The pattern behind self-deception | Michael Shermer

譯者: Hsin Cheng Lin 審譯者: Lin Su-Wei(林書暐)

So since I was here last in '06,

自從上一次，06年來這裡之後，

we discovered that global climate change

我們發現全球暖化

is turning out to be a pretty serious issue,

變成一個相當嚴肅的議題。

so we covered that fairly extensively

所以我們在"懷疑論者"雜誌裡，

in Skeptic magazine.

對暖化議題有相當深入的報導。

We investigate all kinds

我們調查了各式各樣

of scientific and quasi-scientific controversies,

科學以及偽科學的爭論。

but it turns out we don't have to worry about any of this

不過看來我們不用這麼擔心，

because the world's going to end in 2012.

反正2012年就是世界末日了。

Another update:

另外一個新聞則是，

You will recall I introduced you guys

你們可能記得我曾介紹過的

to the Quadro Tracker.

Quadro探測器。

It's like a water dowsing device.

有點像探測水源的裝置，

It's just a hollow piece of plastic with an antenna that swivels around.

在中空的塑膠上面接著一根會轉動的天線。

And you walk around, and it points to things.

當你移動的時候，它會指向某些東西，

Like if you're looking for marijuana in students' lockers,

比方說當你想在學生置物櫃裡找大麻時，

it'll point right to somebody.

它就會指著某個人...

Oh, sorry. (Laughter)

喔，抱歉。 (笑聲)

This particular one that was given to me

而我拿到的這隻

finds golf balls,

則是專門用來找高爾夫球的。

especially if you're at a golf course

特別是當你在高爾夫球場上，

and you check under enough bushes.

為了找球翻遍樹叢之後。

Well, under the category of "What's the harm of silly stuff like this?"

在那些你覺得無傷大雅的玩意兒之中，

this device, the ADE 651,

這個裝置，ADE651

was sold to the Iraqi government

被伊拉克政府

for 40,000 dollars apiece.

用四萬美金一組的價錢給買下。

It's just like this one, completely worthless,

就跟我手上的一樣，完全不值一文，

in which it allegedly worked by "electrostatic

並且被說成是利用＂靜電-

magnetic ion attraction,"

磁離子引力＂來操作。

which translates to

或許翻成

"pseudoscientific baloney" -- would be the nice word --

＂偽科學的胡扯＂可能比較好，

in which you string together a bunch of words that sound good,

把一堆華麗的名詞串在一起，

but it does absolutely nothing.

但是沒有任何意義。

In this case, at trespass points,

在這個例子裡，

allowing people to go through

若是要讓人們通過地雷區，

because your little tracker device said they were okay,

只靠這種＂探測器＂的判斷，

actually cost lives.

是會賠上性命的。

So there is a danger to pseudoscience,

因此相信這類偽科學，

in believing in this sort of thing.

是有潛在危險的。

So what I want to talk about today is belief.

所以今天我想談談信念。

I want to believe,

我想要相信，

and you do too.

而你們也是。

And in fact, I think my thesis here is that

而事實上，我想我今天的論點是，

belief is the natural state of things.

信念是自然而然形成的，

It is the default option. We just believe.

是預設的選項。盡管信就是了。

We believe all sorts of things.

我們相信形形色色的事物。

Belief is natural;

信念是天生的，

disbelief, skepticism, science, is not natural.

疑問、懷疑論、科學則否。

It's more difficult.

它們難以接受，

It's uncomfortable to not believe things.

因為抱持疑問會讓人不快。

So like Fox Mulder on "X-Files,"

像＂X檔案＂裡的福克斯穆德，

who wants to believe in UFOs? Well, we all do,

誰想要相信UFO？ 我們都想。

and the reason for that is because

這是因為

we have a belief engine in our brains.

我們的大腦裡有處理信念的機制

Essentially, we are pattern-seeking primates.

事實上，我們這種靈長類喜歡尋找模式(pattern-seeking)。

We connect the dots: A is connected to B; B is connected to C.

