The illusion of consciousness | Dan Dennett

譯者: Charles Lam 審譯者: Wenjer Leuschel

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

我想談談我的一個問題

and that's that I'm a philosopher.

那就是：我是個哲學家

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

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

派對上人家問我做什麼的

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

我答我是教授，他們的眼睛立刻失神

When I go to an academic cocktail party

我去參加學術酒會

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

周圍都是教授，他們問我的專業

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

我答哲學，他們的眼睛立刻失神

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

When I go to a philosopher's party

我去哲學家的派對

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

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

他們問我研究什麼，我答意識

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

他們的眼睛沒有失神，而是唇帶鄙夷

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

And I get hoots of derision and cackles and growls

我得到的是訕笑和怪叫

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

因為他們認為「這怎麼可能！意識是無法解釋的。」

The very chutzpah of somebody thinking

那些人傲慢地認為

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

你根本不可能解釋意識

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

我不久前過世的朋友羅伯特·諾齊克是一位優秀的哲學家

in one of his books, "Philosophical Explanations,"

在他的《哲學性的解釋》一書中

is commenting on the ethos of philosophy --

評論了哲學的特質

the way philosophers go about their business.

即哲學家對待其專業的態度

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

他說「哲學家喜歡理性的論述」

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

他又說「對多數的哲學家而言

for most philosophers is you give your audience the premises

最佳的論述似乎是先為聽眾設定前提

and then you give them the inferences and the conclusion,

接下來是邏輯推演，然後得到結論

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

他們不接受結論的話，他們就死定了

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

腦袋開花了。」重點是

that is so powerful that it knocks out your opponents.

論述要強得能把對手完全擊倒

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

但其實這根本改變不了別人的想法

It's very hard to change people's minds

要改變別人對意識的想法

about something like consciousness,

確實很難

and I finally figured out the reason for that.

我終於找到為何如此的原因

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

原因就是人人都是意識的專家

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

我們前些時候聽說人人對電玩都很有看法

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

儘管不是專家，大家都對電玩有點認識

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

也不認為自己是電玩專家

they've just got strong opinions.

卻都很有自己的看法

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

我敢說這裡研究氣候變遷、全球暖化

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

或網際網路之未來的人都會遇到

encounter people who have very strong opinions

對將會發生的事

about what's going to happen next.

都很有看法的人

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

但多半不會把那些當成專業意見

They're just strongly held opinions.

那些只算是強烈的看法

But with regard to consciousness, people seem to think,

但說到意識，大家都覺得

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

我們每個人都似乎認為「我就是專家

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

因為我有意識，所以我清楚這個。」

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

因此，你告訴他們你的理論

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

他們說：「不對

No, you've got it all wrong."

意識不是這樣，你全搞錯了。」

And they say this with an amazing confidence.

他們還說得自信滿滿的

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

那麼，我今天要來

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

動搖你的信心－因為我知道那種感覺

I can feel it myself.

我自己也有那種感覺

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

我要動搖你自以為了解自己靈魂深處的信心

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

我要動搖你自以為能控制你自己的意識的信心

That's the order of the day here.

這就是今天的主題

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

看，這圖片有個思想框

I think everybody understands what that means.

我想大家都知道這是什麼

That's supposed to exhibit the stream of consciousness.

這是用來表示意識流

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

這是我最喜歡的一張圖片

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

這是索爾•斯坦伯格的作品－紐約客的封面

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

這位朋友看著布拉克的畫作

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

讓他想起巴洛克，再想到軍營、狗吠、貴婦犬、

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

蘇珊娜－就這樣一直想下去

There's a wonderful stream of consciousness here

這是一串精彩的意識流

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

你一直看下去就會知道這個人的許多事

What I particularly like about this picture, too,

這張圖還讓我特別喜歡的是

is that Steinberg has rendered the guy

斯坦伯格描繪這個人時

in this sort of pointillist style.

