The illusion of consciousness | Dan Dennett

Translator: Klavdija Cernilogar Reviewer: Nika Kotnik

So I'm going to speak about a problem that I have

Povedal vam bo nekaj o svoji težavi.

and that's that I'm a philosopher.

Problem je v tem, da sem filozof.

(Laughter)

(smeh)

When I go to a party and people ask me what do I do

Ko grem na zabavo in me ljudje vprašajo, s čim se ukvarjam,

and I say, "I'm a professor," their eyes glaze over.

povem: "Profesor sem." V odziv dobim odsotne poglede.

When I go to an academic cocktail party

Ko grem na sprejem za akademike

and there are all the professors around, they ask me what field I'm in

in so zraven vsi profesorji, vprašajo, na katerem področju delam.

and I say, "philosophy" -- their eyes glaze over.

Povem, da je to filozofija, in v odziv dobim odsotne poglede.

(Laughter)

(smeh)

When I go to a philosopher's party

Ko grem na zabavo filozofov,

(Laughter)

(smeh)

and they ask me what I work on and I say, "consciousness,"

me vprašajo, na čem delam. Povem: "Na zavesti."

their eyes don't glaze over -- their lips curl into a snarl.

Njihov pogled ni odsoten - renčati začnejo.

(Laughter)

(smeh)

And I get hoots of derision and cackles and growls

Požanjem posmeh, hehet in renčanje,

because they think, "That's impossible! You can't explain consciousness."

ker si mislijo: "To ni mogoče. Ne moreš razložiti zavesti."

The very chutzpah of somebody thinking

Predrznost, da bi si kdo upal misliti,

that you could explain consciousness is just out of the question.

da lahko razloži zavest, ne pride v poštev.

My late, lamented friend Bob Nozick, a fine philosopher,

Moj žal preminuli prijatelj Bob Nozick, odlični filozof,

in one of his books, "Philosophical Explanations,"

je v svoji knjigi "Filozofske razlage"

is commenting on the ethos of philosophy --

komentiral etos filozofije,

the way philosophers go about their business.

kako se filozofi lotevajo svojega dela.

And he says, you know, "Philosophers love rational argument."

Pravi, veste, da filozofi ljubijo racionalne argumente.

And he says, "It seems as if the ideal argument

Trdi tole: "Zdi se, da je idealni argument

for most philosophers is you give your audience the premises

za večino filozofov to, da občinstvu dajo tezo,

and then you give them the inferences and the conclusion,

potem sklep in nato zaključek

and if they don't accept the conclusion, they die.

in če njihov zaključek ni sprejet, umrejo.

Their heads explode." The idea is to have an argument

Glavo jim raznese." Treba je imeti argument,

that is so powerful that it knocks out your opponents.

ki je tako močan, da uniči nasprotnika.

But in fact that doesn't change people's minds at all.

A v resnici to sploh ne spremeni mnenja ljudi.

It's very hard to change people's minds

Težko spremeniš mnenja

about something like consciousness,

o nečem takem, kot je zavest

and I finally figured out the reason for that.

in končno sem ugotovil, zakaj je temu tako.

The reason for that is that everybody's an expert on consciousness.

Razlog je v tem, da smo vsi strokovnjaki za zavest.

We heard the other day that everybody's got a strong opinion about video games.

Zadnjič smo slišali, da ima vsak svoje mnenje o video igrah.

They all have an idea for a video game, even if they're not experts.

Imajo idejo za video igro, čeprav niso strokovnjaki.

But they don't consider themselves experts on video games;

In se tudi nimajo za strokovnjake za video igre,

le trdna prepričanja imajo.

they've just got strong opinions.

I'm sure that people here who work on, say, climate change

Prepričan sem, da se ljudje, ki se ukvarjajo s podnebnimi spremembami

and global warming, or on the future of the Internet,

in globalnim segrevanjem ali s prihodnostjo interneta,

encounter people who have very strong opinions

srečujejo ljudi z zelo trdnimi prepričanji

about what's going to happen next.

o tem, kaj se bo zgodilo.

