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

Prevodilac: Jelena Kovačević Lektor: Mile Živković

I love a great mystery,

Volim dobru misteriju,

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

i oduševljavam se najvećim nerešenim misterijama u nauci,

perhaps because it's personal.

možda jer je to za mene lično.

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 radoznao.

The mystery is this:

Misterija je ovo:

What is the relationship between your brain

kakav je odnos između mozga

and your conscious experiences,

i svesnog iskustva

such as your experience of the taste of chocolate

kao što je recimo osećaj ukusa čokolade

or the feeling of velvet?

ili dodir somota?

Now, this mystery is not new.

Sada, ova misterija nije nova.

In 1868, Thomas Huxley wrote,

U godini 1868, Tomas Haksli je napisao:

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

"Kako to da nešto tako izuzetno kao svest nastaje

as the result of irritating nervous tissue

kao rezultat nadraživanja nervnog tkiva,

is just as unaccountable

a istovremeno je isto tako neshvatljivo

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

kao pojavljivanje duha kada Aladin protrlja čarbnu lampu?"

Now, Huxley knew that brain activity

Haksli je znao da su moždana aktivnost

and conscious experiences are correlated,

i svesno iskustvo povezani,

but he didn't know why.

ali nije znao kako.

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

Za nauku njegovog doba, to je bila misterija.

In the years since Huxley,

U godinama nakon Hakslija,

science has learned a lot about brain activity,

nauka je spoznala mnogo toga o moždanoj aktivnosti,

but the relationship between brain activity

ali odnos između moždane aktivnosti

and conscious experiences is still a mystery.

i svesnog iskustva je ostao misterija.

Why? Why have we made so little progress?

Zašto? Zašto je bilo tako malo napretka?

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

Pa, neki stručnjaci smatraju da ne možemo rešiti ovaj problem

because we lack the necessary concepts and intelligence.

jer nam nedostaju neophodni koncepti i inteligencija.

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

Ne očekujemo od majmuna da rešavaju probleme kvantne mehanike,

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

i izgleda, isto tako ne možemo očekivati da naša vrsta može rešiti ovaj problem.

Well, I disagree. I'm more optimistic.

Pa, ne slažem se. Ja sam malo više optimističan.

I think we've simply made a false assumption.

Mislim da smo jednostavno napravili pogrešnu pretpostavku.

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

Čim to popravimo, možda bismo i mogli rešiti ovaj problem.

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

Danas bih da vam ispričam kakva je to pretpostavka,

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

zašto je pogrešna, i kako to popraviti.

Let's begin with a question:

Hajde da krenemo od pitanja:

Do we see reality as it is?

Da li vidimo 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 doživim iskustvo koje opisujem kao crveni paradajz na metar udaljen od mene.

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

Kao rezultat, verujem da i u stvarnosti

there's a red tomato a meter away.

postoji crveni paradajz na metar udaljenosti.

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

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

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

ali da li je u stvarnosti još uvek na metar od mene taj crveni paradajz?

I think so, but could I be wrong?

Mislim da jeste, ali da li je moguće i da nisam u pravu?

Could I be misinterpreting the nature of my perceptions?

Da li je moguće da nisam dobro protumačio prirodu mojih opažanja?

We have misinterpreted our perceptions before.

I ranije smo pogrešno tumačili naša opažanja.

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

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

Pythagorus discovered that we were wrong.

Pitagora je otkrio da nismo bili u pravu.

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

Onda smo mislili da je Zemlja centar svemira,

again because it looks that way.

opet jer nam tako izgleda.

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

Kopernik i Galileo su još jednom otkrili da nismo u pravu.

Galileo then wondered if we might be misinterpreting our experiences

Galileo se onda zapitao da li je moguće da pogrešno tumačimo naša opažanja

in other ways.

i na druge načine.

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

Napisao je: "Mislim da ukusi, mirisi, boje i tako dalje,

reside in consciousness.

obitavaju u našoj svesti.

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

Zato, ako bi živa bića nestala, i sve ove stvari bi nestale sa njima."

Now, that's a stunning claim.

Pa, ovo je zapanjujuća tvrdnja.