用了點彩的畫法

Which reminds us, as Rod Brooks was saying yesterday:

讓人想到如同羅德•布洛斯昨天所說的：

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

我們每個人，無論你我都是

is approximately 100 trillion little cellular robots.

大約100萬億個細胞所組成的

That's what we're made of.

組成我們的就是細胞

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

再沒有其他的材料，不過是細胞，大約100萬億個

Not a single one of those cells is conscious;

裡頭沒有一個有意識

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

沒有任何一個細胞會知道或在乎你是誰

Somehow, we have to explain

我們似乎必須解釋

how when you put together teams, armies, battalions

這成億上兆自動機式無意識的細胞

of hundreds of millions of little robotic unconscious cells --

各個都跟細菌沒有什麼區別

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

放在一起卻變成這樣

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

我是說，你看看這個

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

看這些內容－有顏色、有想法、有回憶

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

也有歷史。這些意識的內容

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

似乎都來自忙碌活動中的神經元－怎會如此？

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

許多人認為根本不可能

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

他們認為根本不會有

sort of naturalistic explanation of consciousness."

自然主義的方法可以解釋意識

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

我的朋友里•希格爾寫了一本好書

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

他是夏威夷大學的宗教學教授

and he's an expert magician, and an expert

他是魔術專家

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

精通印度的街頭魔術，他的書就是寫這個

"Net of Magic."

「魔術網」

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

我想跟大家分享這一段話

It speaks so eloquently to the problem.

他寫這個問題寫得太好了

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

他說：這是關於魔術的書，人家問我「真的魔術嗎？」

By 'real magic,' people mean miracles,

所謂真的魔術，意思是奇蹟

thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers.

幻術、超自然力量

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

我說「不是，是障眼法，不是真的魔術」

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

這麼說，真的魔術指的並不是真的魔術

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

做得出的真魔術，其實並非真的魔術

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

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

這就是許多人對意識的感覺

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

Real consciousness is not a bag of tricks.

真的意識不是一堆把戲

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

若把它解釋成一堆把戲

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

那它是什麼都好，但不是真正的意識

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

像馬文還有其他人說

"Consciousness is a bag of tricks."

「意識是一堆把戲」

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

這也就是說，當我嘗試解說意識時

and incredulous when I attempt to explain consciousness.

很多人完全不能滿意也不能相信

So this is the problem. So I have to

這就是我說的問題了。因此我嘗試

do a little bit of the sort of work

做一點會讓很多人不高興的事

that a lot of you won't like,

就像大家不喜歡看到

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

某個魔術把戲

a magic trick explained to you.

被揭穿一樣

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

你們這裡－如果有人自作聰明要解釋

starts telling you how a particular magic trick is done,

某個魔術背後是怎樣弄的－

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

有多少人會想按住耳朵說「我不想知道!

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

別掃興，我寧可不知道

Don't tell me the answer."

不要告訴我」

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

我發現很多人對「意識」就是這樣

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

抱歉，如果我說得太清楚、太明白

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

而你不想知道這些把戲，最好現在就走

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

但我也不會全都解釋給你們聽

I'm going to do what philosophers do.

我會像哲學家那樣做

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

哲學家會這樣解釋刀鋸美人的魔術

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

大家都知道「刀鋸美人」吧？

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

哲學家會說「我來給你解釋這是怎麼做的

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

其實魔術師並沒有真的把美人鋸成兩半

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

"He merely makes you think that he does."

他只是讓你以為他真的做了

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

那你說「對，那他是怎麼做到的？」

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

哲學家說「喔，對不起，這不干我們學系的事」

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

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

我現在告訴各位哲學家怎麼解釋意識

But I'm going to try to also show you

但我也會嘗試讓大家明白

that consciousness isn't quite as marvelous --

意識並不那麼令人驚訝

your own consciousness isn't quite as wonderful --

你擁有的意識也不那麼奇妙

as you may have thought it is.

不像你原本可能以為的那樣

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

順道說，里•席格爾在他的書裡也提到這點

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

他的魔術令人驚嘆，後來觀眾也以為

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

他做了這個那個的，但其實他什麼都沒有做

He didn't even try to do those things.