But they probably don't think of these opinions as expertise.

A verjetno teh stališč nimajo za strokovno znanje.

They're just strongly held opinions.

To so samo globoka prepričanja.

But with regard to consciousness, people seem to think,

Ko pride do zavesti, se zdi, da ljudje mislijo,

each of us seems to think, "I am an expert.

vsak od nas misli: "Strokovnjak sem.

Simply by being conscious, I know all about this."

Ker sem pri zavesti, vem vse o tem."

And so, you tell them your theory and they say,

Poveste jim svojo teorijo in rekli bodo:

"No, no, that's not the way consciousness is!

"Ne, zavest ni taka!

No, you've got it all wrong."

Popolnoma se motite."

And they say this with an amazing confidence.

In to pravijo neverjetno samozavestno.

And so what I'm going to try to do today

Danes bom torej poskusil

is to shake your confidence. Because I know the feeling --

skrhati vašo samozavest. Saj poznam ta občutek.

I can feel it myself.

Tudi sam ga imam.

I want to shake your confidence that you know your own innermost minds --

Omajati hočem vaše prepričanje, da poznate svoj najbolj notranji um,

that you are, yourselves, authoritative about your own consciousness.

da imate nadzor nad svojo zavestjo.

That's the order of the day here.

To je danes na dnevnem redu.

Now, this nice picture shows a thought-balloon, a thought-bubble.

Tale slika kaže miselni balon, miselni mehurček.

I think everybody understands what that means.

Mislim, da vsi vemo, kaj to pomeni.

That's supposed to exhibit the stream of consciousness.

Prikazovalo naj bi tok zavesti.

This is my favorite picture of consciousness that's ever been done.

To je moja najljubša slika zavesti.

It's a Saul Steinberg of course -- it was a New Yorker cover.

Gre seveda za Saula Steinberga - za naslovnico New Yorkerja.

And this fellow here is looking at the painting by Braque.

Tale možakar gleda Braquovo sliko.

That reminds him of the word baroque, barrack, bark, poodle,

Spominja ga na barok, barako, lajež (bark), pudlja,

Suzanne R. -- he's off to the races.

Suzanne R. - in tok ga odpelje.

There's a wonderful stream of consciousness here

Tu gre za čudovit tok zavesti

and if you follow it along, you learn a lot about this man.

in če mu sledite, se naučite veliko o tem možu.

What I particularly like about this picture, too,

Pri tej sliki mi je posebej všeč,

is that Steinberg has rendered the guy

da je Steinberg tipa napravil

in this sort of pointillist style.

v tem točkastem stilu.

Which reminds us, as Rod Brooks was saying yesterday:

To nas spominja, kakor je Rod Brooks včeraj omenil,

what we are, what each of us is -- what you are, what I am --

na to, kaj smo, kaj je vsak od nas - kaj ste vi, kaj sem jaz,

is approximately 100 trillion little cellular robots.

to je: približno sto trilijonov majhnih celičnih robotov.

That's what we're made of.

Iz tega smo narejeni.

No other ingredients at all. We're just made of cells, about 100 trillion of them.

Brez drugih sestavin. Samo celice smo, okoli sto trilijonov le-teh.

Not a single one of those cells is conscious;

Niti ena od teh celic nima zavesti;

not a single one of those cells knows who you are, or cares.

niti ena od njih ne ve, kdo ste vi, niti ji to ni mar.

Somehow, we have to explain

Nekako pa moramo razložiti,

how when you put together teams, armies, battalions

kako, ko sestavimo ekipe, vojske, bataljone

of hundreds of millions of little robotic unconscious cells --

stotin milijonov majhnih robotskih celic brez zavesti,

not so different really from a bacterium, each one of them --

ki vsaka zase niso tako drugačne od bakterije,

the result is this. I mean, just look at it.

kako je rezultat lahko tole. Samo poglejte.

