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

翻译人员: Karen SONG 校对人员: Jing Zhou

I love a great mystery,

我爱着一个巨大的谜，

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

并且被这个科学界最伟大的未解之谜深深吸引，

perhaps because it's personal.

也许是因为它切身相关。

It's about who we are,

它关乎我们是谁，

and I can't help but be curious.

我无法控制自己的好奇。

The mystery is this:

这个谜就是：

What is the relationship between your brain

你的大脑和你的意识体验之间

and your conscious experiences,

有什么关系，

such as your experience of the taste of chocolate

比如说品味巧克力的味道，

or the feeling of velvet?

或是天鹅绒的触感。

Now, this mystery is not new.

事实上，这个未解之谜并非新事物。

In 1868, Thomas Huxley wrote,

在1868年，托马斯▪哈克雷就曾经写道，

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

“神经组织的激发产生意识这一过程

as the result of irritating nervous tissue

是如此的神奇，

is just as unaccountable

就像是

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

阿拉丁摩擦神灯会出现精灵一样。”

Now, Huxley knew that brain activity

后来，哈克雷终于了解到大脑的活动

and conscious experiences are correlated,

是与意识体验紧紧相连的，

but he didn't know why.

但他仍不知道个中原因。

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

对于他那个年代的科学界，这仍是个谜。

In the years since Huxley,

自哈克雷以后，

science has learned a lot about brain activity,

科学界了解到很多关于大脑活动的知识，

but the relationship between brain activity

但是大脑活动和意识体验的关系，

and conscious experiences is still a mystery.

仍然是个谜。

Why? Why have we made so little progress?

为什么？为什么我们止步不前？

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

有专家认为，我们永远也不可能解决这个问题，

because we lack the necessary concepts and intelligence.

因为我们缺乏必要的概念和智能水平。

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

我们不能指望猴子们能解决量子力学问题，

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

类似的，我们不能指望人类这个物种能解决这个问题。

Well, I disagree. I'm more optimistic.

可我不同意。我更加乐观。

I think we've simply made a false assumption.

我觉得我们只是做了一个错误的假设。

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

一旦我们纠正了这个错误，我们就可能解决这个问题。

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

今天，我要告诉你这个假设是什么，

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

为什么它是错的，以及如何纠正它。

Let's begin with a question:

让我们先问一个问题：

Do we see reality as it is?

真的是”眼见为实“吗？

I open my eyes

我睁开眼睛，

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

感受到一米外有一只红色的番茄。

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

结果我开始相信，事实上

there's a red tomato a meter away.

一米之外有一只番茄

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

然后我闭上双眼，就体验到一片灰色，

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

但这时一米开外仍旧有一只番茄吗？

I think so, but could I be wrong?

我觉得有，但我会不会错了呢？

Could I be misinterpreting the nature of my perceptions?

有没有可能是我曲解了我的知觉呢？

We have misinterpreted our perceptions before.

我们曾经曲解过自己的知觉。

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

我们曾经认为地球是平的，因为它看起来是平的。

Pythagorus discovered that we were wrong.

毕达哥拉斯发现我们错了。

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

我们认为地球是宇宙的静止中心，

again because it looks that way.

也是因为它看起来是这样。

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

哥白尼和伽利略再次发现我们错了。

Galileo then wondered if we might be misinterpreting our experiences

伽利略后来质疑我们是不是在其他方面

in other ways.

也曲解了自身的体验。

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

他写道：“我认为味觉，嗅觉，色觉等等，

reside in consciousness.

存在于意识里。

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

所以如果所有的生物都消失了， 所有这些感受也就一同湮灭了。”

Now, that's a stunning claim.

这是一个惊人的论断。

Could Galileo be right?

伽利略是正确的吗？

Could we really be misinterpreting our experiences that badly?

我们真的有曲解自身体验到如此程度吗？

What does modern science have to say about this?

现代科学家怎么看这个问题呢？

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

神经科学家告诉我们大约三分之一的大脑皮层

is engaged in vision.

参与视觉感受。

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

只要当你睁开眼睛，环视这个房间，

billions of neurons and trillions of synapses are engaged.

数十亿的神经元和数万亿的突触都参与其中。

Now, this is a bit surprising,

这其实挺令人惊讶的，

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

因为我们所理解的产生视觉的机制，

we think of it as like a camera.

