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

譯者: Sue Chen 審譯者: Nickey Hou

I love a great mystery,

我愛各種玄妙的東西

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

並且被一个科學界深奧的未解之謎深深吸引

perhaps because it's personal.

大概因爲它切身攸關吧。

It's about who we are,

它是關於我們是誰。

and I can't help but be curious.

我忍不住要探個究竟。

The mystery is this:

這是什麽迷呢？

What is the relationship between your brain

是這两者的關係： 你的大腦

and your conscious experiences,

和你的有意識的體驗。

such as your experience of the taste of chocolate

例如你嘗到 巧克力味道的體驗

or the feeling of velvet?

或天鹅绒的手感。

Now, this mystery is not new.

這個迷倒不是新的。

In 1868, Thomas Huxley wrote,

早在1868年，Thomas Huxley 寫到：

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

"爲啥一些妙不可言的東西 如人的清醒意識

as the result of irritating nervous tissue

其形成竟是來自刺激性神經組織，

is just as unaccountable

實在莫名其妙，

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

跟阿拉丁擦擦他的油燈 精靈就出現了一樣無法解釋"。

Now, Huxley knew that brain activity

Huxley熟知大腦的活動

and conscious experiences are correlated,

和有意識體驗是有關係的，

but he didn't know why.

他衹是不知道原因是何。

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

在其時代的科學界裡 這是個迷。

In the years since Huxley,

Huxley之後的這些年，

science has learned a lot about brain activity,

科學界對大腦活動 有了很多的發現。

but the relationship between brain activity

但是兩者的關係 即大腦活動

and conscious experiences is still a mystery.

和有意識的體驗 仍然是個迷。

Why? Why have we made so little progress?

爲何？爲何我們還未搞懂多少這個迷？

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

有專家認爲 這迷是解不了的了

because we lack the necessary concepts and intelligence.

因我們缺乏必要的 概念和智慧。

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

我們不指望猴子去排解 量子力學的問題，

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

同樣，我們也不能指望 自己的物種去化解這個迷。

Well, I disagree. I'm more optimistic.

我不同意這説法。 我樂觀多了。

I think we've simply made a false assumption.

我認爲我們衹是 用了個錯誤的假設而已。

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

糾正了假設後，我們 很可能就能把這迷解了。

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

今天，我想和大家說一下 這個假設是什麽，

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

爲何它是錯誤的，我們可以 怎樣加以糾正。

Let's begin with a question:

先來個問題：

Do we see reality as it is?

我們眼睛看見的，是現實的真貌嗎？

I open my eyes

我睜大雙眼

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

就有這體驗： 一公尺外有個紅色的番茄。

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

結果是，我相信 在現實中，

there's a red tomato a meter away.

有個紅色的番茄在一公尺之外。

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

然後我閉上雙眼，我的體驗 就變了是一片灰色的面了。

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

這意味著在現實中， 仍有這麽一個紅番茄在一公尺之外嗎？

I think so, but could I be wrong?

是的。但這念頭會不會是錯的呢？

Could I be misinterpreting the nature of my perceptions?

會不會我錯誤地詮釋了 知覺的實質呢？

We have misinterpreted our perceptions before.

我們有過錯誤地詮釋了 知覺的先例。

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

我們曾以爲地球是扁的， 以爲它看起來就是扁的。

Pythagorus discovered that we were wrong.

Pythagorus發現我們相錯了。

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

然後我們又以爲地球 是宇宙的固定的中心。

again because it looks that way.

也是因爲當時看來就那樣。

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

Copernicus 和 Galileo 再次發現 我們又錯了。

Galileo then wondered if we might be misinterpreting our experiences

Galileo 接著琢磨是否我們 錯誤地詮釋了自己的體驗，

in other ways.

在其他方面出錯了。

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

他寫到："我認爲味道、 氣味、顔色等等

reside in consciousness.