The content -- there's color, there's ideas, there's memories,

Vsebina - barva, ideje, spomini,

there's history. And somehow all that content of consciousness

zgodovina. Nekako je vsa ta vsebina zavesti

is accomplished by the busy activity of those hoards of neurons.

ustvarjena z delom množic nevronov.

How is that possible? Many people just think it isn't possible at all.

Kako je to mogoče? Mnogi mislijo, da sploh ni.

They think, "No, there can't be any

Mislijo si: "Ne, ne more obstajati

sort of naturalistic explanation of consciousness."

nikakršna naravna razlaga zavesti."

This is a lovely book by a friend of mine named Lee Siegel,

To je krasna knjiga mojega prijatelja Leeja Siegla,

who's a professor of religion, actually, at the University of Hawaii,

ki je profesor religije na univerzi na Havajih.

and he's an expert magician, and an expert

Je strokovnjak čarodej in strokovnjak

on the street magic of India, which is what this book is about,

za indijsko ulično čarovnijo, o čemer piše knjiga,

"Net of Magic."

"Mreža magije".

And there's a passage in it which I would love to share with you.

V njej je odlomek, ki bi ga rad delil z vami.

It speaks so eloquently to the problem.

Tako jasno govori o težavi.

"'I'm writing a book on magic,' I explain, and I'm asked, 'Real magic?'

"Pišem knjigo o magiji," pojasnim, in vprašajo me: "O pravi magiji?"

By 'real magic,' people mean miracles,

S 'pravo magijo' ljudje mislijo čudeže,

thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers.

tavmaturška dejanja in nadnaravne moči.

'No,' I answer. 'Conjuring tricks, not real magic.'

"Ne," odgovorim. "O čarovniških trikih, ne o pravi magiji."

'Real magic,' in other words, refers to the magic that is not real;

Z drugimi besedami: 'prava magija' se nanaša na magijo, ki ni prava;

while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic."

medtem ko prava magija, tista, ki jo je možno napraviti, ni prava magija."

(Laughter)

(smeh)

Now, that's the way a lot of people feel about consciousness.

Tako veliko ljudi meni o zavesti.

(Laughter)

(smeh)

Real consciousness is not a bag of tricks.

Prava zavest ni vreča trikov.

If you're going to explain this as a bag of tricks,

Če jo hočete razložiti kot tako,

then it's not real consciousness, whatever it is.

potem ni prava zavest, karkoli pač že je.

And, as Marvin said, and as other people have said,

In kot so povedali Marvin in drugi:

"Consciousness is a bag of tricks."

"Zavest je vreča trikov."

This means that a lot of people are just left completely dissatisfied

To pomeni, da veliko ljudi ostane popolnoma nezadovoljnih

and incredulous when I attempt to explain consciousness.

in nejevernih, ko skušam razložiti zavest.

So this is the problem. So I have to

V tem je torej problem. Zato moram

do a little bit of the sort of work

opraviti nekaj takega dela,

that a lot of you won't like,

ki mnogim med vami ne bo všeč

for the same reason that you don't like to see

iz enakega razloga, iz katerega si ne želite

a magic trick explained to you.

vedeti, kako poteka čarovniški trik.

How many of you here, if somebody -- some smart aleck --

Ko vam kak pametnjakovič

starts telling you how a particular magic trick is done,

začne razlagati, kako narediti nek čarovniški trik, kdo med vami

you sort of want to block your ears and say, "No, no, I don't want to know!

si hoče zatisniti ušesa in reči: "Ne, ne, nočem vedeti!

Don't take the thrill of it away. I'd rather be mystified.

Ne uničite vznemirjenja, raje sem v dvomu.

Don't tell me the answer."

Ne povejte mi odgovora."

A lot of people feel that way about consciousness, I've discovered.

Ugotovil sem, da ima veliko ljudi tak odnos do zavesti.

And I'm sorry if I impose some clarity, some understanding on you.

In žal mi je, če vam bom vsilil nekaj pojasnil, nekaj razumevanja.