就像一台照相机。

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

它只是把客观事实拍摄下来。

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

确实有一部分的视觉像照相机一样工作：

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

眼睛是一个透镜，将图像投影到眼睛的后面，

where there are 130 million photoreceptors,

那里有一亿三千万感光元件，

so the eye is like a 130-megapixel camera.

所以眼睛相当于一台像素为一亿三千万的数码相机。

But that doesn't explain the billions of neurons

但这解释不了为什么产生视觉要动用

and trillions of synapses that are engaged in vision.

数以十亿计的神经元和几万亿的突触。

What are these neurons up to?

这些神经元起什么作用？

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

神经科学家告诉我们，它们实时创造出

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

我们见到的所有形状、物体、颜色和运动。

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

我们觉得自己只是给这个屋子本来的模样拍了一张快照，

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

而实际上我们能建构出所有看到的东西。

We don't construct the whole world at once.

我们并不是在一瞬间就能构建出一切。

We construct what we need in the moment.

我们只是构建出在某一时刻自己所需要的东西。

Now, there are many demonstrations that are quite compelling

很多现象表明这一说法是可信的，

that we construct what we see.

说明我们看到的东西是在脑内构建出来的。

I'll just show you two.

我给你们看两个例子。

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

这个例子中，你们看到一些红色的圆盘， 中间都有一些被切开的部分。

but if I just rotate the disks a little bit,

我一转动这些圆盘，

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

你们就能看到一个3D的立方体 从屏幕里跃然而出。

Now, the screen of course is flat,

这个屏幕当然是平的，

so the three-dimensional cube that you're experiencing

所以你们体验到的三维立方体

must be your construction.

应该是你们自己“构建”出来的。

In this next example,

下一个例子，

you see glowing blue bars with pretty sharp edges

你们看到这些闪烁的蓝条条 有着很清晰的边缘，

moving across a field of dots.

在一大堆点中移动。

In fact, no dots move.

实际上，没有一个点在动。

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

我做的只是一帧一帧地改变点的颜色，

from blue to black or black to blue.

从蓝色变成黑色，或者从黑色变成蓝色。

But when I do this quickly,

但我快速播放 (这个过程) 时，

your visual system creates the glowing blue bars

你们的视觉系统就“构建”出 这些闪烁的蓝条条，

with the sharp edges and the motion.

有着清晰的边缘，并在移动。

There are many more examples, but these are just two

这是很多例子中的两个，

that you construct what you see.

说明你看到的是自己构建出的东西。

But neuroscientists go further.

但神经科学家探索得更远。

They say that we reconstruct reality.

他们说我们会重新构建现实。

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

所以当我体验到一个红番茄的时候，

that experience is actually an accurate reconstruction

这种体验实际上精确地重建了

of the properties of a real red tomato

一个真实的红番茄的各种特性，

that would exist even if I weren't looking.

即使我不看，它也存在。

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

为什么神经科学家说我们不仅仅是“构建”，

we reconstruct?

而是“重建”？

Well, the standard argument given

标准的论证

is usually an evolutionary one.

经常是进化的原因。

Those of our ancestors who saw more accurately

我们的祖先中看得更准确的，

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

比起那些看得没那么准确的， 更具有竞争优势，

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

所以拥有更大的几率能传下基因。

We are the offspring of those who saw more accurately,

我们是那些看得更准的祖先的后代，

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

我们可以自信，在正常情况下，

our perceptions are accurate.

我们的知觉都是准确的。

You see this in the standard textbooks.

你们能在标准的教科书里读到这点。

One textbook says, for example,

譬如，我们的教科书上说：

"Evolutionarily speaking,

“从进化上说，

vision is useful precisely because it is so accurate."

视觉的作用就在于它的准确。”

So the idea is that accurate perceptions are fitter perceptions.

这就是说，准确的知觉是适应性更高的知觉。

They give you a survival advantage.

它们给予你生存优势。

Now, is this correct?

这个观点对吗？

Is this the right interpretation of evolutionary theory?

这是不是一种关于进化理论的正确解读？

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

让我们先来检验一些自然中的例子。

The Australian jewel beetle

澳大利亚吉丁虫

is dimpled, glossy and brown.