是存在於意識當中的。

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

正是如此，如果活體沒有了， 所有這些特質也會化爲烏有了。"

Now, that's a stunning claim.

這可是個大膽的斷言。

Could Galileo be right?

Galileo會不會是對的呢？

Could we really be misinterpreting our experiences that badly?

我們會不會真的非常錯誤地 詮釋自己的體驗呢？

What does modern science have to say about this?

當今的科學研究能 對此有什麽看法呢？

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

神經科學們說 我們的大腦的三分之一

is engaged in vision.

都有用在視覺上面。

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

我們衹要單單地睜開眼睛 環視一下這講座間，

billions of neurons and trillions of synapses are engaged.

數億神經元和 數萬億突觸就已經被用上了。

Now, this is a bit surprising,

這稍微有點意想不到。

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

因爲衹從視覺這點來説，

we think of it as like a camera.

我們衹把當作是照相機。

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

它拍個照 把現實客觀地呈現出來。

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

我們視覺的一部分 確實像一照相機：

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

眼睛有個晶體能調焦 把物像聚焦到眼睛後部。

where there are 130 million photoreceptors,

後部有1億3千萬個 光感受器，

so the eye is like a 130-megapixel camera.

因此我們的眼睛就像個 1億3千萬像素的攝影機。

But that doesn't explain the billions of neurons

但是這個解釋不了 數億神經元

and trillions of synapses that are engaged in vision.

和數萬億突觸 在視覺上到底起什麽作用。

What are these neurons up to?

這些神經元到底在做什麽呢？

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

神經科學家們說 它們在實時地生造

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

我們正目睹著的各種形狀、物體、顔色 和行進中的東西。

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

就像是我們衹是在 如實地抓拍這個房間。

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

但事實是，我們看見的所有東西 都是構建出來的。

We don't construct the whole world at once.

我們不是一次性地 構建整個物界。

We construct what we need in the moment.

我們衹在需要的當時一刻構建。

Now, there are many demonstrations that are quite compelling

有很多演示可以非常 有力地驗證

that we construct what we see.

我們看見的東西都是構造出來的。

I'll just show you two.

我做兩個演示給大家看看。

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

演示一，你看見些紅色的圓形 每個都有缺口的。

but if I just rotate the disks a little bit,

如果我把這些圓形稍微 轉動一下，

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

馬上，你看見的是個立體方塊 從螢幕上脫穎而出。

Now, the screen of course is flat,

別忘了，這螢幕是平的哦。

so the three-dimensional cube that you're experiencing

所以你體驗到的這個 三度空間方塊

must be your construction.

一定是你構造出來的。

In this next example,

演示二，

you see glowing blue bars with pretty sharp edges

你看見些發光的藍條子 邊邊挺鋒利的，

moving across a field of dots.

不停地在一個很多點的 面上移動。

In fact, no dots move.

事實上呢，那些點沒動過。

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

我衹是一帧一帧地 轉換小點的顔色

from blue to black or black to blue.

從藍轉成黑，或從黑轉成藍。

But when I do this quickly,

當我轉得快的時候，

your visual system creates the glowing blue bars

你的視覺系統就生造了 發光的藍條子，

with the sharp edges and the motion.

邊邊挺鋒利的，不斷行進著。

There are many more examples, but these are just two

有很多這樣的例子的。 這裏衹是兩個

that you construct what you see.

演示了你在構建所見東西。

But neuroscientists go further.

神經科學家們還說了更進一步的。

They say that we reconstruct reality.

他們說我們重新構建了現實。

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

當我有一項可以被説成是 紅色的番茄的體驗時

that experience is actually an accurate reconstruction

這體驗其實是 你如實地構建了

of the properties of a real red tomato

一個真的紅色番茄的屬性，

that would exist even if I weren't looking.

即使我不看著的時候 它也存在的屬性。

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

現在要問了，爲何神經科學家說 我們不單衹構建，

we reconstruct?