我們找尋事物的關聯：由A到B，由B到C，

And sometimes A really is connected to B,

有時候A和B的確互為因果，

and that's called association learning.

即所謂的關聯式學習。

We find patterns, we make those connections,

我們尋找模式，發現事物的脈絡。

whether it's Pavlov's dog here

不管是巴甫洛夫的狗，

associating the sound of the bell with the food,

把鈴聲與餵食兩件事連結起來，

and then he salivates to the sound of the bell,

於是一聽到鈴聲就流口水。

or whether it's a Skinnerian rat,

或是斯金納的老鼠，

in which he's having an association

把自身的行為，

between his behavior and a reward for it,

與得到的獎賞之間聯繫起來，

and therefore he repeats the behavior.

因而重複同樣的行為。

In fact, what Skinner discovered

斯金納發現，

is that, if you put a pigeon in a box like this,

如果把鴿子放進這樣的一個箱子裡，

and he has to press one of these two keys,

讓它按下兩個按鍵中的其中一個。

and he tries to figure out what the pattern is,

它會試著猜測其中的模式，

and you give him a little reward in the hopper box there --

然後透過箱子拿到一點小小的獎賞。

if you just randomly assign rewards

若是你隨機給予獎勵，

such that there is no pattern,

即使沒有任何的規則可尋，

they will figure out any kind of pattern.

它們也會想出五花八門的方式。

And whatever they were doing just before they got the reward,

它們會記得嘗到甜頭之前所做的動作，

they repeat that particular pattern.

並且一再重複同樣動作。

Sometimes it was even spinning around twice counterclockwise,

有時候甚至會是逆時針轉兩圈、

once clockwise and peck the key twice.

順時針轉一圈然後啄兩下按鍵。

And that's called superstition,

然後迷信就產生了。

and that, I'm afraid,

而不幸的是，

we will always have with us.

我們也是如此。

I call this process "patternicity" --

我將這個過程稱作＂模式化＂。

that is, the tendency to find meaningful patterns

意思是從毫無意義的雜訊中，

in both meaningful and meaningless noise.

尋找有意義模式的傾向。

When we do this process, we make two types of errors.

當這樣做的時候，我們可能會犯兩種類型的錯誤：

A Type I error, or false positive,

類型一，也稱作『錯誤接受』，

is believing a pattern is real

是當相信某種模式是正確的，

when it's not.

而實際上不是。（誤認不存在的模式）

Our second type of error is a false negative.

第二種類型則是『錯誤拒絕』，

A Type II error is not believing

是當某種模式實際上是正確的，

a pattern is real when it is.

卻拒絕相信。（忽略模式的存在）

So let's do a thought experiment.

讓我們來點思想實驗：

You are a hominid three million years ago

你是生活在三百萬年前的原始人，

walking on the plains of Africa.

在非洲大草原上走著，

Your name is Lucy, okay?

你的名字是...露西。

And you hear a rustle in the grass.

你聽到草叢中一陣響動，

Is it a dangerous predator,

這會是危險的掠食者，

or is it just the wind?

或者只是一陣風？

Your next decision could be the most important one of your life.

你接下來的判斷可能就是這一生中最重要的決定。

Well, if you think that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator

如果你誤把草叢中的聲響當做危險的掠食者，

and it turns out it's just the wind,

結果只是一陣風。

you've made an error in cognition,

你犯下錯誤認知，

made a Type I error, false positive.

類型一的誤判。

But no harm. You just move away.

但是沒差，你只是閃邊。

You're more cautious. You're more vigilant.

變得更加小心謹慎。

On the other hand, if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind,

另一方面，如果你把草叢中的聲響當做風聲，

and it turns out it's a dangerous predator,

結果是危險的掠食者－－

you're lunch.

你就成了午餐。

You've just won a Darwin award.

你拿到所謂＂達爾文的獎賞＂，

You've been taken out of the gene pool.

從基因庫中被抹去。

Now the problem here is that

問題來了，

patternicities will occur whenever the cost

模式化會發生在

of making a Type I error

當類型一錯誤的代價，

is less than the cost of making a Type II error.