You'd better leave now if you don't want to know some of these tricks.

Če nočete slišati o teh trikih, raje odidite zdaj.

But I'm not going to explain it all to you.

A ne bom vam pojasnil vsega.

I'm going to do what philosophers do.

Po filozofsko bom to rešil.

Here's how a philosopher explains the sawing-the-lady-in-half trick.

Tako filozof pojasni trik žaganja ženske na pol.

You know the sawing-the-lady-in-half trick?

Saj poznate ta trik, ne?

The philosopher says, "I'm going to explain to you how that's done.

Filozof pravi: "Pojasnil vam bom, kako to poteka.

You see, the magician doesn't really saw the lady in half."

Veste, čarodej v resnici ženske ne prežaga na pol."

(Laughter)

(smeh)

"He merely makes you think that he does."

"Samo zavede vas, da mislite, da jo."

And you say, "Yes, and how does he do that?"

"In kako to stori?"

He says, "Oh, that's not my department, I'm sorry."

On odvrne: "To pa ni moje področje, žal."

(Laughter)

(smeh)

So now I'm going to illustrate how philosophers explain consciousness.

Pokazal vam bom, kako filozofi pojasnijo zavest.

But I'm going to try to also show you

Hkrati vam bom tudi skušal pokazati,

that consciousness isn't quite as marvelous --

da zavest ni tako čudovita -

your own consciousness isn't quite as wonderful --

vaša zavest ni tako krasna -

as you may have thought it is.

kot ste mislili, da je.

This is something, by the way, that Lee Siegel talks about in his book.

O tem Lee Siegel govori v svoji knjigi.

He marvels at how he'll do a magic show, and afterwards

Opisuje, kako bo ustvaril čarovniško predstavo in kako bodo potem

people will swear they saw him do X, Y, and Z. He never did those things.

ljudje prisegali, da je naredil X, Y in Z. Teh stvari nikoli ne naredi.

He didn't even try to do those things.

Niti poskusi ne.

People's memories inflate what they think they saw.

Človeški spomini napihnejo to, kar mislijo, da so videli.

And the same is true of consciousness.

Isto velja za zavest.

Now, let's see if this will work. All right. Let's just watch this.

Poglejmo, ali bo tole delovalo. V redu. Oglejmo si tole.

Watch it carefully.

Pazljivo glejte.

I'm working with a young computer-animator documentarian

Delam z mladim računalniškim animatorjem

named Nick Deamer, and this is a little demo that he's done for me,

Nickom Deamerjem, ki je zame napravil tale demo,

part of a larger project some of you may be interested in.

del večjega projekta, ki vas bo morda zanimal.

We're looking for a backer.

Iščemo podpornika.

It's a feature-length documentary on consciousness.

Gre za celovečerni dokumentarec o zavesti.

OK, now, you all saw what changed, right?

No, ste videli, kaj se je spremenilo, ne?

How many of you noticed that every one of those squares changed color?

Koliko vas je opazilo, da so vsi kvadrati spremenili barvo?

Every one. I'll just show you by running it again.

Vsi. Ponovno vam bom pokazal.

Even when you know that they're all going to change color,

Celo ko veste, da bodo vsi spremenili barvo,

it's very hard to notice. You have to really concentrate

je to težko opaziti. Res se morate osredotočiti,

to pick up any of the changes at all.

da opazite kakršnokoli spremembo.

Now, this is an example -- one of many --

To je primer - eden mnogih -

of a phenomenon that's now being studied quite a bit.

pojava, ki ga precej preučujemo.

It's one that I predicted in the last page or two of my

Predvidel sem ga na zadnjih straneh svoje

1991 book, "Consciousness Explained,"

knjige "Pojasnjena zavest" iz leta 1991,

where I said if you did experiments of this sort,

kjer sem trdil, da če izvajate take poskuse,

you'd find that people were unable to pick up really large changes.

boste ugotovili, da ljudje ne zaznajo zelo velikih sprememb.