Could Galileo be right?

Možda je Galileo u pravu?

Could we really be misinterpreting our experiences that badly?

Možda stvarno toliko pogrešno tumačimo naša opažanja?

What does modern science have to say about this?

Šta moderna nauka ima o ovome da kaže?

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

Pa, neuronaučnici kažu da se oko trećina moždane kore

is engaged in vision.

bavi vidom.

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

Kada jednostavno otvorimo oči i pogledamo ovu prostoriju,

billions of neurons and trillions of synapses are engaged.

milijarde neurona i bilioni sinapsi se uključuju.

Now, this is a bit surprising,

To je pomalo iznenađujuće

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

jer u meri u kojoj uopšte razmišljamo o vidu,

we think of it as like a camera.

razmišljamo o njemu kao o kameri.

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

On nam samo daje sliku objektivne stvarnosti takva kakva jeste.

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

I postoji deo vida koji je baš kao kamera:

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

oko ima sočivo koje fokusira sliku u zadnjem delu oka

where there are 130 million photoreceptors,

gde se nalazi 130 miliona fotoreceptora,

so the eye is like a 130-megapixel camera.

pa je oko kao kamera sa 130 megapiksela.

But that doesn't explain the billions of neurons

Ali to ne objašnjava milijarde neurona

and trillions of synapses that are engaged in vision.

i bilione sinapsi koje su tokom vida aktivne.

What are these neurons up to?

Šta ti neuroni rade?

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

Pa, neuronaučnici kažu da oni stvaraju, u realnom vremenu,

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

sve oblike, objekte, boje i pokrete koje vidimo.

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

Osećaj je kao da samo pravimo fotografiju ove prostorije onakva kakva je,

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

ali zapravo, stvaramo sliku svega što vidimo.

We don't construct the whole world at once.

Ne stvaramo sliku celog sveta odjednom.

We construct what we need in the moment.

Stvaramo ono što nam u trenutku treba.

Now, there are many demonstrations that are quite compelling

Pa, postoje mnoge demonstracije koje su prilično ubedljive

that we construct what we see.

da sami stvaramo sve što vidimo.

I'll just show you two.

Pokazaću vam dve.

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

U ovom primeru, vidimo crvene diskove kojima su odsečeni delovi

but if I just rotate the disks a little bit,

ali ako samo malo zarotiram diskove,

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

odjednom vidimo 3D 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

pa trodimenzionalna kocka koju vidimo

must be your construction.

mora biti naša konstrukcija.

In this next example,

U sledećem primeru,

you see glowing blue bars with pretty sharp edges

vidimo svetleće plave pruge sa prilično jasnim ivicama

moving across a field of dots.

koje se pomeraju preko tačkastog polja.

In fact, no dots move.

Zapravo, nijedna tačka se ne pomera.

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

Sve što radim je da od kadra do kadra menjam boju 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

vizuelni sistem stvara sliku svetlećih plavih pruga

with the sharp edges and the motion.

sa jasnim ivicama i u pokretu.

There are many more examples, but these are just two

Postoji još mnogo primera, toga da sami stvaramo sve što vidimo.

that you construct what you see.

ali ovo su samo dva.

But neuroscientists go further.

Ali neuronaučnici idu još dalje.

They say that we reconstruct reality.

Kažu da rekonstruišemo stvarnost.

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

Pa, kada imam iskustvo koje opisujem kao crveni paradajz,

that experience is actually an accurate reconstruction

to iskustvo je zapravo precizna rekonstrukcija

of the properties of a real red tomato

svih svojstava pravog crvenog paradajza

that would exist even if I weren't looking.

koji bi postojao čak i kada ne bih gledao.

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

Pa, zašto neuronaučnici kažu da ne samo da stvaramo,

we reconstruct?

već i rekonstruišemo?

Well, the standard argument given

Pa, standardni argument

is usually an evolutionary one.

je uglavnom evolucione prirode.

Those of our ancestors who saw more accurately

Oni naši preci koji su mogli da vide preciznije

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

imali su prednost u odnosu na one koji su videli slabije,

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

i zato je bila veća verovatnoća da će oni preneti svoje gene.

