字幕表 動画を再生する 英語字幕をプリント The Delusion of Free Will Good evening, everyone. I'm Ann Mossop from the Sydney Opera House. And it's my great pleasure to welcome you here to the opening night of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in 2012. The Festival of Dangerous Ideas is presented by the Sydney Opera House in partnership with the St James Ethics Centre, and my co-curator, Simon Longstaff, from the St James Ethics Centre is here to welcome you also. -(APPLAUSE) -Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. And on behalf of all of us here this evening and those attending the festival, I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Gadigal people of the Eora nation on whose traditional lands we meet to pay our respects to their elders, and also to all other elders who are here with us at this time. I'd also like to welcome to her first Festival of Dangerous Ideas Louise Herron, the incoming CEO of the Sydney Opera House. At the St James Ethics Centre, we really value the partnership we have with the Opera House which makes an event of this kind possible. And it's a great privilege to be able to work with people like Louise and Jonathan and the rest of the team in presenting this event. But also here in the audience somewhere, and I can't see him, attending his first Festival of Dangerous Ideas while not being the CEO of the Opera House is Richard Evans, who, along with me, founded the Festival of Dangerous Ideas about five years ago, and I hope he's going to enjoy this weekend as much as the rest of us. -(APPLAUSE) -Yes, please welcome Richard. There are a number of great civic occasions taking place this weekend, one with the grand final of the AFL in Melbourne, the grand final of the rugby league here in Sydney. And I'd count this as the third great civic event with all of us here. -So thanks for coming along. -(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) Finally, one of the great pleasures of working on this festival is being able to work as a colleague with Ann Mossop, the co-curator, and the festival producer, Danielle Harvey. They are really tremendous intellects and great inspirations for making what I think you're gonna enjoy as a wonderful weekend of activity. So it's with particular pleasure that I hand back to you, Ann, to introduce the first of our speakers tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much, Simon. Before we get started, some small issues of housekeeping. Please can you make sure that your mobile phones are turned off? And while we encourage discreet tweeting - to hash tag #FODI - or indiscreet tweeting, if that is more dangerous... (LAUGHTER) And we will be hearing, of course, from Sam Harris this evening, and there will be time at the end for some questions from the audience. You'll notice that there are microphones throughout the auditorium, including for our lovely colleagues behind me. So I will come back to the stage to moderate that question-and-answer session, and I'm sure that there will be some fast and furious exchanges there. Sam Harris is the bestselling author of books like 'The End of Faith', 'Letter to a Christian Nation', 'The Moral Landscape', 'Lying' and 'Free Will'. 'The End of Faith' was the winner of the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction. He's the co-founder and chairman of Project Reason, a non-profit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values. He received a degree in philosophy from the Stanford University and a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA. We're particularly pleased that he was able to come to the Festival of Dangerous Ideas because although we're not generally collectors as such, this is the fourth of the Four Horsemen of the New Atheist Apocalypse to grace our stage. (APPLAUSE) And those of you who are truly Festival of Dangerous Ideas diehards may have been here to see Christopher Hitchens, the late Christopher Hitchens, open the first festival in 2009. But of course since then we've had not one but two visits from Richard Dawkins and a wonderful appearance from Daniel Dennett late last year. So, more importantly than that, however, what Sam Harris brings us tonight is a unique blend of science and philosophy to the fearless dissection of big and dangerous ideas, and his work on free will is absolutely no exception. Looking at what neuroscience has revealed about the workings of our brains, he's penned a pithy and cogent argument about what this means for how and why we do what we do and how this in fact exposes free will as an illusion. In the first paragraph of the book he says, "If the scientific community were to declare free will an illusion, "it would precipitate a culture war far more belligerent "than the one that has been waged on the subject of evolution." So when that breaks out, you were here somewhere very close to the beginning. (GENTLE LAUGHTER) Sam is writing about an area where the complexities of cognitive science, neuroscience and philosophy come together, and he really excels at bringing a compelling clarity to his argument that free will is in fact a delusion, so even those of us who are fortunate or unfortunate enough not to be philosophers and neuroscientists will be able to participate fully in what I'm sure will be a wonderful discussion. Sam Harris. (APPLAUSE) Well, it really is an honour to be here at such a beautiful venue, and to be following the other Horsemen. It really is great to be here. Now, I'm going to speak tonight about the delusion of free will. And, to my surprise, this is an incredibly sensitive subject - it's perhaps the most sensitive subject I have had the honour to touch. It's sensitive to religious people, of course, because without free will, Judaism, Christianity, Islam don't make any sense, if you can imagine such a thing. (LAUGHTER) But the existence of free will is actually a very sensitive topic for atheists as well, because it seems to touch everything human beings care about. It seems to touch everything, in fact, that makes us distinctly human - morality and law and politics