If there's time at the end,

Če bo na koncu čas,

I'll show you the much more dramatic case.

vam pokažem veliko bolj dramatičen primer.

Now, how can it be that there are all those changes going on,

Kako je mogoče, da se dogajajo vse te spremembe,

and that we're not aware of them?

pa se jih ne zavedamo?

Well, earlier today, Jeff Hawkins mentioned the way your eye saccades,

Prejle je Jeff Hawkins omenil, kako se oko hitro premika,

the way your eye moves around three or four times a second.

kako se pogled premakne tri- ali štirikrat na sekundo.

He didn't mention the speed. Your eye is constantly in motion,

Ni omenil hitrosti. Vaše oko se stalno giblje,

moving around, looking at eyes, noses, elbows,

premika naokoli, gleda oči, nosove, komolce,

looking at interesting things in the world.

opazuje zanimive stvari po svetu.

And where your eye isn't looking,

In ko oko ne gleda,

you're remarkably impoverished in your vision.

je vaš vid neverjetno slabši.

That's because the foveal part of your eye,

To pa zato, ker je fovea očesa,

which is the high-resolution part,

ki skrbi za visoko resolucijo,

is only about the size of your thumbnail held at arms length.

velika le toliko kot noht, viden na iztegnjeni roki.

That's the detail part.

To je detajl, ki ga vidimo.

It doesn't seem that way, does it?

Ampak ne zdi se tako, mar ne?

It doesn't seem that way, but that's the way it is.

Ne zdi se tako, a tako je.

You're getting in a lot less information than you think.

Dobivate veliko manj informacij, kot si mislite.

Here's a completely different effect. This is a painting by Bellotto.

Tole je povsem drug učinek. To je Bellottova slika.

It's in the museum in North Carolina.

Nahaja se v muzeju v Severni Karolini.

Bellotto was a student of Canaletto's.

Bellotto je bil Canalettov študent.

And I love paintings like that --

Rad imam take slike -

the painting is actually about as big as it is right here.

tale je približno tako velika kot tukaj.

And I love Canalettos, because Canaletto has this fantastic detail,

Rad imam Canalettove slike, ker imajo čudovit detajl,

and you can get right up

lahko se približate

and see all the details on the painting.

in vidite vse detajle na sliki.

And I started across the hall in North Carolina,

Začel sem na drugi strani dvorane v Severni Karolini,

because I thought it was probably a Canaletto,

ker sem mislil, da gre za Canaletta,

and would have all that in detail.

in sem to videl v podrobnosti.

And I noticed that on the bridge there, there's a lot of people --

Opazil sem, da je na mostu veliko ljudi,

you can just barely see them walking across the bridge.

komaj jih lahko vidite, kako ga prečkajo.

And I thought as I got closer

Mislil sem, da ko se bom približal,

I would be able to see all the detail of most people,

bom lahko videl podrobnosti večine ljudi,

see their clothes, and so forth.

njihove obleke in tako naprej.

And as I got closer and closer, I actually screamed.

Ko sem bil še bliže, sem kar zakričal.

I yelled out because when I got closer,

To pa zato, ker ko sem se približal,

I found the detail wasn't there at all.

sem ugotovil, da detajla sploh ni.

There were just little artfully placed blobs of paint.

Samo umetelno postavljene packe barve so bile.

And as I walked towards the picture,

Ko sem se bližal sliki,

I was expecting detail that wasn't there.

sem pričakoval detajl, ki ga ni bilo.

The artist had very cleverly suggested people and clothes

Umetnik je pametno nakazal ljudi in oblačila

and wagons and all sorts of things,

ter vagone in druge stvari,

and my brain had taken the suggestion.

moji možgani pa so sprejeli te znake.

You're familiar with a more recent technology, which is -- There,

Novejša tehnologija je - vidite -

you can get a better view of the blobs.

lahko bolje vidite packe.

See, when you get close

Ko se približate,

they're really just blobs of paint.

so to res le barvne packe.

You will have seen something like this -- this is the reverse effect.