身有浅坑，外壳泛光，体色为棕色。

The female is flightless.

雌虫不能飞。

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

雄虫能飞，并寻找出色的雌虫。

When he finds one, he alights and mates.

当它找着了，就降落下来交配。

There's another species in the outback,

在澳大利亚内陆还有一个物种，

Homo sapiens.

叫做智人，

The male of this species has a massive brain

其中的雄性脑容量巨大，

that he uses to hunt for cold beer.

并用来寻找冰镇啤酒。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

And when he finds one, he drains it,

当他找到了，就喝光，

and sometimes throws the bottle into the outback.

有时候还把空瓶子乱扔。

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

这些空瓶身有浅坑，外壳泛光，

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

还刚好是吉丁虫最喜欢的那种棕色。

The males swarm all over the bottles trying to mate.

雄虫蜂拥而来，围着空酒瓶试图交配。

They lose all interest in the real females.

他们对真正的雌虫丧失了一切兴趣。

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

这真是一个雄性为了酒瓶而抛弃雌性的经典例子。

(Laughter) (Applause)

（笑声）（掌声）

The species almost went extinct.

这个物种差点就灭绝了。

Australia had to change its bottles to save its beetles.

澳大利亚不得不把酒瓶的设计改掉， 好挽救这种甲虫。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Now, the males had successfully found females for thousands,

雄虫能成功地找到雌虫的历史

perhaps millions of years.

可能已有数百万年了。

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

它们貌似能看到客观真实，但很明显，事实并非如此。

Evolution had given them a hack.

进化摆了它们一道。

A female is anything dimpled, glossy and brown,

雌虫就是任何身有浅坑，外壳泛光， 体色为棕色的东西，

the bigger the better.

而且越大越好。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

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

即使爬遍整个酒瓶，雄虫也无法发现自己的错误。

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

你也许会说，甲壳虫当然是一种非常简单的生物，

but surely not mammals.

哺乳动物可不会这样。

Mammals don't rely on tricks.

哺乳动物不会仰赖于这种雕虫小技。

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

我不想细说这张图了，你们应该知道我的意思。 （笑声）

So this raises an important technical question:

所以这就产生了一个重要的技术性问题：

Does natural selection really favor seeing reality as it is?

自然选择真的支持“眼见为实”吗？

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

幸运的是，我们不必挥手乱猜；

evolution is a mathematically precise theory.

进化论是一个数学上精准的理论。

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

我们可以用演化方程组来检验。

We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete

我们可以让多种有机体在人造环境下互相竞争，

and see which survive and which thrive,

看看哪些可以生存繁衍，

which sensory systems are more fit.

哪种感观系统的适应性更高。

A key notion in those equations is fitness.

这些方程组中有一个关键的概念叫做“适应性”。

Consider this steak:

考虑下这块牛排：

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

它对动物的适应性如何？

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

对于一头饥肠辘辘、正在觅食的 狮子来说，它能加强适应性；

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

对于一头“饱暖思淫欲”的狮子来说， 它就不能增加适应性；

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

而对于一只兔子来说，无论兔子 处于什么状态，它都不能增加适应性。

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

所以说，适应性并非取决于事实本身，

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

而是要看针对的是哪种有机体， 它处于什么状态，要做什么行动。

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

适应性与事实本身不是一回事，

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

但正是适应性——而非事实本身——

that figures centrally in the equations of evolution.

在进行演化方程组的计算中起了至关重要的作用。

So, in my lab,

在我的实验室里，

we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations

我们模拟了数十万次的进化博弈，

with lots of different randomly chosen worlds

在多种不同的随机选择的环境中，

and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds.

有机体相互竞争资源。

Some of the organisms see all of the reality,

一些有机体能够看到全部真实；

others see just part of the reality,

一些只能看到部分真实；

and some see none of the reality,

一些完全看不到真实，

only fitness.

仅仅具有适应性。

Who wins?

谁能胜出？

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

我不想点破，但（结果是）真实的知觉灭绝了。

In almost every simulation,

在几乎所有的模拟当中，

organisms that see none of reality

那些一点儿也看不到真实，

but are just tuned to fitness

但具有适应性的有机体，

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

把一切能看到真实的有机体逼向灭绝。

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

这里的关键在于，进化并不支持

or accurate perceptions.