低於類型二錯誤時。

This is the only equation in the talk by the way.

這是這個演講裡唯一的一條公式。

We have a pattern detection problem

我們有辨識模式的困難，

that is assessing the difference between a Type I and a Type II error

在於評估類型一和類型二錯誤的時候，

is highly problematic,

沒有辦法準確的區別，

especially in split-second, life-and-death situations.

尤其是當生死關頭的那一瞬間。

So the default position

所以我們的預設反應

is just: Believe all patterns are real --

被設定成＂相信所有的模式都是真的＂。

All rustles in the grass are dangerous predators

＂草叢中的響動都是危險的掠食者＂

and not just the wind.

＂不會只是風聲而已＂。

And so I think that we evolved ...

我想經過演化的歷程，

there was a natural selection for the propensity for our belief engines,

信任機制的傾向經過自然的挑選。

our pattern-seeking brain processes,

我們尋求模式的大腦進化成，

to always find meaningful patterns

總是去找尋有意義的模式。

and infuse them with these sort of

並且將之連結到對掠食者的恐懼，

predatory or intentional agencies that I'll come back to.

或是等下會提到的 意圖化的形象。

So for example, what do you see here?

舉例來說，你們看到什麼？

It's a horse head, that's right.

馬的頭部，沒錯。

It looks like a horse. It must be a horse.

看起來像匹馬，這個肯定是馬。

That's a pattern.

那就是模式。

And is it really a horse?

不過真的是匹馬嗎?

Or is it more like a frog?

還是更像隻青蛙？

See, our pattern detection device,

我們偵測模式的機制，

which appears to be located in the anterior cingulate cortex --

位於大腦的前扣帶皮層，

it's our little detection device there --

我們小小的偵測裝置，

can be easily fooled, and this is the problem.

很容易就會被誤導，問題就出在這兒。

For example, what do you see here?

比方說，這是什麼？

Yes, of course, it's a cow.

當然了，是一隻牛。

Once I prime the brain -- it's called cognitive priming --

一旦我給了大腦提示 --稱作認知啟動--

once I prime the brain to see it,

當我讓大腦開始辨識它，

it pops back out again even without the pattern that I've imposed on it.

即使不用提示，大腦也會一再的嘗試辨認。

And what do you see here?

這次你看到了什麼？

Some people see a Dalmatian dog.

有些人看到一隻大麥町狗。

Yes, there it is. And there's the prime.

沒有錯，這就是提示。

So when I go back without the prime,

即使把提示拿掉，

your brain already has the model

腦中的樣板還是在，

so you can see it again.

所以你仍然看的到。

What do you see here?

這是什麼？

Planet Saturn. Yes, that's good.

土星，很好。

How about here?

這個呢？

Just shout out anything you see.

看到什麼就出個聲。

That's a good audience, Chris.

很棒的觀眾，克里斯。

Because there's nothing in this. Well, allegedly there's nothing.

因為裡面什麼都沒有，據說是沒有。

This is an experiment done by Jennifer Whitson

這是珍妮佛惠特森在德州大學奧斯汀分校，

at U.T. Austin

所做的實驗。

on corporate environments

探討在企業環境下，

and whether feelings of uncertainty and out of control

那些無法確定或是不受控制的感覺，

makes people see illusory patterns.

是否會使人看到虛幻的模式。

That is, almost everybody sees the planet Saturn.

也就是說，幾乎所有人都看的到土星的圖樣。

People that are put in a condition of feeling out of control

但一旦人們處於自覺失控的狀況下，

are more likely to see something in this,

他們就越有可能從圖中看出什麼，

which is allegedly patternless.

即使這裡沒有任何模式可尋。

In other words, the propensity to find these patterns

換句話說，當狀況失去控制的時候，

goes up when there's a lack of control.

嘗試尋找模式的傾向就越強。

For example, baseball players are notoriously superstitious

例如，棒球選手是出了名的迷信

when they're batting,

不過只在打擊的時候。

but not so much when they're fielding.