他甚至試都沒試過做那些事

People's memories inflate what they think they saw.

人的記憶會把自以為看見的東西誇大

And the same is true of consciousness.

意識的情況也是如此

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

我們來看這個行不行。好，我們看看這個

Watch it carefully.

仔細看

I'm working with a young computer-animator documentarian

我跟一位年青的電腦動畫製作人一起工作

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

他叫尼克•甸馬，這是他替我做的短片

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

這是個大計畫的一部分，你們有些人也許會有興趣

We're looking for a backer.

我們在找贊助人

It's a feature-length documentary on consciousness.

這是一部關於意識的紀錄長片

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

好，大家都看到是什麼變了，是吧?

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

你們有幾位發現每個方形都變了顏色的？

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

大家都發現了。那我再播放一次

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

儘管你知道方塊會變色

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

還是很難注意到，確實要很專注

to pick up any of the changes at all.

才能看到任何變化

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

這是目前相當熱門研究這種現象的

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

許多例子中的一個

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

這是我1991年出版的書「意識全解」

1991 book, "Consciousness Explained,"

最後一兩頁所預測的

where I said if you did experiments of this sort,

我說，如果你做這樣的實驗

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

你會發現人們無法察覺真正的大變化

If there's time at the end,

如果最後還有時間

I'll show you the much more dramatic case.

我讓大家看一個更極端的情況

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

那麼，為什麼有那麼多變化

and that we're not aware of them?

我們卻注意不到？

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

哲夫•霍金斯今天稍早談過眼球的掃視

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

他說我們的眼球一秒鐘移動三四次

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

但他沒提速度，眼睛不斷移動就是

moving around, looking at eyes, noses, elbows,

看著其他的眼睛、鼻子、手肘

looking at interesting things in the world.

看著世上有趣的事情

And where your eye isn't looking,

你的眼沒有看著的地方

you're remarkably impoverished in your vision.

你看得見的其實很少

That's because the foveal part of your eye,

因為眼睛的視網膜中央窩

which is the high-resolution part,

負責高解析影像的部位

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

就像你伸直手範圍內的拇指那樣大小

That's the detail part.

那就是解析細微的部位

It doesn't seem that way, does it?

想不到是這樣吧?

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

想不到，但事實就是如此

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

你得到的資訊比你所以為的少

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

以下是另一種效應，請看這幅貝洛托的畫作

It's in the museum in North Carolina.

在北卡羅萊納州美術館展出

Bellotto was a student of Canaletto's.

貝洛托是加納萊托的學生

And I love paintings like that --

我很喜歡這類作品

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

它的大小就像你們看見那樣

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

我也很喜歡加納萊托，他的畫著重細節

and you can get right up

你可以靠近

and see all the details on the painting.

看到畫裡的細節

And I started across the hall in North Carolina,

我先是從畫廊的另一邊看到它

because I thought it was probably a Canaletto,

我以為它是加納萊托的畫作

and would have all that in detail.

會有許多細節

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

我發現橋上有很多人

you can just barely see them walking across the bridge.

你可以看見他們過橋

And I thought as I got closer

我以為我走近

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

可以看到那些人的細節

see their clothes, and so forth.

他們的衣服和其他的東西

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

我走近這幅畫，卻叫出來了

I yelled out because when I got closer,

我叫了，因為我走近時

I found the detail wasn't there at all.

發現那裡沒有什麼細節

There were just little artfully placed blobs of paint.

只是一片片鋪陳亮麗的顏料

And as I walked towards the picture,

我慢慢走上前

I was expecting detail that wasn't there.

預期找到那些不存在的細節

The artist had very cleverly suggested people and clothes

畫家巧妙地暗示那裡有人、衣服

and wagons and all sorts of things,

還有車和其他的東西

and my brain had taken the suggestion.

