Do we see reality as it is? | Donald Hoffman | TED

Translator: Zlata Hadzimuratovic Reviewer: Ivana Korom

I love a great mystery,

Volim veliku misteriju,

and I'm fascinated by the greatest unsolved mystery in science,

i fasciniran sam najvećom nerazriješenom misterijom u nauci,

perhaps because it's personal.

vjerovatno zato jer je lična.

It's about who we are,

Radi se o tome ko smo mi,

and I can't help but be curious.

i ne mogu da ne budem znatiželjan.

The mystery is this:

Misterija je sljedeća:

What is the relationship between your brain

koji je odnos između tvog mozga

and your conscious experiences,

i tvog svjesnog iskustva,

such as your experience of the taste of chocolate

kao što je tvoje iskustvo ukusa čokolade

or the feeling of velvet?

ili dodir baršuna?

Now, this mystery is not new.

Ova misterija nije nova.

In 1868, Thomas Huxley wrote,

1868. godine Thomas Huxley je napisao,

"How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about

"Kako nešto tako izvanredno kao što je stanje svijesti dolazi

as the result of irritating nervous tissue

kao rezultat nadraženog živčanog tkiva

is just as unaccountable

je podjednako neobjašnjivo

as the appearance of the genie when Aladdin rubbed his lamp."

kao pojavljivanje duha kada Aladin protrlja svoju lampu".

Now, Huxley knew that brain activity

Huxley je znao da su moždane aktivnosti

and conscious experiences are correlated,

povezane sa svjesnim iskustvima,

but he didn't know why.

ali nije znao zašto.

To the science of his day, it was a mystery.

Nauci njegovog vremena to je bila misterija.

In the years since Huxley,

Godinama nakon Huxley-a,

science has learned a lot about brain activity,

nauka je otkrila mnogo o moždanoj aktivnosti,

but the relationship between brain activity

ali je odnos između moždane aktivnosti

and conscious experiences is still a mystery.

i svjesnih iskustava ostao misterija.

Why? Why have we made so little progress?

Zašto? Zašto smo smo tako malo napredovali?

Well, some experts think that we can't solve this problem

Pa, neki stručnjaci smatraju da mi ne možemo riješiti ovaj problem

because we lack the necessary concepts and intelligence.

zbog pomanjkanja neophodnih koncepata i inteligencije.

We don't expect monkeys to solve problems in quantum mechanics,

Ne očekujemo od majmuna da riješe probleme kvantne mehanike,

and as it happens, we can't expect our species to solve this problem either.

kao što ne možemo očekivati ni od naše vrste da riješi ovaj problem.

Well, I disagree. I'm more optimistic.

Ali, ja se ne slažem s tim. Ja sam više optimističan.

I think we've simply made a false assumption.

Mislim da smo jednostavno stvorili lažnu pretpostavku.

Once we fix it, we just might solve this problem.

Kada jednom to izmijenimo, možda ćemo i moći riješiti ovaj problem.

Today, I'd like tell you what that assumption is,

Danas ću vam reći koja je to pretpostavka,

why it's false, and how to fix it.

zašto je lažna, i kako je izmijeniti.

Let's begin with a question:

Počnimo pitanjem:

Do we see reality as it is?

vidimo li stvarnost onakvu kakva ona jeste?

I open my eyes

Otvorim oči

and I have an experience that I describe as a red tomato a meter away.

i imam iskustvo koje opisujem kao crveni paradajz na metar od mene.

As a result, I come to believe that in reality,

Kao rezultat ovoga, vjerujem da se u stvarnosti,

there's a red tomato a meter away.

crveni paradajz nalazi na metar od mene.

I then close my eyes, and my experience changes to a gray field,

Onda zatvorim oči, i moje iskustvo se mijenja u sivo polje,

but is it still the case that in reality, there's a red tomato a meter away?

ali da li je još uvijek u stvarnosti, crveni paradajz na metar od mene?

I think so, but could I be wrong?

Mislim da jeste, ali možda griješim?

Could I be misinterpreting the nature of my perceptions?

Možda pogrešno tumačim prirodu svojih opažanja?

We have misinterpreted our perceptions before.

Pogrešno smo tumačili naša opažanja i ranije.

We used to think the Earth is flat, because it looks that way.

Mislili smo da je Zemlja ravna ploča, jer izgleda tako.

Pythagorus discovered that we were wrong.

Pitagora je otkrio da smo bili u krivu.

Then we thought that the Earth is the unmoving center of the Universe,

Zatim smo mislili da je Zemlja nepokretni centar svemira,

again because it looks that way.

jer izgleda tako.