守備的時候就不是這麼一回事。

Because fielders are successful

因為守備成功率，

90 to 95 percent of the time.

通常有九成到九成五左右。

The best batters fail seven out of 10 times.

即使最好的打者，十次裡也會有七次失誤。

So their superstitions, their patternicities,

所以他們的迷信，模式化的程度，

are all associated with feelings of lack of control

跟這種無法掌控的感覺

and so forth.

有很大的關聯。

What do you see in this particular one here, in this field?

這次你們看到了什麼？在這個區域裡。

Anybody see an object there?

有人看到什麼嗎？

There actually is something here,

其實有些東西，

but it's degraded.

只是被模糊處理過了。

While you're thinking about that,

當你們在嘗試的時候，

this was an experiment done by Susan Blackmore,

這是蘇珊布萊克摩爾，一位心理學家

a psychologist in England,

在英國所做的實驗。

who showed subjects this degraded image

他們讓受試者觀看模糊處理過的圖片，

and then ran a correlation between

接著分析兩者間的關聯性：

their scores on an ESP test:

他們的ESP(第六感)測驗分數--

How much did they believe in the paranormal,

對科學無法解釋的事件、

supernatural, angels and so forth.

超自然、天使等等，相信程度的多寡--

And those who scored high on the ESP scale,

在ESP量表上得分越高的人，

tended to not only see

就越容易，

more patterns in the degraded images

不僅看到更多的樣式，

but incorrect patterns.

也辨識出不正確的樣式。

Here is what you show subjects.

這是你讓受試者看到的，

The fish is degraded 20 percent, 50 percent

魚的圖片經過百分之二十，和五十的模糊化處理。

and then the one I showed you,

以及我放的這張，

70 percent.

百分之七十。

A similar experiment was done by another [Swiss] psychologist

另一位英國（應為瑞士籍）心理學家，

named Peter Brugger,

彼得布魯格也做過類似的實驗。

who found significantly more meaningful patterns

他發現連接左邊視覺區的右腦半球，

were perceived on the right hemisphere,

比起左腦，

via the left visual field, than the left hemisphere.

更容易察覺有意義的圖樣。

So if you present subjects the images such

因此如果你給受測者看的圖片，

that it's going to end up on the right hemisphere instead of the left,

偏重於用右腦來處理，

then they're more likely to see patterns

那麼比起需要用左腦處理的圖片，

than if you put it on the left hemisphere.

他們會更容易發現其中的模式。

Our right hemisphere appears to be

看來我們的右腦

where a lot of this patternicity occurs.

負責了大多數的模式化行為。

So what we're trying to do is bore into the brain

所以我們試著觀察大腦內部，

to see where all this happens.

找出相關的區域。

Brugger and his colleague, Christine Mohr,

布魯格和他的同事，克莉絲汀莫爾

gave subjects L-DOPA.

提供受測者左旋多巴胺(L-DOPA)。

L-DOPA's a drug, as you know, given for treating Parkinson's disease,

你們或許聽過左旋多巴胺是用來治療帕金森氏症，

which is related to a decrease in dopamine.

與患者的多巴胺含量降低有關，

L-DOPA increases dopamine.

而這種藥能夠提升多巴胺的含量。

An increase of dopamine caused

多巴胺含量的提升

subjects to see more patterns

則使得受測者看到更多圖樣，

than those that did not receive the dopamine.

比未使用的受測者還多。

So dopamine appears to be the drug

也就是說多巴胺應該和模式化認知

associated with patternicity.

有相當程度的關聯。

In fact, neuroleptic drugs

事實上，一些鎮靜劑

that are used to eliminate psychotic behavior,

被用來抑制精神病相關症狀，如

things like paranoia, delusions

妄想症、錯覺，

and hallucinations,

以及幻覺，

these are patternicities.

這些都是模式化行為。

They're incorrect patterns. They're false positives. They're Type I errors.

只是那些是不正確的模式。類型一的誤判。

And if you give them drugs

當患者使用

that are dopamine antagonists,

抑制多巴胺的藥劑，

they go away.