而我的腦袋接受了這樣的暗示

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

這裡有個新的技術，大家可能比較熟悉

you can get a better view of the blobs.

這樣色塊會比較容易看到

See, when you get close

看到嗎？你走近了

they're really just blobs of paint.

看到的就只是一些色塊

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

大家可能看過這個－恰恰相反的效應

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

我們再看一次

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

那麼，你的腦袋做了什麼來接受暗示呢？

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

當畫家添上一兩片的色塊

suggests a person -- say, one of

暗示出有一個人－比方像馬文·閔斯基

Marvin Minsky's little society of mind --

說的那個意識群體－

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

畫裡是不是有小小的畫家跑到我們腦袋、填上細節呢?

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

我不認為如此，不可能。可是這怎發生的呢？

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

好，還記得哲學家如何解釋刀鋸美人嗎？

It's the same thing.

道理一樣

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

大腦只是讓你以為有細節

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

你以為有，不是真的有

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

大腦並沒有真的把細節填上去

It's just making you expect the detail.

它只是讓你預期那裡會有細節

Let's just do this experiment very quickly.

我們很快做個實驗

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

右邊的圖案是不是跟左邊一樣，只是轉了向？

Yes.

是

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

在座有幾位想像

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

把左邊的轉過來看跟右邊的是否一樣？

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

有幾位是把右邊的轉過來的？好

How do you know that's what you did?

你怎麼知道你這麼做了？

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

There's in fact been a very interesting debate

有一場論戰非常有趣

raging for over 20 years in cognitive science --

在認知科學界激辯了20多年

various experiments started by Roger Shepherd,

羅傑‧舍帕德發明了一些實驗

who measured the angular velocity of rotation of mental images.

他要量度思維圖像的角度轉向速度

Yes, it's possible to do that.

這確實可以量度

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

但實驗過程的細節還是很有爭議

And if you read that literature, one of the things

如果你閱讀該文獻，你必須接受的

that you really have to come to terms with is

事實之一是：即使你是受試者

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

你不會知道

You don't know how you do it.

你不會知道你怎麼做的

You just know that you have certain beliefs.

你只知道你有一些想法

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

在特定的時間按照一定的順序出現

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

是什麼讓你認為

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

那些是你所想的？這你得問問後台的魔術師

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

我很喜歡這個圖形：伯里、皮特和杜邁作的

You may think that I've cheated,

你可能以為我作弊

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

故意把邊線畫得要白一點

How many of you see that sort of boundary,

有幾位看得到那種邊界？

with the Necker cube floating in front of the circles?

黑色圓形前面漂浮著奈克方塊的那種？

Can you see it?

各位看得到嗎?

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

這種邊界在某種意義下確實存在

Your brain is actually computing that boundary,

大腦確實計算著這種邊界

the boundary that goes right there.

這個邊界就在這裡

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

不過，其實有兩種方法觀看方塊，是吧？

It's a Necker cube.

這就是奈克方塊

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

大家都看出方塊的兩種方法了吧？

Can you see the four ways of seeing the cube?

那看得出四種方法嗎?

Because there's another way of seeing it.

因為還有另一種方法

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

如果你看它是圓形前面的方塊－黑色圓形

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

那麼就還有另一種觀看的方法

As a cube, on a black background,

那是在黑色背景上的方塊

as seen through a piece of Swiss cheese.

通過瑞士乾酪看到的方塊

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

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

看到了嗎？有幾位看不到？這樣也許就看到了

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

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

現在大家都看到了。這是兩種非常不同的現象

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

當你把方塊看成是在白幕後

those boundaries go away.

那些邊界就消失了

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

但腦袋還是填上了些什麼，看看這個就知道

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

毫無問題看得見方塊，但顏色在哪裡改變的呢？

Does your brain have to send little painters in there?