Copernicus and Galileo discovered, again, that we were wrong.

Kopernik i Galileo su otkrili ponovo, da smo u krivu.

Galileo then wondered if we might be misinterpreting our experiences

Galileo se onda zapitao, može li biti da pogrešno tumačimo naša iskustva

in other ways.

i na druge načine.

He wrote: "I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on

Napisao je: "Mislim da okusi, mirisi, boje itd

reside in consciousness.

prebivaju u našoj svijesti.

Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be annihilated."

Stoga, ako bi se živa bića uklonila, sva ova iskustva bi bila poništena."

Now, that's a stunning claim.

E to je zapanjujuća tvrdnja.

Could Galileo be right?

Je li Galileo mogao biti u pravu?

Could we really be misinterpreting our experiences that badly?

Je li moguće da toliko pogrešno tumačimo naša iskustva?

What does modern science have to say about this?

Šta moderna nauka ima da kaže na sve ovo?

Well, neuroscientists tell us that about a third of the brain's cortex

Pa, neurolozi kažu da je skoro trećina moždane kore

is engaged in vision.

odgovorna za vid.

When you simply open your eyes and look about this room,

Kad samo otvorite oči i pogledate po ovoj prostoriji,

billions of neurons and trillions of synapses are engaged.

milijarde neurona i bilioni sinapsi se angažuju.

Now, this is a bit surprising,

Ovo je prilično iznenađujuće,

because to the extent that we think about vision at all,

jer u mjeri u kojoj mi razmišljamo o vidu uopšte,

we think of it as like a camera.

zamišljamo ga kao foto aparat.

It just takes a picture of objective reality as it is.

On samo uslika objektivnu stvarnost kakva jeste.

Now, there is a part of vision that's like a camera:

E sad, postoji dio vida koji jeste poput foto aparata:

the eye has a lens that focuses an image on the back of the eye

oko sadrži leću koja fokusira sliku na pozadinu oka

where there are 130 million photoreceptors,

gdje se nalazi 130 miliona fotoreceptora,

so the eye is like a 130-megapixel camera.

tako da je oko nešto poput foto aparata od 130 megapiksela.

But that doesn't explain the billions of neurons

Ali to ne objašnjava rad milijarde neurona

and trillions of synapses that are engaged in vision.

i biliona sinapsi koje omogućuju vid.

What are these neurons up to?

Šta rade ovi neuroni?

Well, neuroscientists tell us that they are creating, in real time,

Pa, neurolozi nam kažu da oni stvaraju, u realnom vremenu,

all the shapes, objects, colors, and motions that we see.

sve oblike, predmete, boje i pokrete koje vidimo.

It feels like we're just taking a snapshot of this room the way it is,

Čini se kako mi samo pravimo snimak ove prostorije kakva jeste;

but in fact, we're constructing everything that we see.

dok zapravo mi konstruišemo sve što vidimo.

We don't construct the whole world at once.

Ne konstruišemo cijeli svijet odjednom.

We construct what we need in the moment.

Konstruišemo samo ono što nam je potrebno u trenutku.

Now, there are many demonstrations that are quite compelling

Postoje mnogi dokazi, koji su prilično uvjerljivi,

that we construct what we see.

da mi konstruišemo ono što vidimo.

I'll just show you two.

Pokazaću vam dva.

In this example, you see some red discs with bits cut out of them,

U ovom primjeru, vidite crvene diskove kojima su neki dijelovi izrezani,

but if I just rotate the disks a little bit,

ali ako samo malo zarotiram ove diskove,

suddenly, you see a 3D cube pop out of the screen.

odjednom vidite trodimenzionalnu kocku koja se pojavljuje na ekranu.

Now, the screen of course is flat,

Ekran je naravno ravan,

so the three-dimensional cube that you're experiencing

stoga je trodimenzionalna kocka koju vidite

must be your construction.

samo vaša konstrukcija.

In this next example,

U sljedećem primjeru,

you see glowing blue bars with pretty sharp edges

vidite svijetleće plave trake prilično oštrih ivica

moving across a field of dots.

kako se kreću preko polja tačaka.

In fact, no dots move.

U stvari, nijedna tačka se ne pomiče.

All I'm doing from frame to frame is changing the colors of dots

Sve što radim, iz kadra u kadar, jeste mijenjanje boje tačaka

from blue to black or black to blue.

iz plave u crnu, ili iz crne u plavu.

But when I do this quickly,

Ali kada ovo radim brzo,

your visual system creates the glowing blue bars

vaš vizuelni sistem kreira svijetleće plave trake

with the sharp edges and the motion.

oštrih ivica i u pokretu.