我們還重新構建？

Well, the standard argument given

標準論點都是

is usually an evolutionary one.

屬於進化理論的。

Those of our ancestors who saw more accurately

我們的祖先當中 誰視力更精確

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

誰就比視力沒那麽精確的 更有競爭優勢，

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

於是他們有更大機會 傳宗接代。

We are the offspring of those who saw more accurately,

我們是那些視力更精確的 祖先的後代，

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

故可以很有信心地相信 在正常情況下，

our perceptions are accurate.

我們的知覺是精確的。

You see this in the standard textbooks.

這個在標準課本都能看到。

One textbook says, for example,

例如有本課本說：

"Evolutionarily speaking,

"從進化角度說，

vision is useful precisely because it is so accurate."

視覺有用恰恰是因爲 它精確無疑。“

So the idea is that accurate perceptions are fitter perceptions.

即是說，精確的知覺 是更優良的知覺。

They give you a survival advantage.

它能給你生存的優勢。

Now, is this correct?

問題是，這説法正確嗎？

Is this the right interpretation of evolutionary theory?

是對進化理論的 正確的詮釋嗎？

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

我們可以先看看兩個 自然界的例子。

The Australian jewel beetle

澳洲的珠甲蟲

is dimpled, glossy and brown.

樣子帶點、帶亮澤、呈棕色。

The female is flightless.

雌性的不能飛。

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

雄性的能飛、四處尋找 魅力無限的雌蟲。

When he finds one, he alights and mates.

每找到一隻，牠就騎其上，與之交配。

There's another species in the outback,

在荒野上還有另一個物種，

Homo sapiens.

叫智人類。

The male of this species has a massive brain

這物種的男性 腦袋奇大，

that he uses to hunt for cold beer.

都用在四處找冰鎮啤酒的功夫上了。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

And when he finds one, he drains it,

每找到一瓶他就喝一瓶，

and sometimes throws the bottle into the outback.

有時喝完就把瓶子 撩荒野上了。

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

無巧不成書，這些瓶子也是 樣子帶點、帶亮澤、

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

而棕色的色度也剛好能 讓這些珠甲蟲幻想連天的。

The males swarm all over the bottles trying to mate.

雄甲蟲見啤酒瓶就騎 上上下下要與之交配。

They lose all interest in the real females.

如是，牠們對真格的 雌蟲倒沒丁點兒興趣了。

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

典型的雄性爲了酒瓶 疏遠了雌性的案例。

(Laughter) (Applause)

(笑聲)(掌聲)

The species almost went extinct.

該物種幾乎絕種。

Australia had to change its bottles to save its beetles.

澳洲得把瓶子改了 才挽救了珠甲蟲。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Now, the males had successfully found females for thousands,

那些雄蟲幾千年來 都能準確無誤的找到雌蟲，

perhaps millions of years.

很可能幾百萬年都如此。

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

似乎牠們見到的就是現實的本貌。 很顯然，事實並不如此。

Evolution had given them a hack.

進化讓牠們習得的是一項行技而已。

A female is anything dimpled, glossy and brown,

雌甲蟲就是帶點的、 帶亮澤的、呈棕色、

the bigger the better.

越大越好。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

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

哪怕把整個啤酒瓶都爬完了， 那雄蟲就是沒法知道自己錯那兒。

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

也許你會說，甲蟲嘛，當然啦， 簡單低等，

but surely not mammals.

哺乳動物肯定不會。

Mammals don't rely on tricks.

哺乳動物不需依賴伎倆。

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

這我就不多説了， 你們懂的。(笑聲)

So this raises an important technical question:

因此這就引出一重要的 技術上的問題：

Does natural selection really favor seeing reality as it is?

自然篩選真的偏袒 所見如實嗎？

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

幸好，我們無需 揮舞雙手東猜西猜；

evolution is a mathematically precise theory.