Tole ste že videli; gre za obraten učinek.

I'll just give that to you one more time.

Še enkrat vam bom pokazal.

Now, what does your brain do when it takes the suggestion?

Kaj vaši možgani storijo, ko dobijo namig?

When an artful blob of paint or two, by an artist,

Ko spretna umetnikova packa ali dve

suggests a person -- say, one of

namigne na osebo - recimo

Marvin Minsky's little society of mind --

majhno družbo umov Marvina Minskega -

do they send little painters out to fill in all the details in your brain somewhere?

mar pošljejo majhne slikarje, da zapolnijo vrzeli v možganih?

I don't think so. Not a chance. But then, how on Earth is it done?

Mislim, da ne. Niti slučajno. Ampak, kako pa se potem to zgodi?

Well, remember the philosopher's explanation of the lady?

Se spomnite filozofske razlage ženske?

It's the same thing.

Gre za isto stvar.

The brain just makes you think that it's got the detail there.

Možgani vas napeljejo, da mislite, da obstaja ta detajl.

You think the detail's there, but it isn't there.

Mislite, da je tam, vendar ga ni.

The brain isn't actually putting the detail in your head at all.

Možgani sploh ne slikajo detajla v vaši glavi.

It's just making you expect the detail.

Samo navedejo vas, da ga pričakujete.

Let's just do this experiment very quickly.

Naredimo hiter poskus.

Is the shape on the left the same as the shape on the right, rotated?

Je oblika na levi ista kot tista na desni, ki je obrnjena?

Yes.

Da.

How many of you did it by rotating the one on the left

Koliko vas je v mislih obrnilo levo obliko,

in your mind's eye, to see if it matched up with the one on the right?

da bi videli, ali se ujema z desno?

How many of you rotated the one on the right? OK.

Koliko vas je obrnilo desno? OK.

How do you know that's what you did?

Kako veste, da ste to storili?

(Laughter)

(smeh)

There's in fact been a very interesting debate

Zadnjih dvajset let v kognitivni znanosti

raging for over 20 years in cognitive science --

poteka zelo zanimiva razprava,

various experiments started by Roger Shepherd,

Roger Shepherd je sprožil več poskusov

who measured the angular velocity of rotation of mental images.

merjenja kotne hitrosti rotacije miselnih slik.

Yes, it's possible to do that.

Ja, to se da meriti.

But the details of the process are still in significant controversy.

A podrobnosti postopka so še vedno kontroverzne.

And if you read that literature, one of the things

Če berete to literaturo,

that you really have to come to terms with is

se morate sprijazniti s tem,

even when you're the subject in the experiment, you don't know.

da tudi kot subjekt v poskusu, ne morete vedeti.

You don't know how you do it.

Ne veste, kako se to zgodi.

You just know that you have certain beliefs.

Veste samo, da ste v nekaj prepričani.

And they come in a certain order, at a certain time.

Prepričanja si sledijo v določenem redu, v določenem času.

And what explains the fact that that's what you think?

Kako pojasniti, da je to to, kar mislite?

Well, that's where you have to go backstage and ask the magician.

Hja, to je čas, da greste v zaodrje in vprašate čarodeja.

This is a figure that I love: Bradley, Petrie, and Dumais.

Tale mi je všeč: Bradley, Petrie in Dumais.

You may think that I've cheated,

Mislite, da sem goljufal,

that I've put a little whiter-than-white boundary there.

da sem označil malo preveč belo mejo?

How many of you see that sort of boundary,

Koliko vas vidi mejo,

with the Necker cube floating in front of the circles?

kjer Neckerjeva kocka lebdi pred krogi?

Can you see it?

Jo vidite?

Well, you know, in effect, the boundary's really there, in a certain sense.

Veste, v bistvu je meja nekako res tam.

Your brain is actually computing that boundary,

Možgani ustvarjajo to mejo,

the boundary that goes right there.

ki poteka točno tukaj.

But now, notice there are two ways of seeing the cube, right?

Opazite, da lahko kocko vidite na dva načina?