There are many more examples, but these are just two

Postoji još mnogo primjera, a ovo su samo dva

that you construct what you see.

da vi konstruišete ono što vidite.

But neuroscientists go further.

Međutim neurolozi idu još dalje.

They say that we reconstruct reality.

Oni tvrde da mi rekonstruišemo stvarnost.

So, when I have an experience that I describe as a red tomato,

Tako kada imam iskustvo koje opisujem kao crveni paradajz,

that experience is actually an accurate reconstruction

to iskustvo je zapravo tačna rekonstrukcija

of the properties of a real red tomato

svojstava stvarnog crvenog paradajza

that would exist even if I weren't looking.

koji bi postojao čak i ako ne gledam.

Now, why would neuroscientists say that we don't just construct,

E sad, zašto neurolozi kažu da mi ne samo da konstruišemo,

we reconstruct?

nego i rekonstruišemo?

Well, the standard argument given

Pa, standardni argument

is usually an evolutionary one.

je uglavnom evolucioni.

Those of our ancestors who saw more accurately

Oni naši preci koji su vidjeli preciznije,

had a competitive advantage compared to those who saw less accurately,

imali su konkurentsku prednost u odnosu na one koji su vidjeli manje precizno,

and therefore they were more likely to pass on their genes.

i zato su su imali više izgleda da prenose svoje gene.

We are the offspring of those who saw more accurately,

Mi smo potomci onih koji su vidjeli preciznije,

and so we can be confident that, in the normal case,

tako da možemo biti sigurni da su, u normalnom slučaju,

our perceptions are accurate.

naše percepcije tačne.

You see this in the standard textbooks.

Ovo piše u standardnim udžbenicima.

One textbook says, for example,

U jednom udžbeniku stoji, na primjer, da

"Evolutionarily speaking,

"U kontekstu evolucije,

vision is useful precisely because it is so accurate."

vid je koristan baš zato što je tako tačan."

So the idea is that accurate perceptions are fitter perceptions.

Dakle ideja je da su tačne percepcije pogodnije percepcije.

They give you a survival advantage.

Daju vam prednost za opstanak.

Now, is this correct?

Ipak, da li je ovo ispravno?

Is this the right interpretation of evolutionary theory?

Je li ovo ispravna interpretacija teorije evolucije?

Well, let's first look at a couple of examples in nature.

Pa, prvo pogledajmo nekoliko primjera iz prirode.

The Australian jewel beetle

Australijski krasnik

is dimpled, glossy and brown.

je jamičast, sjajan i braon.

The female is flightless.

Ženka ne može letjeti.

The male flies, looking, of course, for a hot female.

Mužjak leti, u potrazi, naravno, za primamljivom ženkom.

When he finds one, he alights and mates.

Kada je pronađe, sleti i pare se.

There's another species in the outback,

Postoje još neke vrste u australskoj divljni,

Homo sapiens.

Homo sapiensi.

The male of this species has a massive brain

Mužjak ove vrste ima masivan mozak

that he uses to hunt for cold beer.

koji koristi za lov na hladno pivo.

(Laughter)

(Smijeh)

And when he finds one, he drains it,

Kada ga pronađe, iskapi ga,

and sometimes throws the bottle into the outback.

i ponekad baci flašu nazad u divljinu.

Now, as it happens, these bottles are dimpled, glossy,

E sad ove boce imaju sitna ispupčenja, sjajne su

and just the right shade of brown to tickle the fancy of these beetles.

i takve nijanse smeđe da zagolicaju maštu ovih buba.

The males swarm all over the bottles trying to mate.

Mužjaci se počnu rojiti oko ovih boca, pokušavajući ih pariti.

They lose all interest in the real females.

Gube sav interes za stvarne ženke.

Classic case of the male leaving the female for the bottle.

Klasični slučaj kad muškarac napusti ženu zbog boce.

(Laughter) (Applause)

(Smijeh) (Aplauz)

The species almost went extinct.

Ova vrsta insekata je skoro izumrla.

Australia had to change its bottles to save its beetles.

Australija je morala da promijeni boce za pivo, kako bi spasila svoje bube.

(Laughter)

(Smijeh)

Now, the males had successfully found females for thousands,

Mužjaci su uspješno pronalazili ženke

perhaps millions of years.

hiljadama, vjerovatno i milionima godina.

It looked like they saw reality as it is, but apparently not.

Činilo se da su oni vidjeli stvarnost onakvu kakva jeste, ali očigledno nisu.

Evolution had given them a hack.

Evolucija im je omogućila hakovanje.