進化論是一項數學根據 精確的理論。

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

我們可以用進化等式 來探究一下。

We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete

我們可以把不同生物放到 放到多個人造物界裏競爭，

and see which survive and which thrive,

看看誰生存下來， 誰茁壯成長，

which sensory systems are more fit.

哪一個感官系統更優良。

A key notion in those equations is fitness.

這裏面各個等式中 最關鍵的元素是體良。

Consider this steak:

看看這枚牛排：

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

對於某動物的體良來説 這牛排起什麽作用？

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

對於一隻正在尋食的獅子來説， 它能促進體良。

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

對於一喫飽了的、衹想交配的獅子呢， 它不會促進體良。

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

對於一隻任何狀態下的兔子來説呢， 它不促進體良。

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

如此，體良是有賴於 所見如實，對的，

但同時也有賴於有機體本身、 其狀態及行動。

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

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

體良和能見現實真貌 不是一碼事。

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

是體良， 而不是現實真貌，

that figures centrally in the equations of evolution.

占據了進化論等式 的中心位置。

So, in my lab,

在我的實驗室裏，

we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations

我們操運過成百上千個 進化游戲模擬，

with lots of different randomly chosen worlds

配有衆多不同的 隨機選出的物界，

and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds.

各物界裏各種有機體 進行競爭，占獲資源。

Some of the organisms see all of the reality,

一部分有機體 能看見全部物界的真貌，

others see just part of the reality,

其他有機體則衹看到現實的一部分，

and some see none of the reality,

還有的對現實的真貌熟視無睹，

only fitness.

衹看見體良一樣東西。

Who wins?

誰贏了呢?

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

説來你也許不信， 能看見現實真貌的都絕種了。

In almost every simulation,

在每一個模擬中，

organisms that see none of reality

對現實熟視無睹的，

but are just tuned to fitness

衹單單看到體良的那些有機體

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

把能看到現實真貌的有機體 都趕到絕種了。

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

説到底，進化既不 眷顧高低向知覺，

or accurate perceptions.

也不眷顧精密知覺。

Those perceptions of reality go extinct.

能看得見現實真貌的都絕種了。

Now, this is a bit stunning.

好吧，這觀察有點驚人。

How can it be that not seeing the world accurately

不能精確看到現實真貌 爲何能

gives us a survival advantage?

使我們有生存的優勢？

That is a bit counterintuitive.

這有點反直覺。

But remember the jewel beetle.

但別忘了剛才講到的珠甲蟲。

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

珠甲蟲幾千年，可能幾百萬年 都活下來了，

using simple tricks and hacks.

靠的是簡單的片長薄技。

What the equations of evolution are telling us

進化制衡向我們顯示的是

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

所有的有機體，包括我們， 和珠甲蟲面對的是一樣的。

We do not see reality as it is.

我們看見的不是現實的真貌。

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

我們是由那些讓我們活下來的 片長薄技塑造出來的。

Still,

當然，

we need some help with our intuitions.

我們也需要依靠直覺的某些幫助。

How can not perceiving reality as it is be useful?

爲何不看見現實的真貌 會如此有用呢？

Well, fortunately, we have a very helpful metaphor:

很慶幸，我們有個 非常得力的比方：

the desktop interface on your computer.

你電腦上的桌面界面。

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

我們來看那個代表你正在寫的 TED Talk稿子的藍色的圖標。

Now, the icon is blue and rectangular

圖標是藍色的，成矩形

and in the lower right corner of the desktop.

處在桌面的右下角。

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

這意味著電腦裏面的文字文件 就是藍色的、

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

矩形的、就處在電腦裏的 右手邊角落嗎？

Of course not.

當然不是。

Anyone who thought that misinterprets the purpose of the interface.