垂直知觉或准确知觉。

Those perceptions of reality go extinct.

这种对于真实的知觉会灭绝。

Now, this is a bit stunning.

这个结论挺惊人的。

How can it be that not seeing the world accurately

看世界不准确怎么会

gives us a survival advantage?

给我们带来生存优势呢？

That is a bit counterintuitive.

这有点违反直觉。

But remember the jewel beetle.

但别忘了吉丁虫。

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

吉丁虫利用简单的技巧，

using simple tricks and hacks.

生存了成千上百万年。

What the equations of evolution are telling us

演化方程组告诉我们，

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

包括人类在内的一切有机体 都与吉丁虫同命相连。

We do not see reality as it is.

我们的所见并非真实。

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

我们之所以生存下来，仰赖的 是各种雕虫小技的塑造。

Still,

然而，

we need some help with our intuitions.

我们需要直觉来帮点忙。

How can not perceiving reality as it is be useful?

知觉不准确为什么会有用？

Well, fortunately, we have a very helpful metaphor:

幸好我们有个形象的隐喻：

the desktop interface on your computer.

电脑桌面的界面。

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

考虑下这个蓝色图标，它代表你 正在撰写的一篇TED演讲稿。

Now, the icon is blue and rectangular

这个图标是一个蓝色的、呈长方形、

and in the lower right corner of the desktop.

并处在桌面的右下角。

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

这是否意味着你放在电脑里的文档本身

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

是蓝色的、呈长方形， 并处在电脑的右下角？

Of course not.

当然不是。

Anyone who thought that misinterprets the purpose of the interface.

如果有谁真是这么想的，那他就误解了界面的存在目的。

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

它不是为了向你展示电脑的真实。

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

事实上，它是为了隐藏那种真实。

You don't want to know about the diodes

你不想要知道二极管啊、

and resistors and all the megabytes of software.

电阻器啊、软件的字节啊之类的东西。

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

如果要跟那些东西打交道，你就没法写文档，

or edit your photo.

也没法编辑照片了。

So the idea is that evolution has given us an interface

（我的）想法是，进化给予我们一个界面，

that hides reality and guides adaptive behavior.

能够隐藏事实，并引导我们做出具有适应性的行为。

Space and time, as you perceive them right now,

你们现在感知到的空间和时间，

are your desktop.

正是你的桌面。

Physical objects are simply icons in that desktop.

具有实体的各种物品，就是桌面上的简单图标。

There's an obvious objection.

这里有一个明显的反对理由，

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

霍夫曼，如果你认为那列 以200英里时速呼啸而来的火车

is just an icon of your desktop,

只是桌面上的一个图标，

why don't you step in front of it?

你为什么不站在它前面？

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

等你带着你的理论乖乖“上路”了，

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

我们就会知道那列火车不仅仅是一个图标。

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

我不会站在火车前面，

for the same reason

其中的原因

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

与我不会草率地将图标拽进回收站 的原因是一致的：

not because I take the icon literally --

不是因为我从直接意象上理解这个图标

the file is not literally blue or rectangular --

——这个文档不是蓝色的，也并非长方形——

but I do take it seriously.

但我确实要严肃对待。

I could lose weeks of work.

（随意删除它）可能让我数周的工作毁于一旦。

Similarly, evolution has shaped us

类似地，进化塑造了我们，

with perceptual symbols that are designed to keep us alive.

知觉符号的设计让我们能够生存。

We'd better take them seriously.

我们最好严肃对待。

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

如果你看到一条蛇，别碰它；

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

如果你看到一块峭壁，别跳崖；

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

这些（知觉符号的）设计能保护我们的安全， 我们应该严肃对待它们。

That does not mean that we should take them literally.

这并不意味着我们要仅从字面上理解它们。

That's a logical error.

那会是一个逻辑错误。

Another objection: There's nothing really new here.

还有一条反对理由：这并不是什么新提法。

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

物理学家很久以前就告诉我们， 构成那列火车的金属看上去是固体，

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

其实它们基本上是微观粒子快速运动所形成的真空。

There's nothing new here.

这不是什么新的提法。

Well, not exactly.