A female is anything dimpled, glossy and brown,

Ženka je sve što je bradavičasto, sjajno i smeđe,

the bigger the better.

što veća to bolja.

(Laughter)

(Smijeh)

Even when crawling all over the bottle, the male couldn't discover his mistake.

Čak i puzajući po cijeloj boci, mužjak nije uvidio svoju grešku.

Now, you might say, beetles, sure, they're very simple creatures,

E sada, možete reći, bube, naravno, one su veoma jednostavna stvorenja,

but surely not mammals.

ali takvi sigurno nisu sisari.

Mammals don't rely on tricks.

Sisari se ne oslanjaju na trikove.

Well, I won't dwell on this, but you get the idea. (Laughter)

Pa ne bih se baš zadržavao na ovome, ali ideja vam je jasna. (Smijeh)

So this raises an important technical question:

Ovim se postavlja važno tehničko pitanje:

Does natural selection really favor seeing reality as it is?

da li prirodna selekcija zaista favorizuje viđenje stvarnosti onakve kakva ona jeste?

Fortunately, we don't have to wave our hands and guess;

Srećom, ne moramo mahati rukama i pogađati;

evolution is a mathematically precise theory.

evolucija je matematički precizna teorija.

We can use the equations of evolution to check this out.

Možemo da ovo provjerimo koristeći jednačine evolucije.

We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete

Možemo, tako, da imamo različite organizme koji se takmiče u vještačkim okruženjima

and see which survive and which thrive,

i da vidimo koji od njih će preživjeti a koji će napredovati,

which sensory systems are more fit.

čiji senzorni sistemi su podobniji.

A key notion in those equations is fitness.

Ključni pojam u ovim jednačinama je podobnost.

Consider this steak:

Pogledajmo ovaj odrezak:

What does this steak do for the fitness of an animal?

šta ovaj odrezak predstavlja u kontekstu podobnosti životinje?

Well, for a hungry lion looking to eat, it enhances fitness.

Pa, za gladnog lava koji traži hranu, on povećava podobnost.

For a well-fed lion looking to mate, it doesn't enhance fitness.

Za dobro uhranjenog lava koji je u potrazi za parom, ne povećava podobnost.

And for a rabbit in any state, it doesn't enhance fitness,

I za zeca u bilo kojem stanju, odrezak ne povećava podobnost,

so fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes,

tako da podobnost ne zavisi od stvarnosti kakva jeste, da,

but also on the organism, its state and its action.

ali takođe i od organizma, njegovog stanja i njegovog djelovanja.

Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is,

Podobnost nije isto što i stvarnost kakva jeste,

and it's fitness, and not reality as it is,

i podobnost je ta, ne stvarnost kakva jeste,

that figures centrally in the equations of evolution.

koja je centralna tačka u jednačini evolucije.

So, in my lab,

Tako, u mojoj laboratoriji,

we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations

izvodili smo stotine hiljada simulacija evolucijskih igara

with lots of different randomly chosen worlds

sa mnogo različitih, nasumice odabranih okruženja

and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds.

i organizama koji se takmiče za resurse u ovim okruženjima.

Some of the organisms see all of the reality,

Neki organizmi vide cjelokupnu stvarnost,

others see just part of the reality,

drugi vide samo njene dijelove,

and some see none of the reality,

dok drugi ne vide ništa od stvarnosti,

only fitness.

samo podobnost.

Who wins?

Ko pobjeđuje?

Well, I hate to break it to you, but perception of reality goes extinct.

Pa, mrzim što ovo moram da kažem, ali percepcija stvarnosti izumire.

In almost every simulation,

U skoro svakoj simulaciji,

organisms that see none of reality

organizmi koji nisu vidjeli ništa od stvarnosti,

but are just tuned to fitness

ali su podobni

drive to extinction all the organisms that perceive reality as it is.

istrijebili su sve organizme koji su vidjeli stvarnost kakva jeste.

So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical,

Tako da je zaključak da evolucija ne favorizuje vertikalne,

or accurate perceptions.

ili tačne percepcije.

Those perceptions of reality go extinct.

Ovakve percepcije stvarnosti izumiru.

Now, this is a bit stunning.

Ovo je pomalo zapanjujuće.

How can it be that not seeing the world accurately

Kako može biti da nam to što ne vidimo svijet precizno

gives us a survival advantage?

daje prednost za opstanak?

That is a bit counterintuitive.

Ovo je pomalo kontraproduktivno.

But remember the jewel beetle.

Ali, sjetite se australskog krasnika.

