How do you explain consciousness? | David Chalmers

譯者: Adrienne Lin 審譯者: Geoff Chen

Right now

現在

you have a movie playing inside your head.

你的大腦裡正播放一部電影，

It's an amazing multi-track movie.

一部很棒的多軌道電影，

It has 3D vision and surround sound

它有3D視覺特效與環繞音效，

for what you're seeing and hearing right now,

為你帶了一場視聽盛宴，

but that's just the start of it.

但是還不只如此。

Your movie has smell and taste and touch.

你還能聞到、嚐到、觸摸到，

It has a sense of your body,

它與你的身體感官融為一體，

pain, hunger, orgasms.

痛覺、飢餓、高潮，

It has emotions,

它還有感情、

anger and happiness.

憤怒與開心，

It has memories, like scenes from your childhood

它擁有回憶，像是兒時情景

playing before you.

在你面前播放著，

And it has this constant voiceover narrative

在你的意識流裏

in your stream of conscious thinking.

還有似近似遠的旁白解說。

At the heart of this movie is you

這部電影的主角是你，

experiencing all this directly.

直接經歷所有一切。

This movie is your stream of consciousness,

這部電影就是你的意識流，

the subject of experience

對於內在世界甚至與外在世界

of the mind and the world.

主觀的精神體驗。

Consciousness is one of the fundamental facts

意識是人類存在

of human existence.

的幾個重要基礎之一，

Each of us is conscious.

我們每一個人都具備意識。

We all have our own inner movie,

我們都主演一部內在的電影，

you and you and you.

你、你，還有你。

There's nothing we know about more directly.

沒有比意識更直接的感受了，

At least, I know about my consciousness directly.

至少我能直接理解我意識，

I can't be certain that you guys are conscious.

但我無法確知你們是否都有意識。

Consciousness also is what makes life worth living.

意識賦予存在意義，

If we weren't conscious, nothing in our lives

如果我們沒有意識，

would have meaning or value.

生命中的一切便失去意義和價值，

But at the same time, it's the most

這是宇宙之中

mysterious phenomenon in the universe.

最神秘令人費解的現象。

Why are we conscious?

為何我們擁有意識？

Why do we have these inner movies?

為何我們擁有這些內心世界的電影？

Why aren't we just robots

為何我們不像機器人一樣，

who process all this input,

只是簡單的輸入資料，

produce all that output,

輸出資料，

without experiencing the inner movie at all?

對內在的感受全然不覺？

Right now, nobody knows the answers

這個問題至今

to those questions.

沒有解答。

I'm going to suggest that to integrate consciousness

我認為研究意識這一門科學，

into science, some radical ideas may be needed.

我們需要建立一些基礎概念，

Some people say a science of consciousness

許多人認為對意識進行研究

is impossible.

是不可能的，

Science, by its nature, is objective.

科學的本質是客觀的，

Consciousness, by its nature, is subjective.

意識的本質卻是主觀的，

So there can never be a science of consciousness.

所以不可能以客觀的科學 研究主觀的意識，

For much of the 20th century, that view held sway.

這是二十世紀普遍存在的論點。

Psychologists studied behavior objectively,

心理學以客觀方法研究人類的行為，

neuroscientists studied the brain objectively,

神經學家以客觀方法研究大腦，

and nobody even mentioned consciousness.

卻沒有任何人提及意識，

Even 30 years ago, when TED got started,

甚至在三十年前 TED 剛開始的時候，

there was very little scientific work

當時關於意識的研究

on consciousness.

也是少之又少。

Now, about 20 years ago,

大約二十年前，

all that began to change.

改變開始了。

Neuroscientists like Francis Crick

神經科學家，比如 Francis Crick，

and physicists like Roger Penrose

以及物理學家比如 Roger Penrose

said now is the time for science

認為現在該是科學家

to attack consciousness.

著手研究意識的時候了，

And since then, there's been a real explosion,

真正的探索至此開始，

a flowering of scientific work

隨之而來的是意識研究的

on consciousness.

黃金時代，

And this work has been wonderful. It's been great.

研究成果斐然，

But it also has some fundamental

但至今仍存在著

limitations so far.