唔，不完全是这样。

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

这就像在说，我知道桌面上的蓝色图标

is not the reality of the computer,

并非是电脑的真实，

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

但如果拿出我那可靠的放大镜来仔细观察，

I see little pixels,

我看见的是小小的像素，

and that's the reality of the computer.

那就是电脑的真实。

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

唔，也不全是这样—— 你还是在桌面上，而这点是关键。

Those microscopic particles are still in space and time:

这些微观粒子还是存在于空间和时间之中：

they're still in the user interface.

那仍旧是用户界面。

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

我的提法与那些物理学家的观点存在根本差异。

Finally, you might object,

最后，你可能要反对说，

look, we all see the train,

看哪，我们全都看到了火车，

therefore none of us constructs the train.

所以没有谁“构建”了这列火车。

But remember this example.

但请记住这个例子。

In this example, we all see a cube,

在这个例子中，我们全都看到了立方体，

but the screen is flat,

但屏幕是平的，

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

所以你们看到的立方体是你们自己“构建”出来的。

We all see a cube

我们全都看到了立方体，

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

因为我们每一个人都“构建”出了所见的这个立方体。

The same is true of the train.

火车（的例子）也是同理。

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

我们全都看到了一列火车，因为我们每个人 都看到了自己“构建”出的这列火车，

and the same is true of all physical objects.

这也适用于其他所有的物体。

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

我们倾向于认为知觉就像真实的一扇窗户。

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

进化理论告诉我们这是一个

of our perceptions.

关于知觉的错误解读。

Instead, reality is more like a 3D desktop

相反的，真实更像是一个3D的桌面，

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

其设计目的是要隐藏真实世界的复杂性，

and guide adaptive behavior.

引导我们做出适应性行为。

Space as you perceive it is your desktop.

你感知到的空间是你的桌面。

Physical objects are just the icons in that desktop.

具有实体的各种物体就是桌面上的图标。

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

我们过去认为地球是平的，因为它看上去就那样。

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

我们过去还认为地球是真实世界的静止中心，

because it looks that way.

因为看上去就那样。

We were wrong.

我们都错了。

We had misinterpreted our perceptions.

我们误读了我们的知觉。

Now we believe that spacetime and objects

现在我们相信时空和物体

are the nature of reality as it is.

是真实存在的。

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

进化理论告诉我们，又一次，我们错了。

We're misinterpreting the content of our perceptual experiences.

我们误读了知觉感受的内容。

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

即使我们不看，也有什么是存在的，

but it's not spacetime and physical objects.

但那并不是时空和物体。

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

我们无法放弃关于时空和物体的想法，

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

就像吉丁虫无法放弃酒瓶子一样。

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

为什么？因为我们看不到自己的盲目。

But we have an advantage over the jewel beetle:

但我们相比吉丁虫具有一种优势：

our science and technology.

那就是我们的科学和技术。

By peering through the lens of a telescope

透过望远镜窥视，

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

我们发现地球并不是真实世界的静止中心；

and by peering through the lens of the theory of evolution

借助进化论的检验，

we discovered that spacetime and objects

我们发现时空和物体

are not the nature of reality.

并不具有真实性。

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

当我的知觉感受到所谓的一个红色番茄时，

I am interacting with reality,

我实际上是在与真实互动，

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

但真实并不是一个红色番茄， 也跟红色番茄没什么可比性。

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

类似地，当我感知到所谓的一头狮子或一块牛排，

I'm interacting with reality,

我实际上在与真实互动，

but that reality is not a lion or a steak.

但真实并不是一头狮子或一块牛排。

And here's the kicker:

难题在此：

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

当我的知觉感受到所谓的大脑、或是神经元，

I am interacting with reality,

我实际上在与真实互动，

but that reality is not a brain or neurons

但真实并不是大脑或是神经元，

and is nothing like a brain or neurons.

也跟大脑或神经元没什么关系。

And that reality, whatever it is,

真实，无论那是什么，

is the real source of cause and effect

正是世界上因果关系的真正来源

in the world -- not brains, not neurons.

——不是什么大脑，也不是什么神经元。

Brains and neurons have no causal powers.

大脑和神经元不具有因果力。

They cause none of our perceptual experiences,

它们并不会产生任何知觉感受，

and none of our behavior.