The jewel beetle survived for thousands, perhaps millions of years,

Krasnik je preživjeo hiljadama, vjerovatno milionima godina,

using simple tricks and hacks.

koristeći se jednostavim trikovima i hakovima.

What the equations of evolution are telling us

Ono što nam jednačine evolucije govore

is that all organisms, including us, are in the same boat as the jewel beetle.

je da su svi organizmi uključujući i nas, u istoj situaciji kao i buba krasnik.

We do not see reality as it is.

Mi ne vidimo stvarnost kakva jeste.

We're shaped with tricks and hacks that keep us alive.

Oblikovani smo trikovima i hakovima koji nas održavaju u životu.

Still,

Ipak,

we need some help with our intuitions.

potrebna je pomoć našim intuicijama.

How can not perceiving reality as it is be useful?

Kako može biti korisno da ne vidimo stvarnost kakva jeste?

Well, fortunately, we have a very helpful metaphor:

Pa srećom, imamo veoma korisnu metaforu:

the desktop interface on your computer.

sučelje desktopa na vašem kompjuteru.

Consider that blue icon for a TED Talk that you're writing.

Zamislite plavu ikonicu za TED govor kojeg pišete.

Now, the icon is blue and rectangular

Ikonica je plava i pravougaona

and in the lower right corner of the desktop.

i nalazi se u donjem desnom uglu na desktopu.

Does that mean that the text file itself in the computer is blue,

Da li to znači da je i sam tekst u kompjuteru plav,

rectangular, and in the lower right-hand corner of the computer?

pravougaon, i u donjem desnom dijelu kompjutera?

Of course not.

Naravno da nije.

Anyone who thought that misinterprets the purpose of the interface.

Svako ko tako misli je pogrešno shvatio svrhu sučelja.

It's not there to show you the reality of the computer.

Ono nije tu da vam pokaže stvarnost kompjutera.

In fact, it's there to hide that reality.

Ono je tu, zapravo, da sakrije tu stvarnost.

You don't want to know about the diodes

Ne želite znati o diodama

and resistors and all the megabytes of software.

rezistorima i svim megabajtima softvera.

If you had to deal with that, you could never write your text file

Ako biste se bavili ovim nikada ne biste napisali tekst

or edit your photo.

ili uredili fotografiju.

So the idea is that evolution has given us an interface

Stoga, ideja je da nam je evolucija omogućila sučelje

that hides reality and guides adaptive behavior.

koje prikriva stvarnost i vodič je prilagodljivom ponašanju.

Space and time, as you perceive them right now,

Prostor i vrijeme, kako ih vi sada doživljavate,

are your desktop.

su vaš desktop.

Physical objects are simply icons in that desktop.

Fizički objekti su samo ikonice na desktopu.

There's an obvious objection.

To je očigledno.

Hoffman, if you think that train coming down the track at 200 MPH

Hoffman, ako misliš da je voz koji juri prugom 200 milja/h

is just an icon of your desktop,

samo ikonica na tvom kompjuteru,

why don't you step in front of it?

zašto ne staneš pred njega?

And after you're gone, and your theory with you,

I nakon što te više ne bude, kao ni tvoje teorije,

we'll know that there's more to that train than just an icon.

znaćemo da je taj voz nešto više od ikonice.

Well, I wouldn't step in front of that train

Pa, ja ne bih stao pred taj voz

for the same reason

iz istog razloga

that I wouldn't carelessly drag that icon to the trash can:

iz kojeg ne bih neoprezno tu ikonicu bacio u kantu za smeće:

not because I take the icon literally --

ne zato što doživljavam samu ikonicu doslovno -

the file is not literally blue or rectangular --

fajl nije doslovno plav ili pravougaon -

but I do take it seriously.

ali je ipak ozbiljno tretiram.

I could lose weeks of work.

Mogao bih izgubiti sedmice rada.

Similarly, evolution has shaped us

Slično tome, evolucija nas je oblikovala

with perceptual symbols that are designed to keep us alive.

uz pomoć simbola opažanja dizajniranih da nas održe živima.

We'd better take them seriously.

Bolje da ih shvatimo ozbiljno.

If you see a snake, don't pick it up.

Ako ugledate zmiju, nemojte je podizati.

If you see a cliff, don't jump off.

Ako ugledate liticu, nemojte skočiti s nje.

They're designed to keep us safe, and we should take them seriously.

Ovi simboli su dizajnirani zbog naše bezbjednosti i treba ih shvatati ozbiljno.

That does not mean that we should take them literally.

To ipak ne znači da ih trebamo shvatati doslovno.

That's a logical error.

To je logička greška.

Another objection: There's nothing really new here.