誰要是認爲是的話，就是 誤釋了界面的目的了。

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

界面的目的不是向你 呈現電腦的真貌。

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

事實是，界面是爲你 遮蓋電腦的真貌。

You don't want to know about the diodes

你並不想知道二極管、

and resistors and all the megabytes of software.

電阻器、軟件的 兆字節之類的。

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

要是得跟這些打交道的話， 你永遠也沒法寫作文件，

or edit your photo.

或編輯圖片了。

So the idea is that evolution has given us an interface

這樣説來，進化給我們有個 界面的意義是

that hides reality and guides adaptive behavior.

把現實的真貌隱藏起來， 並指引適應性行爲。

Space and time, as you perceive them right now,

你目前知覺到的 空間和時間，

are your desktop.

就如同你的電腦桌面。

Physical objects are simply icons in that desktop.

實質物體也就衹不過 是桌面的圖標而已。

There's an obvious objection.

有個顯而易見的反駁。

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

Hoffman, 如果你認爲對面開來 那輛時速200英里的火車

is just an icon of your desktop,

衹不過是電腦桌面的圖標，

why don't you step in front of it?

不見你一躍而上 擋前面去？

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

等你沒命了， 和你的理論一起埋了，

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

我們就知道那輛火車 不單單衹是圖標了。

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

呵，我不會上去 擋著那火車，

for the same reason

正猶如

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

我不會掉以輕心地 把那圖標拖到回收站。

not because I take the icon literally --

倒不是因爲我把那個圖標 當成是實物文檔----

the file is not literally blue or rectangular --

那份文件並非真的是藍色的、 或矩形的 ----

but I do take it seriously.

而是我會鄭重對待那個圖標。

I could lose weeks of work.

否則我會丟失一個星期工作的内容。

Similarly, evolution has shaped us

同樣地，進化把我們塑造成

with perceptual symbols that are designed to keep us alive.

能正確對待知覺上的代符的人 以得以生存下來。

We'd better take them seriously.

所以我們最好不要對其掉以輕心。

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

看見蛇了，別撿起來。

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

看見懸崖了，別往下跳。

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

這些都是爲了我們的安全， 我們應該慎重其事。

That does not mean that we should take them literally.

這不意味著我們應該把 代符與事物等同起來。

That's a logical error.

否則就犯邏輯錯誤了。

Another objection: There's nothing really new here.

另外一個反駁： 你説的也不是什麽新發現。

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

物理學家們很早前就說 那輛火車的鐵皮看起來堅實，

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

實質是大體積空間裡 有很多微觀粒子繞一起罷了。

There's nothing new here.

不是什麽新發現。

Well, not exactly.

呵，不全對。

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

這等於說，我知道 那電腦裏面的藍色圖標

is not the reality of the computer,

不是電腦的真實面貌，

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

如果我用個精確放大鏡 好好地靠近看清楚，

I see little pixels,

我會看見細小的像素，

and that's the reality of the computer.

那就是電腦的真貌啊。

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

呵，也不全對。你仍舊沒離開 桌面本身。此爲問題的中心點了。

Those microscopic particles are still in space and time:

那些微觀粒子仍然存在 於空間和時間裏面：

they're still in the user interface.

它們仍舊在用戶的界面。

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

而我在說的比物理學家們說的 有更大顛覆性。

Finally, you might object,

最後一個反駁：

look, we all see the train,

我們大家都看見那輛火車，

therefore none of us constructs the train.

那火車不是我們當中 任一位構建出來的。

But remember this example.

不過，還記得這例子吧。

In this example, we all see a cube,

這裏，我們都看見一立體方塊，

but the screen is flat,

但螢幕是平的。

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

因此你看見的方塊 是你構建出來的。

We all see a cube

我們都看見一個方塊。

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

因爲這方塊是我們，每一個人， 構建出來的。

The same is true of the train.

這跟我們建構了那輛火車 是一樣的。

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

我們都看見一兩火車，因爲 我們每位都看見自己構建出來的火車。

and the same is true of all physical objects.