We are the offspring of those who saw more accurately,

Mi smo preci onih koji su videli preciznije,

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

pa zato možemo da se uzdamo da su, u normalnom slučaju,

our perceptions are accurate.

naša opažanja tačna.

You see this in the standard textbooks.

Vidimo ovo u standardnim udžbenicima.

One textbook says, for example,

Jedan, na primer, kaže:

"Evolutionarily speaking,

"U evolucionom smislu,

vision is useful precisely because it is so accurate."

vid je koristan baš zato što je tako precizan."

So the idea is that accurate perceptions are fitter perceptions.

Dakle, ideja je da su precizna opažanja bolja opažanja.

They give you a survival advantage.

Daju nam prednost u preživljavanju.

Now, is this correct?

Pa, da li je ovo tačno?

Is this the right interpretation of evolutionary theory?

Je li ovo tačna interpretacija teorije evolucije?

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

Hajde da prvo pogledamo par primera iz prirode.

The Australian jewel beetle

Ova vrsta australijskih krasaca

is dimpled, glossy and brown.

je hrapava, sjajna i smeđe boje.

The female is flightless.

Ženka ne može da leti.

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

Mužjak leti, naravno, u potrazi za dobrom ženkom.

When he finds one, he alights and mates.

Kada je pronađe, sleće i pari se.

There's another species in the outback,

U pozadini, postoji još jedna vrsta.

Homo sapiens.

Homo sapijens.

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 u potrazi za hladnim pivom.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

And when he finds one, he drains it,

I kada ga pronađe, iskapi ga,

and sometimes throws the bottle into the outback.

i ponekad samo ostavi flašu iza sebe.

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

E sad, kako to već biva, ove flaše su hrapave, sjajne,

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

i baš takve braon boje da mogu da zagolicaju maštu ovih buba.

The males swarm all over the bottles trying to mate.

Mužjaci se sjate preko flaša u pokušaju da se pare.

They lose all interest in the real females.

Izgube svo zanimanje za prave ženke.

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

Klasična priča gde mužjak napušta ženku zbog flaše.

(Laughter) (Applause)

(Smeh) (Aplauz)

The species almost went extinct.

Vrsta je skoro izumrla.

Australia had to change its bottles to save its beetles.

Australija je morala da promeni izgled flaša da bi spasila svoje bube.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

Now, the males had successfully found females for thousands,

Mužjaci su uspešno nalazili ženke

hiljadama, možda čak i milionima godina.

perhaps millions of years.

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

Činilo se da su doživljavali stvarnost takvu kakva jeste, ali očigledno nisu.

Evolution had given them a hack.

Evolucija im je dala nagoveštaj.

A female is anything dimpled, glossy and brown,

Ženka je sve što je hrapavo, sjajno i braon,

the bigger the better.

što veće to bolje.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

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

Čak i nakon što bi prešao preko cele flaše

mužjak ne bi mogao da shvati da je pogrešio.

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

Moglo bi se reći, bube, naravno, jako su jednostavna stvorenja,

but surely not mammals.

ali sigurno ne i 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 nećemo se zadržavati na ovome, ali shvatate poentu. (Smeh)

So this raises an important technical question:

Ovo nas tera da postavimo važno tehničko pitanje:

Does natural selection really favor seeing reality as it is?

Da li prirodna selekcija zaista ide u prilog

doživljavanju stvarnosti takva kakva jeste?

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

Srećom, ne moramo da odmahnemo rukom i nagađamo;

evolution is a mathematically precise theory.

evolucija je matematički precizna teorija.

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

Možemo koristiti jednačine evolucije da bismo proverili.

Možemo uzeti različite organizme i posmatratati

We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete

kako se takmiče u veštačkim uslovima,

and see which survive and which thrive,

i videti koji preživljavaju i koji napreduju,

which sensory systems are more fit.

čiji senzorni sistemi su najsposobniji.

A key notion in those equations is fitness.

Ključni pojam u ovim jednačinama je sposobnost.

Consider this steak:

Uzmimo u obzir ovaj odrezak:

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

Šta on čini za sposobnost neke životinje?