Još jedna primjedba: ništa od ovog nije zapravo novo.

Physicists have told us for a long time that the metal of that train looks solid

Fizičari nam već dugo ukazuju na to da metal tog voza djeluje čvrsto

but really it's mostly empty space with microscopic particles zipping around.

ali je zapravo najviše prazan prostor sa mikroskopskim česticama koje jure naokolo.

There's nothing new here.

Ovdje ništa nije novo.

Well, not exactly.

Pa, i ne baš.

It's like saying, I know that that blue icon on the desktop

To je kao da kažete, znam da ta plava ikonica na desktop-u

is not the reality of the computer,

ne predstavlja stvarnost tog kompjutera,

but if I pull out my trusty magnifying glass and look really closely,

ali ako bih uzeo lupu i zagledao se u nju izbliza,

I see little pixels,

vidio bih sitne piksele,

and that's the reality of the computer.

i to je stvarnost kompjutera.

Well, not really -- you're still on the desktop, and that's the point.

Pa, i ne baš - još uvijek ste na desktop-u, i to je sva poenta.

Those microscopic particles are still in space and time:

Ove mikrosopske čestice i dalje postoje u prostoru i vremenu

they're still in the user interface.

još uvijek su u sučelju korisnika.

So I'm saying something far more radical than those physicists.

Tako da ja iznosim nešto znatno radikalnije od ovih fizičara.

Finally, you might object,

Napokon, možete mi prigovoriti,

look, we all see the train,

vidi, svi mi vidimo voz,

therefore none of us constructs the train.

samim tim niko od nas ne konstruiše voz.

But remember this example.

Ali, zapamtite ovaj primjer.

In this example, we all see a cube,

U ovom primjeru, svi mi vidimo kocku,

but the screen is flat,

ali ekran je ravan,

so the cube that you see is the cube that you construct.

tako da je kocka koju vidite kocka koju ste sami stvorili.

We all see a cube

Svi vidimo kocku

because we all, each one of us, constructs the cube that we see.

jer smo svi mi, svi do jednog, stvorili kocku koju vidimo.

The same is true of the train.

Isto važi i za voz.

We all see a train because we each see the train that we construct,

Svi vidimo voz jer svi vidimo voz koji smo konstruisali,

and the same is true of all physical objects.

i isto vrijedi za sve fizičke predmete.

We're inclined to think that perception is like a window on reality as it is.

Skloni smo da mislimo da je opažanje nešto poput prozora u stvarnost kakva jeste.

The theory of evolution is telling us that this is an incorrect interpretation

Teorija evolucije nam govori da je ovo pogrešno tumačenje

of our perceptions.

naših opažanja.

Instead, reality is more like a 3D desktop

Naprotiv, stvarnost je više poput trodimenzionalnog desktop-a

that's designed to hide the complexity of the real world

dizajniranog tako da sakrije složenost realnog svijeta

and guide adaptive behavior.

i usmjerava prilagodljivo ponašanje.

Space as you perceive it is your desktop.

Prostor kako ga opažate je desktop.

Physical objects are just the icons in that desktop.

Fizički predmeti su samo ikonice na tom dekstop-u.

We used to think that the Earth is flat because it looks that way.

Nekad smo mislili da je Zemlja ravna ploča jer je tako izgledalo.

Then we thought that the Earth is the unmoving center of reality

Onda smo mislili da je Zemlja nepokretni centar stvarnosti

because it looks that way.

jer je tako izgledalo.

We were wrong.

Pogriješili smo.

We had misinterpreted our perceptions.

Pogrešno smo protumačili naša opažanja,

Now we believe that spacetime and objects

Sada vjerujemo da su vrijeme/prostor i predmeti

are the nature of reality as it is.

priroda stvarnosti kakva jeste.

The theory of evolution is telling us that once again, we're wrong.

Teorija evolucije nam kaže da opet griješimo.

We're misinterpreting the content of our perceptual experiences.

Pogrešno tumačimo sadržaj naših perceptivnih iskustava.

There's something that exists when you don't look,

Nešto postoji kada ne gledate

but it's not spacetime and physical objects.

ali to nije vrijeme/prostor niti su to fizički objekti.

It's as hard for us to let go of spacetime and objects

Ali nama je teško otpustiti vrijeme/prostor i predmete

as it is for the jewel beetle to let go of its bottle.

kao što je teško za bubu krasnika da pusti svoju flašu.

Why? Because we're blind to our own blindnesses.

Zašto? Zato što smo slijepi za naše sopstveno sljepilo.