幾個根本上的研究限制。

The centerpiece

近年來

of the science of consciousness in recent years

關於意識的研究

has been the search for correlations,

主要集中在研究

correlations between certain areas of the brain

某些腦區同

種特定意識狀態之間的聯繫。

and certain states of consciousness.

We saw some of this kind of work

Nancy Kanwisher 讓我們

from Nancy Kanwisher and the wonderful work

了解了一些這樣的研究，

she presented just a few minutes ago.

幾分鐘前她在演說中分享了研究成果，

Now we understand much better, for example,

現在我們（對於意識）更加了解了，比如

the kinds of brain areas that go along with

某些腦區同

the conscious experience of seeing faces

面部識別有關，

or of feeling pain

有的與痛覺有關，

or of feeling happy.

還有的與快感有關，

But this is still a science of correlations.

但這只是說明它們有相關性，

It's not a science of explanations.

還不能夠解釋原因。

We know that these brain areas

我們知道這些腦區

go along with certain kinds of conscious experience,

與某些意識經驗有關聯，

but we don't know why they do.

但不知道為何有關聯。

I like to put this by saying

我認為

that this kind of work from neuroscience

某些神經學研究

is answering some of the questions

的確解釋了一些關於

we want answered about consciousness,

意識的疑問，

the questions about what certain brain areas do

找出了那些特定的腦區的作用

and what they correlate with.

以及它們之間的相關性，

But in a certain sense, those are the easy problems.

但在某種意義上，這些只是簡單的疑問，

No knock on the neuroscientists.

並沒有難倒神經學家。

There are no truly easy problems with consciousness.

事實上，關於意識的問題都不簡單，

But it doesn't address the real mystery

即便如此，還是沒有

at the core of this subject:

解決核心的問題：

why is it that all that physical processing in a brain

為什麼大腦中的物理過程

should be accompanied by consciousness at all?

會和意識產生聯繫？

Why is there this inner subjective movie?

為什麼會存在主觀的內心電影？

Right now, we don't really have a bead on that.

現在我們對此還沒有很好的解答。

And you might say,

或許你會說

let's just give neuroscience a few years.

再多給神經科學多一些時間，

It'll turn out to be another emergent phenomenon

它最終會向我們說明 意識也是一種湧現現象，

like traffic jams, like hurricanes,

就像交通堵塞、龍捲風，

like life, and we'll figure it out.

就像生命，我們會搞清楚的。

The classical cases of emergence

所有湧現現象的經典案例都是

are all cases of emergent behavior,

應急行為的表現，

how a traffic jam behaves,

交通堵塞是如何形成的，

how a hurricane functions,

龍捲風如何運作，

how a living organism reproduces

生物體如何繁殖，

and adapts and metabolizes,

適應環境，新陳代謝，

all questions about objective functioning.

所有疑問都是關於客觀機能的。

You could apply that to the human brain

你可以把它應用到人類大腦上

in explaining some of the behaviors

去解釋人類大腦的某些行為

and the functions of the human brain

和功能

as emergent phenomena:

和湧現發象很像：

how we walk, how we talk, how we play chess,

我們如何走、如何交談、如何下棋，

all these questions about behavior.

這些問題都是關於行為的，

But when it comes to consciousness,

但是當談到意識時，

questions about behavior

關於行為的問題

are among the easy problems.

就是一個簡單的問題。

When it comes to the hard problem,

難的問題是

that's the question of why is it

為什麼

that all this behavior

這些行為

is accompanied by subjective experience?

都伴隨著主觀體驗？

And here, the standard paradigm

對此，湧現現象的

of emergence,

標準範例，

even the standard paradigms of neuroscience,

甚至是神經科學的標準範例，

don't really, so far, have that much to say.

目前來講，也沒有什麼好說的。

Now, I'm a scientific materialist at heart.

我本質上是一名科學唯物主義者，

I want a scientific theory of consciousness

我想要一種行得通的

that works,

關於意識的科學理論，

and for a long time, I banged my head

長期以來

我想破了腦袋

against the wall

looking for a theory of consciousness

尋找一種行得通的

in purely physical terms

但從物理角度

that would work.

解釋意識的理論，

But I eventually came to the conclusion

但我最終得出一個結論

that that just didn't work for systematic reasons.