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

Pa za gladnog lava koji bi jeo, povećava sposobnost.

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

Za sitog lava koji bi se pario, ne povećava.

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

A za zeca u bilo kom stanju, ne povećava sposobnost,

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

tako da ona zapravo zavisi od stvarnosti takve kakva jeste, da,

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

ali takođe i od organizma, njegovog stanja i aktivnosti.

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

Sposobnost nije isto što i stvarnost takva kakva jeste,

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

i sposobnost organizma, a ne stvarnost takva kakva jeste,

that figures centrally in the equations of evolution.

zapravo je ono oko čega se vrti jednačina evolucije.

So, in my lab,

Pa, u mojoj laboratoriji,

we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations

pokretali smo stotine hiljada simulacija igara evolucije

with lots of different randomly chosen worlds

sa mnogo različitih nasumično odabranih svetova

and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds.

i organizama koji se takmiče za resurse u tim svetovima.

Some of the organisms see all of the reality,

Neki od organizama vide celu stvarnost,

others see just part of the reality,

drugi vide samo njen deo,

and some see none of the reality,

a neki ništa,

only fitness.

samo imaju sposobnost.

Who wins?

Ko pobeđuje?

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

Pa, žao mi je što ovo moram da vam saopštim,

ali percepcija stvarnosti izumire.

In almost every simulation,

U skoro svakoj simulaciji,

organisms that see none of reality

organizmi koji nisu videli ništa od stvarnost

but are just tuned to fitness

već su samo bili naštimovani na sposobnost

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

doveli su do izumiranja sve organizme koji su videli stvarnost takvu kakva je.

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

Dakle, evolucija ne favorizuje verodostojne,

or accurate perceptions.

odnosno precizne percepcije.

Those perceptions of reality go extinct.

Ove percepcije stvarnosti izumiru.

Now, this is a bit stunning.

Ovo je pomalo iznenađujuće.

How can it be that not seeing the world accurately

Kako može biti da neposmatranje sveta precizno zapravo

gives us a survival advantage?

daje prednost u preživljavanju?

That is a bit counterintuitive.

Suprotno je intuiciji.

But remember the jewel beetle.

Ali setimo se bube.

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

Buba je preživljavala hiljadama, možda milionima godina,

using simple tricks and hacks.

koristeći se jednostavnim trikovima i nagoveštajima.

What the equations of evolution are telling us

Ono što nam jednačina evolucije govori je

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

da su svi organizmi, uključujući i nas, u istom sosu kao i bube.

We do not see reality as it is.

Mi ne vidimo stvarnost takvu kakva je.

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

Oblikovani smo trikovima i nagoveštajima koji nas održavaju u životu.

Still,

Ipak,

we need some help with our intuitions.

treba nam pomoć u intuiciji.

How can not perceiving reality as it is be useful?

Kako neopažanje stvarnosti takve kakva je može biti korisno?

Well, fortunately, we have a very helpful metaphor:

Srećom, imamo veoma korisnu metaforu:

the desktop interface on your computer.

desktop interfejs na kompjuteru.

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

Pogledajmo tu plavu ikonicu za TED govor koji pišete.

Now, the icon is blue and rectangular

Sada, ikona je plava i četvrtasta

and in the lower right corner of the desktop.

i smeštena u donjem desnom uglu desktopa.

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

Da li to znači da je sama tekst datoteka na kompjuteru plava,

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

četvrtasta i smeštena u donjem desnom uglu kompjutera?

Of course not.

Naravno da ne.

Anyone who thought that misinterprets the purpose of the interface.

Svako ko tako misli pogrešno tumači svrhu interfejsa.

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

Nije tu da pokaže kakva je stvarnost kompjutera.

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

Zapravo, tu je da je sakrije.

You don't want to know about the diodes

Ne želite da znate o diodama

and resistors and all the megabytes of software.

i rezistorima i svim megabajtima softvera.

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

Kad biste morali da se bakćete time, nikada ne biste ni napisali svoj tekst

or edit your photo.

ili možda izmenili fotografiju.