大腦必須派出小畫家在那裡填色的嗎？

The purple-painters and the green-painters

填紫色的要跟填綠色的

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

在幕後打架決定誰填色的嗎？不會的

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

腦袋不管這些，腦袋不需要填色

When I first started talking about

我先前提到一張圖片

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

剛才看到的伯里、皮特和杜邁那個例子

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

我們再來看一下這一張

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

我先前說了這後面沒有填色

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

我也假定這就是真的

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

但羅勃‧范里爾最近卻證明這不是真的

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

如果你覺得你看見的是淡黃色

I'll run this a few more times.

－我來多播放幾次－

Look in the gray areas,

看著灰色的地方

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

看看你是否好像看到那裡有些陰影在動？

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

沒錯！在動! 很神奇－但那裡什麼都沒有，沒有作弊

["Failure to Detect Changes in Scenes" slide]

[「景象變化的失察」]

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

這是朗‧樂森的研究

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

多少受到這書最後的暗示啟發而做的研究

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

讓我在這兒停下

This is change-blindness.

這就是轉變盲

What you're going to see is two pictures,

各位接著會看到兩張圖片

one of which is slightly different from the other.

兩張稍有不同

You see here the red roof and the gray roof,

大家看見有個紅屋頂、有個灰屋頂

and in between them there will be a mask,

中間遮住了

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

那只是個空畫面，出現四分一秒

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

你會看到第一張圖、然後空白

then the second picture, then a mask.

然後是第二張圖、然後是遮罩

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

就這樣繼續下去，你是受試者

is to press the button when you see the change.

你看到變化就按鈕

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

好，圖片出現240毫秒、然後空白

Show the next picture for 240 milliseconds. Blank.

下一張圖出現240毫秒、空白

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

一直這樣，直到受試者按鈕

"I see the change."

表示看到轉變了

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

我們現在來當受試者吧

We're going to start easy. Some examples.

我們從容易的開始，看這些例子

No trouble there.

沒問題吧

Can everybody see? All right.

大家都看見了嗎？好

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

其實，樂森的受試者過一秒多的時間

than a second to press the button.

就按鈕了

Can you see that one?

這個看見了嗎？

2.9 seconds.

2.9 秒

How many don't see it still?

有幾位還是看不見？

What's on the roof of that barn?

糧倉頂上的是什麼？

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

It's easy.

很簡單吧

Is it a bridge or a dock?

這是橋還是船塢？

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

我多放幾張對比大些的、然後就會結束

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

我希望大家看幾張對比更大的

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

這張圖片挺大的，但還是不容易看見

Can you see it?

看得見嗎?

Audience: Yes.

(觀眾：看得見)

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

看到陰影前後移動嗎? 相當大

So 15.5 seconds is the median time

受試者所用的時間

for subjects in his experiment there.

中位數是15秒半

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

我喜歡這張，最後一張了

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

就因為這個很明顯、很重要

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

有幾位看不見？有幾位看不見呢？

How many engines on the wing of that Boeing?

這架波音機翼上有幾台引擎呢？

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

Right in the middle of the picture!

就在圖片的中央!

Thanks very much for your attention.

謝謝大家用心

What I wanted to show you is that scientists,

我想讓大家看到

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

科學家利用外在、第三者的方法

can tell you things about your own consciousness

能讓你了解你自己的意識

that you would never dream of,

連你自己也沒有想過

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

你以為你可以控制自己的意識

on your own consciousness that you think you are.

其實你是控制不了的

And we're really making a lot of progress

在發展心智的理論方面

on coming up with a theory of mind.

我們確實進步了許多

Jeff Hawkins, this morning, was describing his attempt

傑夫‧霍金斯今天早上講述他嘗試為神經科學

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

建構一個整體的大理論

And he's right. This is a problem.

他說得對。這就是問題了。

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

有一回我去哈佛醫學院的講座

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

實驗室總監說「我們實驗室有個說法：

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

研究的若是一個神經元，那是神經科學

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

研究的若兩個神經元，那是心理學」

(Laughter)

（眾笑）

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

我們需要更多理論，很可能是由上而下的

Thank you very much.

謝謝大家

(Applause)

（觀眾鼓掌）