But we have an advantage over the jewel beetle:

Ali, imamo prednost u odnosu na bubu krasnika:

our science and technology.

u našoj nauci i tehnologiji.

By peering through the lens of a telescope

Gledajući kroz leće teleskopa

we discovered that the Earth is not the unmoving center of reality,

otkrili smo da Zemlja nije nepokretni centar stvarnosti,

and by peering through the lens of the theory of evolution

i gledajući kroz leće teorije evolucije,

we discovered that spacetime and objects

otkrili smo da vrijeme/prostor i predmeti

are not the nature of reality.

nisu prava priroda stvarnosti.

When I have a perceptual experience that I describe as a red tomato,

Kada proživljavam perceptivno iskustvo koje opisujem kao crveni paradajz,

I am interacting with reality,

ja sam u interakciji sa stvarnošću,

but that reality is not a red tomato and is nothing like a red tomato.

ali ta stvarnost nije crveni paradajz i nije ni slična crvenom paradajzu.

Similarly, when I have an experience that I describe as a lion or a steak,

Slično tome, kada imam iskustvo koje opisujem kao lav ili odrezak,

I'm interacting with reality,

ja sam u inetarkciji sa stvarnošću,

but that reality is not a lion or a steak.

ali ta stvarnost nije lav ili odrezak.

And here's the kicker:

U ovome je fora:

When I have a perceptual experience that I describe as a brain, or neurons,

kada imam perceptivno iskustvo koje opisujem kao mozak, ili neurone,

I am interacting with reality,

ja sam u interakciji sa stvarnošću,

but that reality is not a brain or neurons

ali ta stvarnost nije mozak ili neoroni,

and is nothing like a brain or neurons.

niti je slična mozgu ili neuronima.

And that reality, whatever it is,

I ta stvarnost, što god ona bila,

is the real source of cause and effect

je stvarni izvor uzroka i posljedice

in the world -- not brains, not neurons.

u svijetu - to nije mozak niti su to neuroni.

Brains and neurons have no causal powers.

Mozak i neuroni nemaju uzročne moći.

They cause none of our perceptual experiences,

Oni nisu uzrokom nijednog od naših perceptivnih iskustava,

and none of our behavior.

niti našeg ponašanja.

Brains and neurons are a species-specific set of symbols, a hack.

Mozak i neuroni su vrste - specifični skup simbola, hakovanje.

What does this mean for the mystery of consciousness?

Šta ovo znači za misteriju svjesnosti?

Well, it opens up new possibilities.

Pa, otvara nove mogućnosti.

For instance,

Na primjer,

perhaps reality is some vast machine that causes our conscious experiences.

uzmimo da je stvarnost neka ogromna mašina koja uzrokuje naša svjesna iskustva.

I doubt this, but it's worth exploring.

Sumnjam u to, ali je vrijedno istražiti.

Perhaps reality is some vast, interacting network of conscious agents,

Pretpostavimo da je stvarnost velika mreža interakcija između agenata svjesnosti,

simple and complex, that cause each other's conscious experiences.

jednostavna i kompleksna, koja uzrokuje međusobna iskustva svjesnosti.

Actually, this isn't as crazy an idea as it seems,

Zapravo, ovo nije tako blesava ideja kao što se čini,

and I'm currently exploring it.

i ja je trenutno istražujem,

But here's the point:

Ali, u ovome je poenta:

Once we let go of our massively intuitive

jednom kada se odreknemo naše uveliko intuitivne

but massively false assumption about the nature of reality,

ali jako pogrešne pretpostavke o prirodi same stvarnosti,

it opens up new ways to think about life's greatest mystery.

otvoriće se nove perspektive o najvećoj misteriji života.

I bet that reality will end up turning out to be more fascinating

Kladim se da će se stvarnost pokazati fascinantnijom

and unexpected than we've ever imagined.

i više nepredvidivom nego što smo ikada zamišljali.

The theory of evolution presents us with the ultimate dare:

Teorija evolucije daje nam konačni izazov:

Dare to recognize that perception is not about seeing truth,

usudi se prepoznati da opažanje nije u tome da se spozna istina,

it's about having kids.

nego da se rađaju djeca.

And by the way, even this TED is just in your head.

I usput, čak je ovaj TED samo u vašim glavama.

Thank you very much.

Hvala vam mnogo.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)

Chris Anderson: If that's really you there, thank you.

Chris Anderson: Ako ste to stvarno Vi tamo, hvala Vam.

So there's so much from this.

Toliko toga je u ovome.

