怪的? 用直覺來作答。 左邊這張,好,我把它轉過來, 也就是變成右手邊的這張, 你們是對的。 相當有名的幻象,柴契爾夫人是第一個被用上的, 每隔一陣子就換一位政治人物。 為什麼會這樣? 恩,我們確切知道這在哪裡發生, 在顳葉裡,偏右,大概在耳朵上方。 有一個組織叫做梭狀回, 裡頭有兩種細胞, 不管是動用整群細胞來紀錄臉部的特徵, 或是這一類大型,反應快速的細胞。 先看出臉部的大概, 讓你能立刻認出歐巴馬。 接著你會注意到有點不對勁, 眼睛和嘴巴的部分有些奇怪, 尤其是當它們上下顛倒的時候。 那就是你正在使用臉部辨識的軟體。
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.
現在我們回到之前的思想實驗。 你是正在非洲草原上行走的原始人, 心裡想著是風聲,還是危險的掠食者? 兩者間的差異在哪? 風聲是沒有生命的, 而掠食者則代表了一個擁有意圖的形象。 我把這個過程稱作形象化, 也就是傾向於將觀察到的模式賦予意義、 目的以及形象-- 常被理解為從上方俯瞰,不可見的存在-- 這個想法是從另一位TED演講者, 丹尼特而來的。 他提到抱持"有目的的立場"。
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.
所以我想,這個說法的衍伸,可以解釋很多事物, 靈魂、精靈、鬼魂、神祇、魔鬼、天使、 外星人、智慧設計者、 政府陰謀論者, 以及各種不可見的形象, 擁有力量和目的,人們相信 它們會在人間作祟或控制我們的生活。 我想這就是泛靈論, 以及一神論和多神論的源頭。 人們相信外星人 比我們更進步,更具道德感, 而故事旁白總是會說, 它們是從天而降來拯救我們的。 "智慧設計者"則被描繪成 無比聰明,道德高尚的存在, 降臨塵世以創造萬物。 即使是政府可以救助我們, 這種已經退流行的想法, 我仍然認為是某種形象化的行為。 幻想某個高高在上, 全能而偉大的傢伙會來拯救我們。
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.
換個角度說,我認為這也是陰謀論的源頭: 某個藏鏡人在背後操控一切, 例如光明會, 或是畢德堡集團。 但是我們面對的是模式辨認的問題, 有些模式是真的,有些則否。 約翰甘迺迪是被暗中殺害,或者只是一位刺客? 如果你到這個地方,那裡一年到頭都有人, 像我去的那次,有人指給我看不同槍手的位置。 我最愛的是躲在人孔蓋下面的那個, 殺手在關鍵時刻從底下蹦出來,開槍殺了甘迺迪。 當然我們知道林肯是被陰謀殺害的, 所以我們也不能單純只是忽略, 所有可能的說法。 因為事實上,有些模式是真的, 有些陰謀是千真萬確的。 原來如此,是吧。
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.
911事件也有陰謀論說法。 我們做了一整期的專題來討論。 十九名基地組織的成員計畫用飛機衝撞大樓, 算是某種陰謀。 但是"911真相調查會"可不這麼想, 他們認為是小布希政府在幕後操作... 光這個主題就可以另外講一整場。 不過你會說,我們怎麼知道911事件 不是布希政府自導自演的? 因為它成功了!
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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.
我們是天生的二元論者。 我們創造形象的能力,來自於 一種讓我們能夠享受這種電影的天賦。 因為我們能夠想像事物的本質, 並且舉一反三。 我們知道如果刺激顳葉, 就可以模擬靈魂出竅的經驗、 瀕死體驗等, 你只需要用電極刺激顳葉裡的特定位置。 或者是利用離心機加速, 讓人失去知覺。 當你缺氧,血液含氧量降低, 大腦就會接著 產生脫離身體的感覺。 你可以利用 --我曾經嘗試過-- 麥可佩辛格的"上帝的頭盔", 它利用電磁波轟炸你的顳葉, 讓你能夠體驗靈魂出竅的感受。
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.
最後我想利用一段影片 來作個總結。 只有一分半鐘的短片, 展現出「期望」和「信念」的力量有多麼強大。 請撥放影片。
Narrator: This is the venue they chose for their fake auditions for an advert for lip balm.
旁白:這裡是他們用來假裝面試的地方, 面試內容是一個護唇膏的廣告。
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?
我們希望可以使用一部分內容, 放在全國性的廣告上。 測試內容是這裡所放的 幾種護唇膏。 我們請了幾位模特兒來幫忙, 羅傑和麥特。 這是我們的護唇膏, 以及幾款市面上的領導品牌。 如果需要你和我們的模特兒接吻, 你會不會有困難?
Girl: No.
女孩:不會。
Woman: You wouldn't? (Girl: No.) Woman: You'd think that was fine.
沒有問題吧?(女孩:沒有。)你可以接受?
Girl: That would be fine. (Woman: Okay.)
女孩:沒問題。(好的。)
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.)
這是一個蒙眼測試。 我會請你上前, 用眼罩遮住。 好,你現在還看的到嗎?(女孩:看不到。) 往下拉一點,這樣才不會看到下方。(女孩:好。)
Woman: It's completely blind now, right?
現在你完全看不見了。
Girl: Yes. (Woman: Okay.)
女孩:是的。(很好。)
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.
這個測試的目的是要觀察護唇膏 對嘴唇的保護作用, 觸感, 你也許能夠辨別的出某種味道。
Girl: Okay. (Woman: Have you ever done a kissing test before?)
女孩:了解。(你有過接吻測試的經驗嗎?)
Girl: No.
女孩:沒有。
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?
往前站一點。 好,現在請你把嘴唇噘起來, 盡量噘起來,然後稍微往前傾,很好。
(Music)
(音樂)
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Woman: Okay. And, Jennifer, how did that feel?
好。 珍妮,感覺如何?
Jennifer: Good.
珍妮:不錯。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Girl: Oh my God!
女孩:喔,天哪。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Michael Shermer: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks.
非常感謝各位,謝謝