It's a Necker cube.

To je Neckerjeva kocka.

Everybody can see the two ways of seeing the cube? OK.

Jo lahko vsi vidite na dva načina? Prav.

Can you see the four ways of seeing the cube?

Jo lahko vidite na štiri načine?

Because there's another way of seeing it.

Ker obstaja še en način.

If you're seeing it as a cube floating in front of some circles,

Če jo vidite kot kocko, ki lebdi pred nekaj krogi,

some black circles, there's another way of seeing it.

nekaj črnimi krogi, potem obstaja še en način gledanja.

As a cube, on a black background,

Kot kocka na črnem ozadju,

as seen through a piece of Swiss cheese.

ki jo gledamo skozi švicarski sir.

(Laughter)

(smeh)

Can you get it? How many of you can't get it? That'll help.

Vidite? Koliko vas vidi? To bo pomagalo.

(Laughter)

(smeh)

Now you can get it. These are two very different phenomena.

Zdaj vidite. To sta dva različna pojava.

When you see the cube one way, behind the screen,

Ko kocko vidite izza zaslona,

those boundaries go away.

meje izginejo.

But there's still a sort of filling in, as we can tell if we look at this.

A ostaja še določeno polnilo, kot lahko vidimo tule.

We don't have any trouble seeing the cube, but where does the color change?

Nimamo težav videti kocko, a kje se spremeni barva?

Does your brain have to send little painters in there?

Ali možgani pošljejo na delo majhne slikarje?

The purple-painters and the green-painters

Se vijolični in zeleni malarji

fight over who's going to paint that bit behind the curtain? No.

borijo za to, kdo bo pobarval kos za zaslonom? Ne.

Your brain just lets it go. The brain doesn't need to fill that in.

Možgani se ne ukvarjajo s tem. Ni jim treba zapolniti tega.

When I first started talking about

Ko sem začel govoriti o primeru

the Bradley, Petrie, Dumais example that you just saw --

Bradleya, Petrieja in Dumaisa, ki ste ga pravkar videli,

I'll go back to it, this one --

naj ga še enkrat pokažem -

I said that there was no filling-in behind there.

sem dejal, da tam ni polnila.

And I supposed that that was just a flat truth, always true.

Predvideval sem, da je to splošna resnica, da vedno drži.

But Rob Van Lier has recently shown that it isn't.

A Rob van Lier je pred kratkim pokazal, da ni tako.

Now, if you think you see some pale yellow --

Če mislite, da vidite bledo rumeno,

I'll run this a few more times.

bom še nekajkrat pokazal.

Look in the gray areas,

Glejte na siva območja,

and see if you seem to see something sort of shadowy moving in there --

morda boste videli nekakšne sence, ki se premikajo.

yeah, it's amazing. There's nothing there. It's no trick.

Noro, ne? Nič ni tam. Nobenega trika ni.

["Failure to Detect Changes in Scenes" slide]

(Nezmožnost opaziti spremembe na slikah)

This is Ron Rensink's work, which was in some degree

To je delo Rona Rensinka, ki ga je nekako

inspired by that suggestion right at the end of the book.

navdihnil predlog na koncu knjige.

Let me just pause this for a second if I can.

Naj ustavim tole za trenutek.

This is change-blindness.

To je slepota za spremembo.

What you're going to see is two pictures,

Videli boste dve sliki,

one of which is slightly different from the other.

kjer je ena malce drugačna.

You see here the red roof and the gray roof,

Tu sta rdeča in siva streha

and in between them there will be a mask,

in med njima bo maska

which is just a blank screen, for about a quarter of a second.

za četrtinko sekunde, kar je samo prazen zaslon.

So you'll see the first picture, then a mask,

Videli boste prvo sliko, potem masko,

then the second picture, then a mask.

potem drugo sliko, potem masko.

And this will just continue, and your job as the subject

To se bo nadaljevalo, vi pa morate

is to press the button when you see the change.

pritisniti gumb, ko vidite spremembo.