也不会导致任何行为。

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

大脑和神经元是物种特有的符号集合， 是一种认知捷径。

What does this mean for the mystery of consciousness?

这对于认知之谜意味着什么？

Well, it opens up new possibilities.

它提供了新的可能性。

For instance,

比如，

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

真实也许是某种用于产生意识经验的巨型机器。

I doubt this, but it's worth exploring.

我个人对此抱有怀疑，但这个观点值得探索。

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

真实也许是一个巨大的互动网络， 连结着各种具有自我意识的存在，

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

无论简单还是复杂，都能引发各自的意识经验。

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

实际上，这个观点并不像看上去那么疯狂，

and I'm currently exploring it.

对此我正在研究。

But here's the point:

但关键是：

Once we let go of our massively intuitive

当我们放弃了非常直观

but massively false assumption about the nature of reality,

却也非常错误的关于真实性的假设，

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

这开拓了思考人生最大谜团的新思路。

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

我打赌，真实最终将变得

and unexpected than we've ever imagined.

比我们想象的更加迷人和意外。

The theory of evolution presents us with the ultimate dare:

进化论为我们展现了那个终极挑战：

Dare to recognize that perception is not about seeing truth,

敢于认识到知觉并不是为了认识真实而存在，

it's about having kids.

而是为了繁衍子孙。

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

顺便一提，甚至是这个TED， 也仅仅存在于你的脑海之中。

Thank you very much.

非常感谢大家。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

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

克里斯•安德森：如果这真的是你，那么谢谢你。

So there's so much from this.

你的演讲中到很多东西。

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

我是说，首先，一些人可能会非常失望，

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

因为想到，如果进化并不支持真实，

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

是否在某种程度上损害了我们所有的努力，

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

和我们认为自己可以思考真理的能力，

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

甚至可能包括你自己的理论呢？

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

唐纳德•霍夫曼：这可不会阻挡我们实现科学的成功。

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

我们只是发现一个现有理论是错误的，

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

即知觉和真实是相似的。

That theory turns out to be false.

我们发现那个理论是错误的。

Okay, throw that theory away.

那好，我们抛开那个理论。

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

那与我们假定关于真实性的其他各种理论（正确）

about the nature of reality,

并不矛盾，

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

所以说，认识到某个理论是错误的， 实际上是一种进步。

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

科学照常进展，并没有什么问题。

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

克里斯•安德森：所以你认为 ——（笑声）——

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

这很酷，但我认为你说的是， 进化存在一种可能性，

can still get you to reason.

让人能够推理。

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

唐纳德•霍夫曼：是的。 这个观点非常非常对。

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

我刚才展示的进化博弈是特别针对知觉的模拟，

and they do show that our perceptions have been shaped

结果确实显示出我们的知觉是被塑造的，

not to show us reality as it is,

而并非趋近真实，

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

然而这并不意味着针对逻辑和数学 （模拟进化博弈）会产生同样的结果。

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

我们并未做过这种模拟， 但我打赌结果会是：

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

存在一些选择压力，让我们的逻辑和数学

to be at least in the direction of truth.

起码是趋于真理的方向。

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

我是说，如果你们跟我一样， 数学和逻辑还是有些难度的。

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

我们并非每次都对，但至少选择压力

uniformly away from true math and logic.

不会一致偏离真正的数学和逻辑。

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

因此，我认为我们会发现，

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

我们必须逐一检验，进化如何作用于各种认知能力。

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

关于知觉的结论可能不适用于数学和逻辑。

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

克里斯•安德森：我觉得你提出的观点 恰如一个现代版本的贝克莱主教

interpretation of the world:

对世界的阐释：

consciousness causes matter, not the other way around.

存在即是被感知，反之不成立。

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

唐纳德•霍夫曼：唔， 我的观点与贝克莱略有不同。

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

贝克莱是一位自然神论者，他认为

nature of reality is God and so forth,

终极的真实性存在就是上帝，等等，

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

我无需生发到他那个地步，

so it's quite a bit different from Berkeley.

所以跟贝克莱不太一样。

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

我称之为意识现实主义。我们方法不同。

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

克里斯•安德森：唐，我想我能 跟你聊上个把小时，我希望能这样做。

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

非常感谢你。 唐纳德•霍夫曼：谢谢。（掌声）