我們看見的所有物理實體 都緣於這個道理。

我們都傾向於認爲知覺 就像個窗口，從那能看到現實的真貌。

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

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

而進化的理論告訴我們 那是錯誤地詮釋了

of our perceptions.

我們的知覺。

Instead, reality is more like a 3D desktop

其實，現實更如同是個 3D的桌面，

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

目的是把現實的 複雜性遮蓋起來，

and guide adaptive behavior.

同時爲我們的適應性 行爲做指引。

Space as you perceive it is your desktop.

你目睹的空間就是你的桌面。

Physical objects are just the icons in that desktop.

物理實體是 桌面上的圖標。

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

我們以前認爲地球是扁的， 因爲看起來是扁的。

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

我們又曾認爲地球是 現實世界的不移的中心，

because it looks that way.

因爲看起來如此。

We were wrong.

我們都錯了。

We had misinterpreted our perceptions.

我們都曾經錯誤地詮釋 過我們的知覺。

Now we believe that spacetime and objects

現在呢，我們認爲時空和物體

are the nature of reality as it is.

就是現實界的真貌。

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

進化的理論再次告訴我們 我們又錯了。

We're misinterpreting the content of our perceptual experiences.

我們錯誤地詮釋了 知覺體驗的内容。

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

世上有些東西是你不看著 也一樣存在的，

but it's not spacetime and physical objects.

不過不是時空和物理實體。

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

我們老繞不過時空和物體。

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

如同那些珠甲蟲繞不過 自己看上的啤酒瓶。

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

爲何繞不過？我們看見 自己的看不見自己的盲點。

But we have an advantage over the jewel beetle:

然而，相比於珠甲蟲， 我們有個優勢：

our science and technology.

即我們的科學和技術。

By peering through the lens of a telescope

透過望遠鏡，

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

我們發現地球不是 現實的不移中心。

and by peering through the lens of the theory of evolution

透過進化理論的 望遠鏡，

we discovered that spacetime and objects

我們發現時空和物體

are not the nature of reality.

不是現實的實質。

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

當我有被描述爲一個紅番茄 這樣知覺體驗時，

I am interacting with reality,

我是在和現實活動。

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

但現實不是那個紅番茄， 也和紅番茄沒有絲毫相似之處。

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

同樣地，當我有一個 被描述爲獅子或牛排的體驗時，

I'm interacting with reality,

我是在和現實互動。

but that reality is not a lion or a steak.

但現實不是獅子或牛排。

And here's the kicker:

其實要説的是這個：

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

當我有一個被描寫爲 大腦，或神經元的體驗時，

I am interacting with reality,

我其實是在和現實互動了，

but that reality is not a brain or neurons

而現實不是大腦或神經元，

and is nothing like a brain or neurons.

也和大腦或神經元沒有 絲毫相似之處。

And that reality, whatever it is,

現實 ----- 不管究竟爲何物，

is the real source of cause and effect

才是真正的起因和結果的根源，

in the world -- not brains, not neurons.

物界的根源，並非大腦，也非神經元。

Brains and neurons have no causal powers.

大腦和神經元沒有 導因之力。

They cause none of our perceptual experiences,

兩者都不是導致 我們知覺體驗的根源，

and none of our behavior.

也不導致我們行爲的根源。

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

大腦和神經元是物種各自獨特 的代符，一種符術。

What does this mean for the mystery of consciousness?

那麽，對於人意識的這個迷， 這結論意味著什麽呢？

Well, it opens up new possibilities.

意味著多個新的可能性。

For instance,

例如，

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

現實可能是個龐大的機器， 是我們的有意識體驗的成因。

I doubt this, but it's worth exploring.

這個我很懷疑，不過值得探討。

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

現實可能是某種龐大的、 相互間互動的意識代理體的網絡，

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

有簡單的有複雜的，在導致 各自之間的意識體驗。

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

聽起來荒誕，但事實上 並不如此。

and I'm currently exploring it.