So, show the original picture for 240 milliseconds. Blank.

Pokažimo original za 240 milisekund. Praznina.

Show the next picture for 240 milliseconds. Blank.

Druga slika za 240 milisekund. Praznina.

And keep going, until the subject presses the button, saying,

In tako naprej, dokler udeleženec ne pritisne gumba,

"I see the change."

kar pomeni: "Vidim spremembo."

So now we're going to be subjects in the experiment.

Bodimo zdaj mi udeleženci poskusa.

We're going to start easy. Some examples.

Začeli bomo enostavno. Nekaj primerov.

No trouble there.

Brez težav..

Can everybody see? All right.

Vsi vidite? V redu.

Indeed, Rensink's subjects took only a little bit more

Rensinkovi udeleženci so potrebovali

than a second to press the button.

malo več kot sekundo za pritisk na gumb.

Can you see that one?

Vidite tole?

2.9 seconds.

2,9 sekunde.

How many don't see it still?

Koliko vas še vidi?

What's on the roof of that barn?

Kakšna je streha na tistem seniku?

(Laughter)

(smeh)

It's easy.

Enostavno je.

Is it a bridge or a dock?

Je most ali dok?

There are a few more really dramatic ones, and then I'll close.

Še nekaj bolj dramatičnih pride, potem pa končam.

I want you to see a few that are particularly striking.

Morate videti nekaj prav osupljivih.

This one because it's so large and yet it's pretty hard to see.

Tale je tako velika, a vseeno jo je težko opaziti.

Can you see it?

Vidite?

Audience: Yes.

(občinstvo:) Da.

Dan Dennett: See the shadows going back and forth? Pretty big.

(Dan Dennett:) Vidite, kako gredo sence naprej in nazaj? Noro.

So 15.5 seconds is the median time

Tule je povprečni čas

for subjects in his experiment there.

udeležencev, 15,5 sekund.

I love this one. I'll end with this one,

Tega obožujem. Ta bo zadnji,

just because it's such an obvious and important thing.

ker je tako očiten in pomemben.

How many still don't see it? How many still don't see it?

Koliko vas še ne vidi? Koliko vas še ne vidi?

How many engines on the wing of that Boeing?

Koliko motorjev je na krilu tega Boeinga?

(Laughter)

(smeh)

Right in the middle of the picture!

Sredi slike!

Thanks very much for your attention.

Hvala za pozornost.

What I wanted to show you is that scientists,

Pokazati sem vam hotel, da znanstveniki,

using their from-the-outside, third-person methods,

ki uporabljajo metode od zunaj, z vidika tretje osebe,

can tell you things about your own consciousness

lahko povedo stvari o vaši zavesti,

that you would never dream of,

o katerih vi ne bi niti sanjali,

and that, in fact, you're not the authority

in da vi niste tak gospodar

on your own consciousness that you think you are.

svoje zavesti, kot mislite, da ste.

And we're really making a lot of progress

Velik napredek dosegamo

on coming up with a theory of mind.

pri razvoju teorije uma.

Jeff Hawkins, this morning, was describing his attempt

Jeff Hawkins je zjutraj opisoval poskus

to get theory, and a good, big theory, into the neuroscience.

priti do dobre velike teorije v nevroznanosti.

And he's right. This is a problem.

Prav ima. V tem je problem.

Harvard Medical School once -- I was at a talk --

Nekoč sem bil na predavanju Harvardske šole medicine,

director of the lab said, "In our lab, we have a saying.

kjer je direktor laboratorija dejal: "Pri nas imamo pregovor,

If you work on one neuron, that's neuroscience.

da če delate na enem nevronu, je to nevroznanost.

If you work on two neurons, that's psychology."

Če delate na dveh, pa je psihologija."

(Laughter)

(smeh)

We have to have more theory, and it can come as much from the top down.

Potrebujemo več teorije in ta lahko pride tudi od zgoraj.

Thank you very much.

Hvala lepa.

(Applause)

(aplavz)