and religion and intimate relationships, feelings of personal accomplishment, feelings of guilt and responsibility. It seems that most of what we care about in human life depends upon our being able to view other people like ourselves as being the actual conscious source of their thoughts and actions. So, in this talk I hope to do two things. I hope to convince you that free will is an illusion and I hope to convince you also that this matters, and those are quite distinct. And I want to begin, I hope, on not too defensive a note by telling you the two ways, the two most common ways of misunderstanding my argument, and this is sort of like beginning a marriage proposal by saying, "Here are the two most common reasons women haven't wanted to marry me..." (LAUGHTER) "..and why they were wrong." (LAUGHTER) Now, the first way of missing the point is to think that we simply don't understand enough - science is incomplete, some of our scientific assumptions may be false, there may be truths to discover about the nature of the universe that would put free will, the popular notion of free will, on some new footing. So it's simply too soon to say scientifically that free will is an illusion. This is not true. I am arguing that free will as a concept is so incoherent that it can't be mapped onto any conceivable reality. The second detour you might be tempted to take, as many have, is to say, "Well, of course the popular notion of free will "doesn't make any sense. "It doesn't fit the facts." "But...none of that matters. "That's an academic argument. "We still feel free. This changes nothing." It's sort of like saying that, uh... ..atoms are mostly empty space. This is not empty space we can use - nothing about our life changes. You know, "Everything is mostly empty space, "but I still can't fit into an old pair of pants." Many people agree that free will doesn't make any sense and that it's some kind of illusion, but they think that nothing important changes, and that also, on my view, is untrue. Imagine you're taking a nap in the botanical garden next door. I don't know if that's legal or not, but just imagine you do it. And you are awakened by an unfamiliar sound and you open your eyes and you see a large crocodile about to seize your face in its jaws. Stranger things have probably happened. It should be easy enough to see that you have a problem. -(LAUGHTER) -OK? And now swap the crocodile for a man holding an axe. The problem changes in some interesting ways, but the sudden emergence of free will in the brain of your attacker is not one of them. But imagine the difference between these two experiences. Let's say you survive your ordeal and you have a... it's a terrifying experience and let's say you're injured - let's say you lose a hand. Now imagine confronting your human attacker on the witness stand during his trial. OK, if you're like most people, you are gonna feel feelings of hatred that could be so intense as to constitute a further trauma. OK, you might spend years of your life fantasising about this person's death. How much time are you gonna spend hating the crocodile? You might even go to the zoo, take your friends and family to the zoo for fun, just to look at him. You'd say, "That is the beast that almost killed me." Although you might be pointing with this hand. (LAUGHTER) Which state of mind would you rather have? Now, I think this idea of free will largely accounts for the difference. The crocodile was just being a crocodile. What else was a crocodile going to do, coming upon you napping in the park? But this idea that the human had free will and could have done otherwise and should have done otherwise... ..has very different consequences. Now, most people imagine that a belief in free will is necessary for morality, morality has to be grounded in this idea, and it's necessary, therefore, for getting most of what we want out of life. I think that's clearly untrue. The difference between happiness and suffering exists with or without free will. I no more want to be eaten by a crocodile than I want to be killed by a man with an axe. These are both very good things to avoid. And we can avoid them and we can talk about almost everything else we want in life without suffering any obvious illusions about the origins of human behaviour. Now, the popular conception of free will seems to rest on two assumptions. The first is that each of us was free to think and act differently than we did in the past. You chose A, but you could have chosen B. You became a policeman but you could have become a firefighter. You ordered chocolate but you could have ordered vanilla. It certainly seems to most of us that this is the world we're living in. Now, the second assumption is that you are the conscious source of your thoughts and actions. You feel that you want to move, and then you move. Your conscious desires and intentions and thoughts that precede your actions seem to be their true origin. The conscious part of you that is experiencing your inner life is actually the author of your inner life and your subsequent behaviour. Now, unfortunately, we know that both of these assumptions are false. The first problem is that we live in a world of cause and effect. Everything that could possibly constitute your will is either the product of a long chain of prior causes and you're not responsible for them, or it's the product of randomness, and you're not responsible for that, obviously, or it's some combination of the two. And however you turn this dial between the iron law of determinism and mere randomness, free will makes no more sense. What does it mean to say that a person acted of his own free will? It must mean that he could have consciously done otherwise... ..not based on random influences over which he had no control, but because he, as the conscious author of his thoughts and actions, could have thought and acted in other ways. Now, the problem is that no-one has ever described a way in which mental and physical events could arise that make sense of this claim. Consider your generic murderer.