So the idea is that evolution has given us an interface

Tako je ideja da nam je evolucija dala interfejs

that hides reality and guides adaptive behavior.

koji krije stvarnost i navodi naše prilagođavajuće ponašanje.

Space and time, as you perceive them right now,

Prostor i vreme, kako ih sada vidimo,

are your desktop.

su desktop.

Physical objects are simply icons in that desktop.

Fizički objekti su jednostavno ikonice na tom desktopu.

Postoiji i očigledan nedostatak.

There's an obvious objection.

Hofman - ako mislite da je voz koji se približava šinama

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

brzinom od 320 kilometara na čas

is just an icon of your desktop,

samo jedna od ikonica na vašem desktopu,

why don't you step in front of it?

zašto ne stojite onda ispred njega?

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

I nakon što ste otišli, zajedno sa svojom teorijom,

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, ne bih stao ispred voza

for the same reason

iz istog razloga

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

zbog kojeg ne bih bezbrižno odvukao tu ikonicu u kantu za otpatke:

not because I take the icon literally --

ne zato što tu ikonu uzimam zdravo za gotovo -

the file is not literally blue or rectangular --

fajl nije stvarno plav ili četvrtast -

but I do take it seriously.

ali uzimam je za ozbiljno.

I could lose weeks of work.

Mogao bih izgubiti nedelje posla.

Similarly, evolution has shaped us

Slično tome, evolucija nas je oblikovala

with perceptual symbols that are designed to keep us alive.

perceptivnim simbolima koji su tu da nas održe u životu.

We'd better take them seriously.

Bolje da ih uzmemo za ozbiljno.

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

Ako vidimo zmiju, ne uzmemo je u ruke.

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

Ako vidimo liticu, ne skačemo s nje.

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

Oni su dizajnirani da nas drže na bezbednom,

i trebalo bi da ih shvatimo ozbiljno.

That does not mean that we should take them literally.

To ne znači da bi trebalo da ih shvatamo bukvalno.

That's a logical error.

To je logička greška.

Another objection: There's nothing really new here.

Još jedan nedostatak: u ovome nema zapravo ništa novo.

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

Fizičari su nam dugo govorili da metal na tom vozu izgleda čvrsto

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

ali zapravo je on većinom prazan prostor

sa mikroskopskim česticama koje zvrje naokolo.

There's nothing new here.

Ništa novo.

Well, not exactly.

Pa, i nije baš tako.

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

To je kao kad bismo rekli: "Znam da ta plava ikonica na dekstopu

is not the reality of the computer,

nije stvarnost kompjutera

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

ali ako izvučem svoju lupu i pogledam izbliza,

I see little pixels,

vidim male 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, baš i nije - još uvek smo na desktopu, i u tome je stvar,

Those microscopic particles are still in space and time:

te mikroskopske čestice su još uvek u prostoru i vremenu:

they're still in the user interface.

još uvek su u interfejsu.

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

Govorim nešto mnogo radikalnije u odnosu na one fizičare.

Finally, you might object,

Konačno, možete se suprotstaviti

look, we all see the train,

i reći da svi mi vidimo voz

therefore none of us constructs the train.

tako da niko od nas taj voz nije stvorio.

But remember this example.

Ali setimo se ovog primera.

In this example, we all see a cube,

U ovom primeru, svi vidimo kocku,

but the screen is flat,

ali ekran je ravan,

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

pa je tako kocka koju vidimo, kocka koju smo sami stvorili.

We all see a cube

Svi vidimo kocku

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

jer svi mi, svako od nas, stvara kocku koju vidimo.

The same is true of the train.

Isto je i sa vozom.

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

Svi vidimo voz jer svi vidimo voz koji sami stvaramo,

and the same is true of all physical objects.

i isto je istinito za sve fizičke objekte.

Svi smo naklonjeni mišljenju da je percepcija

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

nalik na prozor u stvarnost takve kakva je.

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

Teorija evolucije nam govori da je ovo netačna interpretacija

of our perceptions.

našeg opažanja.

Instead, reality is more like a 3D desktop

Umesto toga, stvarnost je više nalik na 3D desktop

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

koji je dizajniran da sakrije kompleksnost stvarnog sveta

and guide adaptive behavior.

i navodi naše ponašanje prilagođavanja.