這些症狀就會消失。

That is, you decrease the amount of dopamine,

多巴胺的含量一降低，

and their tendency to see

患者原本容易看到不存在的模式，

patterns like that decreases.

這樣的傾向也隨著降低。

On the other hand, amphetamines like cocaine

另一種情況，安非他命類藥劑如可卡因，

are dopamine agonists.

是多巴胺的促進劑。

They increase the amount of dopamine.

這類藥劑會提升體內的多巴胺分泌量，

So you're more likely to feel in a euphoric state,

讓你容易覺得飄飄欲仙，

creativity, find more patterns.

文思泉湧，看到更多東西。

In fact, I saw Robin Williams recently

我最近就和羅賓威廉斯討論到

talk about how he thought he was much funnier

他嗑藥的時候--過去他有這方面的問題--

when he was doing cocaine, when he had that issue, than now.

覺得那時可卡因讓他比現在更加風趣。

So perhaps more dopamine

或許多巴胺的量越多，

is related to more creativity.

能夠讓你更有創造力。

Dopamine, I think, changes

我認為多巴胺會改變

our signal-to-noise ratio.

我們對信號／雜訊的認知。

That is, how accurate we are

也就是讓我們找出模式

in finding patterns.

的準確程度。

If it's too low, you're more likely to make too many Type II errors.

如果準確度太低，你會傾向於犯下更多類型二的錯誤。

You miss the real patterns. You don't want to be too skeptical.

你會忽略實際存在的模式，你不想變得太疑神疑鬼，

If you're too skeptical, you'll miss the really interesting good ideas.

果真如此，你可能會錯過那些真正有趣的想法。

Just right, you're creative, and yet you don't fall for too much baloney.

恰到好處的話，你會很有創意。也不會被人耍著玩。

Too high and maybe you see patterns everywhere.

太過度的話，你會發現到處都是模式。

Every time somebody looks at you, you think people are staring at you.

別人只是看你一眼，你卻覺得對方在瞪你。

You think people are talking about you.

你覺得大家都在討論你。

And if you go too far on that, that's just simply

若是這樣的狀況太過嚴重，

labeled as madness.

你就會被當作瘋子。

It's a distinction perhaps we might make

我們或許可以從兩位諾貝爾獎得主，

between two Nobel laureates, Richard Feynman

理查費曼和約翰奈許之間

and John Nash.

看出這樣的差異。

One sees maybe just the right number

其中一人看出的模式，

of patterns to win a Nobel Prize.

剛好足以讓他得到諾貝爾獎。

The other one also, but maybe too many patterns.

另外一人看到的可能太多了一點，

And we then call that schizophrenia.

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.

所以辨別信號／雜訊的能力顯示出模式偵測的問題，

And of course you all know exactly

當然你們都知道

what this is, right?

這是什麼，對吧。

And what pattern do you see here?

這裡你看到了什麼？

Again, I'm putting your anterior cingulate cortex to the test here,

我正在考驗你大腦的前扣帶皮層，

causing you conflicting pattern detections.

混淆你眼中所看到的模式。

You know, of course, this is Via Uno shoes.

當然，這是VIA UNO的鞋子，

These are sandals.

兩款涼鞋。

Pretty sexy feet, I must say.

不得不承認這腳很性感，

Maybe a little Photoshopped.

搞不好有修過圖。

And of course, the ambiguous figures

當然還有模稜兩可的圖形，

that seem to flip-flop back and forth.

看上去不停的變動著。

It turns out what you're thinking about a lot

也就是說，一個人腦袋裡裝了什麼，

influences what you

就會影響你

tend to see.

所看到的。

And you see the lamp here, I know.

我知道你們看到的是檯燈，

Because the lights on here.

因為燈是亮的。

Of course, thanks to the environmentalist movement

感謝環保人士的積極運動，

we're all sensitive to the plight of marine mammals.

我們才能對海洋生物的困境有所了解。

So what you see in this particular ambiguous figure

所以我們才能在這張曖昧的圖片裡看到...

is, of course, the dolphins, right?