這是我目前正在探索的。

But here's the point:

論點在這：

Once we let go of our massively intuitive

一旦我們離棄由完全憑直覺的

but massively false assumption about the nature of reality,

但萬分虛假的慣想構成 的所謂現實真貌，

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

就能開拓很多嶄新的探討生命 最深奧的迷的方式方法。

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

我打賭，現實一定會是 一個更引人入勝的、

and unexpected than we've ever imagined.

更出乎意料的東西， 完全超乎我們的想象的。

The theory of evolution presents us with the ultimate dare:

進化理論給了我們 最終極的挑戰：

Dare to recognize that perception is not about seeing truth,

挑戰我們去肯認 知覺不是用來窺見真相的，

it's about having kids.

是引導我們繁衍後代而已。

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

順帶一句，這個TED字 也衹是你的大腦使然而已。

Thank you very much.

謝謝大家。

(Applause)

(掌聲)

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

C Anderson: 如果那站著的 真是你，該謝天謝地。

So there's so much from this.

這裏講的真得車載斗量。

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

首先，有些人會深陷抑鬱的啊，

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

----- 一旦想到進化不優待 能見現實真貌。

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

那樣的話，不等於 破壞了我們的心機了嗎，

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

破壞了我們一向認爲的 自己能思考真理的能力

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

很可能還包括你自己的 理論呢，假如那樣想下去？

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

D Hoffman: 呵，這不會 攔住我們在科學上頻有建樹。

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

這衹不過是發現了一項理論 是錯了的而已。

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

錯在認爲知覺就是現實， 現實與我們的知覺無二。

That theory turns out to be false.

那個理論現在看來錯了。

Okay, throw that theory away.

把它摒棄就是了。

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

但不等於會阻礙從此 可以假設其他類別的理論，

about the nature of reality,

其他現實實質的理論。

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

這其實是進步來的， 認識到我們的理論是錯了的。

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

科學照常發展。 並無大礙。

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

Anderson: 你認爲沒事？ (笑聲)

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

挺瀟灑的。根據你說的， 我認爲，進化還是有可能

can still get you to reason.

使你學會辯因的。

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

Hoffman: 對。非常 到位的一點。

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

我展示的各種進化游戲模擬 是專爲知覺而設的，

and they do show that our perceptions have been shaped

它們均顯示我們的知覺 被塑造成

not to show us reality as it is,

不是爲了能看見現實真貌的。

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

但不等於在邏輯或數學方面 也是如此。

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

我們還未做那方面的模擬。 但我相信會發現

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

某些篩選壓力會是 在邏輯和數學方面

to be at least in the direction of truth.

起碼是向著真理的方向發展的。

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

數學和邏輯都不容易掌握。

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

我們不能全搞對，但起碼 篩選的壓力

uniformly away from true math and logic.

沒有呈現與數學及邏輯 全綫背道而馳。

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

我認爲我們將要 祥觀每一項認知能力

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

逐項研究，看看 進化對其做是什麽影響。

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

能解釋知覺的不一定能 解釋數學和邏輯。

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

Anderson: 你的論題提出的 相當於現代Bishop Berkeley

interpretation of the world:

對物界的詮釋：

consciousness causes matter, not the other way around.

意識引致物質， 不是物質引致意識。

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

Hoffman: 和Berkeley的 少有差異。

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

神論者轉自然論者 Berkeley 認爲

nature of reality is God and so forth,

最終來説現實是上帝 等等，

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

而我不需要走 Berkeley那條路。

so it's quite a bit different from Berkeley.

所以和Berkeley 是有頗大異處的。

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

我的理論叫意識真實論, 一項非常不同的探究方法。

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

Anderson: Don，我倆可以談上 幾個小時。希望能做到。

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

非常感謝。 Hoffman: 謝謝。(掌聲)