Space as you perceive it is your desktop.

Prostor onakav kakav ga vidimo je desktop.

Physical objects are just the icons in that desktop.

Fizički objekti su samo ikonice na tom desktopu.

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

Navikli smo da mislimo da je Zemlja ravna jer nam tako izgleda.

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

Onda smo pomislili da je Zemlja nepokretan centar stvarnosti

because it looks that way.

jer nama ona tako izgleda.

We were wrong.

Pa nismo bili u pravu.

We had misinterpreted our perceptions.

Pogrešno smo tumačili naša opažanja.

Now we believe that spacetime and objects

Sada verujemo da su prostor, vreme i objekti

are the nature of reality as it is.

priroda stvarnosti onakve kakva je.

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

Teorija evolucije nam govori da još jednom grešimo.

We're misinterpreting the content of our perceptual experiences.

Pogrešno tumačimo sadržaj naših opažajnih iskustava.

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

Ima nešto što postoji i kada ne posmatramo,

but it's not spacetime and physical objects.

ali to nije vreme-prostor, ni fizički objekti.

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

Za nas je teško da napustimo vreme-prostor i objekte

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

kao što je za bubu da napusti flašu.

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

Zašto? Jer smo slepi za svoje slepilo.

But we have an advantage over the jewel beetle:

Ali imamo prednost u odnosu na bubu:

our science and technology.

nauku i tehnologiju.

By peering through the lens of a telescope

Gledajući kroz teleskop

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

otkrili smo da Zemlja nije nepokretan centar stvarnosti,

and by peering through the lens of the theory of evolution

i gledajući kroz sočivo teorije evolucije

we discovered that spacetime and objects

otkrili smo da vreme-prostor i objekti

are not the nature of reality.

nisu priroda stvarnosti.

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

Kada imamo opažajno iskustvo koje sam opisao 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 stvarnost nije crveni paradajz, i nije mu čak ni nalik.

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

Slično tome, kada primam iskustvo koje opisujem kao lav ili šnicla,

I'm interacting with reality,

ja sam u interakciji sa stvarnosti,

but that reality is not a lion or a steak.

ali stvarnost nije lav ili šnicla.

And here's the kicker:

A ovde je i caka:

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

kad primam opažajno iskustvo koje opisujem kao mozak, ili neuron,

I am interacting with reality,

ja sam u interakciji sa stvarnošću,

but that reality is not a brain or neurons

ali stvarnost nije mozak ili neuron

and is nothing like a brain or neurons.

i nije ni nalik mozgu ili neuronu.

And that reality, whatever it is,

Ta stvarnost, šta god da je,

is the real source of cause and effect

je stvaran izvor uzroka i posledica

in the world -- not brains, not neurons.

u svetu - ne mozak, ne neuroni.

Brains and neurons have no causal powers.

Mozak i neuroni nemaju nikakvu stvarnu moć.

They cause none of our perceptual experiences,

Oni ne mogu da uzrokuju nijedno od naših opažajnih iskustava,

and none of our behavior.

i nijedno naše ponašanje.

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

Mozak i neuroni su skup simbola specifični za svaku vrstu.

What does this mean for the mystery of consciousness?

Šta to znači za misteriju o svesnosti?

Well, it opens up new possibilities.

Pa, otvara nove mogućnosti.

For instance,

Na primer,

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

možda je stvarnost velika mašina koja uzrokuje naše svesno iskustvo.

I doubt this, but it's worth exploring.

Sumnjam u to, ali vredno je istražiti.

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

Možda je stvarnost neka velika, interaktivna mreža agenasa svesti,

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

jednostavnih i složenih, koji međusobno uzrokuju jedan drugom svesna iskustva.

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

Zapravo, ovo nije tako luda ideja kako se možda čini,

and I'm currently exploring it.

i trenutno je istražujem.

But here's the point:

Ali u ovome je poenta:

Once we let go of our massively intuitive

čim jednom napustimo naše većinski intuitivno

but massively false assumption about the nature of reality,

ali većinski lažnu pretpostavku o prirodi stvarnosti,

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

otvaraju nam se novi načini razmišljanja o velikoj životnoj misteriji.