海豚，當然了。

You see a dolphin here,

你看這邊有一隻，

and there's a dolphin,

那邊一隻，

and there's a dolphin.

又一隻。

That's a dolphin tail there, guys.

拜託，那是海豚尾巴好嗎。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

If we can give you conflicting data, again,

如果你得到互相衝突的資訊，

your ACC is going to be going into hyperdrive.

你的前扣帶皮層就會像進入加速狀態一樣。

If you look down here, it's fine. If you look up here, then you get conflicting data.

底下這裡看起來很正常，但是往上一看，便會察覺矛盾。

And then we have to flip the image

直到我們將圖片翻轉，

for you to see that it's a set up.

你才看得出這是刻意設計的。

The impossible crate illusion.

＂不存在的箱子＂的幻覺。

It's easy to fool the brain in 2D.

平面影像很容易騙過大腦，

So you say, "Aw, come on Shermer, anybody can do that

你說＂得了吧，大家都做得到，

in a Psych 101 text with an illusion like that."

每本心理學入門書都有一張這種圖。＂

Well here's the late, great Jerry Andrus'

這張是最近由傑里安德勒斯所做的，

"impossible crate" illusion in 3D,

立體版本的＂不存在的箱子＂。

in which Jerry is standing inside

而且傑里看起來像是

the impossible crate.

站在箱子的裡面。

And he was kind enough to post this

他非常大方的上傳了解答，

and give us the reveal.

讓我們能看出箇中巧妙。

Of course, camera angle is everything. The photographer is over there,

當然，重點在於相機的角度，攝影師在那裡，

and this board appears to overlap with this one, and this one with that one, and so on.

使得這塊板子看來像是疊在另一塊上方，以此類推。

But even when I take it away,

即使我已經讓你看過解答，

the illusion is so powerful because of how are brains are wired

大腦尋找特定模式的運作方式，

to find those certain kinds of patterns.

還是讓幻覺的印象非常強烈。

This is a fairly new one

這張比較新一點。

that throws us off because of the conflicting patterns

比較兩張照片中不同角度的矛盾，

of comparing this angle with that angle.

會讓我們搞不清楚。

In fact, it's the exact same picture side by side.

其實這是兩張完全相同的照片。

So what you're doing is comparing that angle

問題在於沒注意到比對的對象，

instead of with this one, but with that one.

兩者間的角度有所不同，

And so your brain is fooled.

你的大腦就被騙了。

Yet again, your pattern detection devices are fooled.

你的模式辨識機制又再一次被愚弄了。

Faces are easy to see

臉孔很容易辨識，

because we have an additional evolved

因為在大腦的顳葉裡，

facial recognition software

我們擁有獨立進化過的，

in our temporal lobes.

臉部辨識軟體。

Here's some faces on the side of a rock.

這些是岩石上出現的臉孔，

I'm actually not even sure if this is -- this might be Photoshopped.

我甚至不確定這是不是修過圖，這個可能是。

But anyway, the point is still made.

無論如何，重點還是一樣。

Now which one of these looks odd to you?

現在哪一張看起來怪怪的？

In a quick reaction, which one looks odd?

用直覺來作答。

The one on the left. Okay. So I'll rotate it

左邊這張，好，我把它轉過來，

so it'll be the one on the right.

也就是變成右手邊的這張，

And you are correct.

你們是對的。

A fairly famous illusion -- it was first done with Margaret Thatcher.

相當有名的幻象，柴契爾夫人是第一個被用上的，

Now, they trade up the politicians every time.

每隔一陣子就換一位政治人物。

Well, why is this happening?

為什麼會這樣？

Well, we know exactly where it happens,

恩，我們確切知道這在哪裡發生，

in the temporal lobe, right across, sort of above your ear there,

在顳葉裡，偏右，大概在耳朵上方。

in a little structure called the fusiform gyrus.

有一個組織叫做梭狀回，

And there's two types of cells that do this,

裡頭有兩種細胞，

that record facial features either globally,

不管是動用整群細胞來紀錄臉部的特徵，

or specifically these large, rapid-firing cells,

或是這一類大型，反應快速的細胞。

first look at the general face.