I mean, first of all, some people may just be profoundly depressed

Mislim, prije svega, neki ljudi mogu postati duboko depresivni

at the thought that, if evolution does not favor reality,

razmišljajući o tome da, ako evolucija ne favorizuje stvarnost,

I mean, doesn't that to some extent undermine all our endeavors here,

zar to u nekoj mjeri, ne podriva sva naša nastojanja,

all our ability to think that we can think the truth,

našu sposobnost da mislimo da možemo saznati istinu,

possibly even including your own theory, if you go there?

vjerovatno ukjučujući i vašu teoriju, ako idemo tako daleko?

Donald Hoffman: Well, this does not stop us from a successful science.

Donald Hoffman: Pa, ovo ne sprečava uspjeh u nauci.

What we have is one theory that turned out to be false,

Ono što imamo je jedna teorija, koja se pokazala krivom,

that perception is like reality and reality is like our perceptions.

da je opažanje isto što stvarnost, i da je stvarnost ono što opažamo.

That theory turns out to be false.

Ta teorija se pokazala pogrešnom.

Okay, throw that theory away.

OK, odbacimo tu teoriju.

That doesn't stop us from now postulating all sorts of other theories

To nas ne sprečava da postulišemo razne vrste drugih teorija,

about the nature of reality,

o prirodi stvarnosti,

so it's actually progress to recognize that one of our theories was false.

tako da je napredak prepoznati da je jedna od naših teorija neispravna.

So science continues as normal. There's no problem here.

Nauka nastavlja kao i inače. Nema problema tu.

CA: So you think it's possible -- (Laughter) --

CA: Znači mislite da je moguće - (Smijeh) -

This is cool, but what you're saying I think is it's possible that evolution

To je cool, ali ono što Vi kažete, mislim, da je moguće da vas evolucija

can still get you to reason.

ipak može urazumiti.

DH: Yes. Now that's a very, very good point.

DH: Da. To je vrlo, vrlo dobra poenta.

The evolutionary game simulations that I showed were specifically about perception,

Simulacije evolucijskih igara koje sam pokazao su konkretno o našim opažanjima,

and they do show that our perceptions have been shaped

i one pokazuju da naša opažanja nisu oblikovana tako

not to show us reality as it is,

da nam pokažu stvarnost kakva jeste,

but that does not mean the same thing about our logic or mathematics.

ali to nije ista stvar sa našom logikom ili matematikom.

We haven't done these simulations, but my bet is that we'll find

Nismo radili takve simulacije, ali se kladim da ćemo otkriti

that there are some selection pressures for our logic and our mathematics

da postoje određeni selekcijski pritisci na našu logiku i matematiku

to be at least in the direction of truth.

da se makar kreću u pravcu istine.

I mean, if you're like me, math and logic is not easy.

Mislim, ako ste poput mene, matematika i logika nisu lagane.

We don't get it all right, but at least the selection pressures are not

Ne shvatamo ih kako treba, ali barem selekcijski pritisci

uniformly away from true math and logic.

nisu ravnomjerno daleko od stvarne matematike i logike.

So I think that we'll find that we have to look at each cognitive faculty

Mislim da ćemo otkriti da moramo posmatrati svaku kognitivnu sposobnost

one at a time and see what evolution does to it.

pojedinačno, i vidjeti šta evolucija radi svakoj od njih.

What's true about perception may not be true about math and logic.

Ono što je istinito za opažanje, možda nije istinito i za matematiku i logiku.

CA: I mean, really what you're proposing is a kind of modern-day Bishop Berkeley

CA: Mislim, zaista, ono što Vi predlažete je nešto poput savremene

interpretation of the world:

interpretacije svijeta biskupa Berkeley-a:

consciousness causes matter, not the other way around.

svijest kreira materiju, ne obratno.

DH: Well, it's slightly different than Berkeley.

DH: Pa, malo je drugačije od Berkeley-a.

Berkeley thought that, he was a deist, and he thought that the ultimate

Berkley je smatrao da, on je bio vjernik, i mislio je da je krajnja

nature of reality is God and so forth,

priroda stvarnosti bog i tako dalje,

and I don't need to go where Berkeley's going,

i ja ne idem tamo gdje je on išao,

so it's quite a bit different from Berkeley.

tako da je malo drugačije od Berkeley-a.

I call this conscious realism. It's actually a very different approach.

Ja ovo zovem realizmom svjesnosti. Zapravo je veoma drugačiji pristup.

CA: Don, I could literally talk with you for hours, and I hope to do that.

CA: Don, ja doslovno mogu pričati s Vama satima, i nadam se da će biti tako.

Thanks so much for that. DH: Thank you. (Applause)

Hvala mnogo na tome. DH: Hvala Vama. (Aplauz)