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

Kladim se da će na kraju ispasti da je stvarnost mnogo više fascinantna

and unexpected than we've ever imagined.

i neočekivana nego što smo i zamišljali.

The theory of evolution presents us with the ultimate dare:

Teorija evolucije nam predstavlja najveći izazov:

Dare to recognize that perception is not about seeing truth,

izazov da prepoznamo da suština percepcije nije u tome da vidimo istinu,

it's about having kids.

već u tome da imamo decu.

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

Usput, čak je i ovaj TED samo u vašoj glavi.

Thank you very much.

Hvala vam puno.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)

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

Kris Anderson: Ako ste ovo stvarno Vi ovde, hvala vam.

So there's so much from this.

Ima mnogo u ovome.

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

Mislim, pre svega, neki ljudi mogu postati veoma depresivni i na samu ovu pomisao,

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

ako evolucija ne favorizuje stvarnost,

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

mislim, zar to u nekoj meri ne potcenjuje naše napore ovde,

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

ili svu našu mogućnost da mislimo da možemo da mislimo o istini,

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

možda čak uključujući vašu sopstvenu teoriju, kad smo već kod toga?

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

Donald Hofman: Pa, to nas ne sprečava da se uspešno bavimo naukom.

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

Ono što imamo je jedna teorija za koju se ispostavilo da je pogrešna,

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

da je iskustvo baš kao stvarnost i stvarnost kao naše iskustvo.

That theory turns out to be false.

Za tu teoriju se ispostavilo da je pogrešna.

Okay, throw that theory away.

Okej, odbacićemo je.

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

To nas ne sprečava da onda stvaramo različite nove teorije

about the nature of reality,

o prirodi stvarnosti,

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

pa je zapravo napredak prepoznati neistinitost jedne od naših teorija.

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

Tako nauka nastavlja normalno dalje. Nema tu problema.

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

K.A: Znači mislite da je moguće...

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

To je super, ali kako Vi kažete, mislim da je moguće da evolucija

can still get you to reason.

još uvek može da nas tera na rezonovanje.

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

D.H: Da. To je veoma, veoma dobro razmišljanje.

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

Igre simulacije evolucije koje sam pokazao ovde bile su baš o percepciji,

and they do show that our perceptions have been shaped

i pokazuju da je naše opažanje oblikovano

not to show us reality as it is,

da nam ne prokaže stvarnost kakva jeste,

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

ali to ne znači isto za logiku ili matematiku.

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

Nismo radili te simulacije, ali kladim se da ćemo naći

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

da postoje neki selekcioni pritisci za našu logiku i našu matematiku

to be at least in the direction of truth.

koji su makar u pravcu istine.

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

Mislim, ako ste kao ja, matematika i logika vam nisu laki.

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

Ne shvatamo ih baš kako treba, ali makar pritisak selekcije nije

uniformly away from true math and logic.

jednoglasno protiv matematike i logike.

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

Zato mislim da ćemo shvatiti da moramo da posmatramo kognitivne sposobnosti

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

jednu po jednu i vidimo šta im evolucija čini.

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

Ono što je istina za percepciju ne mora biti i za matematiku i logiku.

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

K.A: Mislim, stvarno ono što Vi predlažete je vrsta moderne

interpretation of the world:

interpretacije sveta Džordža Barklija:

consciousness causes matter, not the other way around.

svest uzrokuje materiju, a ne obrnuto.

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

D.H: Pa, malko je drugačije od Barklija.

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

Barkli je mislio da, on je bio deista, i mislio je

nature of reality is God and so forth,

da je ultimativna priroda stvarnosti Bog i tako dalje,

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

ali ja ne idem u tom pravcu.

so it's quite a bit different from Berkeley.

Tako da je ipak malo drugačije.

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

Ovo zovem svesni realizam. Zapravo je to veoma drugačiji pristup.

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

K.A: Done, bukvalno bih sa Vama pričao satima, i nadam se da ćemo to i moći.

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

Hvala Vam mnogo za ovo. D.H: Hvala Vama. (Aplauz)