先看出臉部的大概，

So you recognize Obama immediately.

讓你能立刻認出歐巴馬。

And then you notice something quite

接著你會注意到有點不對勁，

a little bit odd about the eyes and the mouth.

眼睛和嘴巴的部分有些奇怪，

Especially when they're upside down,

尤其是當它們上下顛倒的時候。

you're engaging that general facial recognition software there.

那就是你正在使用臉部辨識的軟體。

Now I said back in our little thought experiment,

現在我們回到之前的思想實驗。

you're a hominid walking on the plains of Africa.

你是正在非洲草原上行走的原始人，

Is it just the wind or a dangerous predator?

心裡想著是風聲，還是危險的掠食者？

What's the difference between those?

兩者間的差異在哪？

Well, the wind is inanimate;

風聲是沒有生命的，

the dangerous predator is an intentional agent.

而掠食者則代表了一個擁有意圖的形象。

And I call this process agenticity.

我把這個過程稱作形象化，

That is the tendency to infuse patterns

也就是傾向於將觀察到的模式賦予意義、

with meaning, intention and agency,

目的以及形象--

often invisible beings from the top down.

常被理解為從上方俯瞰，不可見的存在--

This is an idea that we got

這個想法是從另一位TED演講者，

from a fellow TEDster here, Dan Dennett,

丹尼特而來的。

who talked about taking the intentional stance.

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:

所以我想，這個說法的衍伸，可以解釋很多事物，

souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels,

靈魂、精靈、鬼魂、神祇、魔鬼、天使、

aliens, intelligent designers,

外星人、智慧設計者、

government conspiracists

政府陰謀論者，

and all manner of invisible agents

以及各種不可見的形象，

with power and intention, are believed

擁有力量和目的，人們相信

to haunt our world and control our lives.

它們會在人間作祟或控制我們的生活。

I think it's the basis of animism

我想這就是泛靈論，

and polytheism and monotheism.

以及一神論和多神論的源頭。

It's the belief that aliens are somehow

人們相信外星人

more advanced than us, more moral than us,

比我們更進步，更具道德感，

and the narratives always are

而故事旁白總是會說，

that they're coming here to save us and rescue us from on high.

它們是從天而降來拯救我們的。

The intelligent designer's always portrayed

＂智慧設計者＂則被描繪成

as this super intelligent, moral being

無比聰明，道德高尚的存在，

that comes down to design life.

降臨塵世以創造萬物。

Even the idea that government can rescue us --

即使是政府可以救助我們，

that's no longer the wave of the future,

這種已經退流行的想法，

but that is, I think, a type of agenticity:

我仍然認為是某種形象化的行為。

projecting somebody up there,

幻想某個高高在上，

big and powerful, will come rescue us.

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.

換個角度說，我認為這也是陰謀論的源頭：

There's somebody hiding behind there pulling the strings,

某個藏鏡人在背後操控一切，

whether it's the Illuminati

例如光明會，

or the Bilderbergers.

或是畢德堡集團。

But this is a pattern detection problem, isn't it?

但是我們面對的是模式辨認的問題，

Some patterns are real and some are not.

有些模式是真的，有些則否。

Was JFK assassinated by a conspiracy or by a lone assassin?

約翰甘迺迪是被暗中殺害，或者只是一位刺客？

Well, if you go there -- there's people there on any given day --

如果你到這個地方，那裡一年到頭都有人，

like when I went there, here -- showing me where the different shooters were.

像我去的那次，有人指給我看不同槍手的位置。

My favorite one was he was in the manhole.

我最愛的是躲在人孔蓋下面的那個，

And he popped out at the last second, took that shot.

殺手在關鍵時刻從底下蹦出來，開槍殺了甘迺迪。

But of course, Lincoln was assassinated by a conspiracy.

當然我們知道林肯是被陰謀殺害的，

So we can't just uniformly dismiss

所以我們也不能單純只是忽略，

all patterns like that.

所有可能的說法。

Because, let's face it, some patterns are real.

因為事實上，有些模式是真的，

Some conspiracies really are true.

有些陰謀是千真萬確的。

Explains a lot, maybe.

原來如此，是吧。

And 9/11 has a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy.

911事件也有陰謀論說法。

We did a whole issue on it.

我們做了一整期的專題來討論。

Nineteen members of Al Queda plotting to fly planes into buildings

十九名基地組織的成員計畫用飛機衝撞大樓，

constitutes a conspiracy.

算是某種陰謀。

But that's not what the "9/11 truthers" think.

但是＂911真相調查會＂可不這麼想，

They think it was an inside job by the Bush administration.

他們認為是小布希政府在幕後操作...

Well, that's a whole other lecture.

光這個主題就可以另外講一整場。

You know how we know that 9/11

不過你會說，我們怎麼知道911事件

was not orchestrated by the Bush administration?

不是布希政府自導自演的？

Because it worked.

因為它成功了！

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

So we are natural-born dualists.

我們是天生的二元論者。

Our agenticity process comes from

我們創造形象的能力，來自於

the fact that we can enjoy movies like these.

一種讓我們能夠享受這種電影的天賦。

Because we can imagine, in essence,

因為我們能夠想像事物的本質，

continuing on.

並且舉一反三。

We know that if you stimulate the temporal lobe,

我們知道如果刺激顳葉，

you can produce a feeling of out-of-body experiences,

就可以模擬靈魂出竅的經驗、

near-death experiences,

瀕死體驗等，

which you can do by just touching an electrode to the temporal lobe there.

你只需要用電極刺激顳葉裡的特定位置。

Or you can do it through loss of consciousness,

或者是利用離心機加速，

by accelerating in a centrifuge.

讓人失去知覺。

You get a hypoxia, or a lower oxygen.

當你缺氧，血液含氧量降低，

And the brain then senses

大腦就會接著

that there's an out-of-body experience.

產生脫離身體的感覺。

You can use -- which I did, went out and did --

你可以利用 --我曾經嘗試過--

Michael Persinger's God Helmet,

麥可佩辛格的＂上帝的頭盔＂，

that bombards your temporal lobes with electromagnetic waves.

它利用電磁波轟炸你的顳葉，

And you get a sense of out-of-body experience.

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

最後我想利用一段影片

that sort of brings all this together.

來作個總結。

It's just a minute and a half.

只有一分半鐘的短片，

It ties together all this into the power of expectation and the power of belief.

展現出「期望」和「信念」的力量有多麼強大。

Go ahead and roll it.

請撥放影片。

Narrator: This is the venue they chose for their fake auditions

旁白：這裡是他們用來假裝面試的地方，

for an advert for lip balm.

面試內容是一個護唇膏的廣告。

Woman: We're hoping we can use part of this

我們希望可以使用一部分內容，

in a national commercial, right?

放在全國性的廣告上。

And this is test on some lip balms

測試內容是這裡所放的

that we have over here.

幾種護唇膏。

And these are our models who are going to help us,

我們請了幾位模特兒來幫忙，

Roger and Matt.

羅傑和麥特。

And we have our own lip balm,

這是我們的護唇膏，

and we have a leading brand.

以及幾款市面上的領導品牌。

Would you have any problem

如果需要你和我們的模特兒接吻，

kissing our models to test it?

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.

這是一個蒙眼測試。

I'm going to ask you to go ahead

我會請你上前，

and put a blindfold on.

用眼罩遮住。

Kay, now can you see anything? (Girl: No.)

好，你現在還看的到嗎？（女孩：看不到。）

Pull it so you can't even see down. (Girl: Okay.)

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

這個測試的目的是要觀察護唇膏

is how it protects your lips,

對嘴唇的保護作用，

the texture, right,

觸感，

and maybe if you can discern any flavor or not.

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.

往前站一點。

Okay, now I'm going to ask you to pucker up.

好，現在請你把嘴唇噘起來，

Pucker up big and lean in just a little bit, okay?

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.

好。

And, Jennifer, how did that feel?

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