由於系統原因，它不會奏效。

It's a long story,

說來話長，

but the core idea is just that what you get

但是思想的核心就是

from purely reductionist explanations

你從物理方面，在基於大腦方面

in physical terms, in brain-based terms,

通過純粹的還原解釋得到的

is stories about the functioning of a system,

都是關於系統的運行，

its structure, its dynamics,

它的結構、活力、

the behavior it produces,

產生的行為

great for solving the easy problems —

很適合解決簡單問題，

how we behave, how we function —

比如我們的行為如何活動，

but when it comes to subjective experience —

但涉及到主觀體驗時，

why does all this feel like something from the inside? —

為什麼這些都像是來自內部？

that's something fundamentally new,

這是個全新的

and it's always a further question.

更進一步的問題。

So I think we're at a kind of impasse here.

我覺得我們有點兒卡在這了，

We've got this wonderful, great chain of explanation,

我們有一套美妙的解釋鏈，

we're used to it, where physics explains chemistry,

我們習慣了用物理解釋化學，

chemistry explains biology,

用化學解釋生物學，

biology explains parts of psychology.

用生物學解釋心理學的一部分。

But consciousness

但是意識

doesn't seem to fit into this picture.

似乎並不符合這一情形，

On the one hand, it's a datum

一方面它是一個已知數，

that we're conscious.

就是我們是有意識的，

On the other hand, we don't know how

另一方面我們不知道

to accommodate it into our scientific view of the world.

如何讓它符合科學的世界觀，

So I think consciousness right now

所以現在我認為意識

is a kind of anomaly,

是一種反常事物，

one that we need to integrate

我們需要整合

into our view of the world, but we don't yet see how.

我們的世界觀，但如今還沒有找到方法，

Faced with an anomaly like this,

面對這樣的異常事物，

radical ideas may be needed,

可能需要激進的想法，

and I think that we may need one or two ideas

我認為，我們在科學地

that initially seem crazy

抓住意識之前，

before we can come to grips with consciousness

可能需要一兩個

scientifically.

最初看起來瘋狂的點子。

Now, there are a few candidates

現在對於這些瘋狂的想法是什麼，

for what those crazy ideas might be.

已經有了一些選項。

My friend Dan Dennett, who's here today, has one.

我的朋友 Dan Dennet 有一個想法，他今天也來了，

His crazy idea is that there is no hard problem

他認為關於意識

of consciousness.

完全沒有什麼難題。

The whole idea of the inner subjective movie

主觀電影這一觀點

involves a kind of illusion or confusion.

涉及到一種幻覺或困惑，

Actually, all we've got to do is explain

實際上我們需要做的就是解釋

the objective functions, the behaviors of the brain,

客觀功能大腦的行為活動，

and then we've explained everything

然後就解釋了一切

that needs to be explained.

需要被解釋的

Well I say, more power to him.

要我說賜予他更多力量吧。

That's the kind of radical idea

我們需要探索

that we need to explore

這種激進的想法，

if you want to have a purely reductionist

如果你想得出純簡化論的關於

brain-based theory of consciousness.

意識的基於大腦的理論。

At the same time, for me and for many other people,

同時，對我和其他人來說，

that view is a bit too close to simply

這個觀點有些接近簡單地

denying the datum of consciousness

直接否定有關意識的已知資料，

to be satisfactory.

而不能令人滿意，

So I go in a different direction.

因此我選擇了另外一個方向。

In the time remaining,

在剩下的時間裡，

I want to explore two crazy ideas

我想探討兩個我認為

that I think may have some promise.

可能有希望的想法。

The first crazy idea

第一個瘋狂的想法就是

is that consciousness is fundamental.

意識是一種基本概念。

Physicists sometimes take some aspects of the universe

物理學家有時會把宇宙中的某些方面

as fundamental building blocks:

作為一種基本概念：

space and time and mass.

空間、時間，和質量。

They postulate fundamental laws governing them,

他們假定一些基本定律來約束它們，

like the laws of gravity or of quantum mechanics.

比如重力定律，或量子力學定律，

These fundamental properties and laws

這些基本性質和定律

aren't explained in terms of anything more basic.

並不能解釋一些更基礎的東西，

Rather, they're taken as primitive,

這相當於以它們為基礎，

and you build up the world from there.

然後在構建其他。

Now sometimes, the list of fundamentals expands.

現在這張基本定律的清單不時會擴大，

In the 19th century, Maxwell figured out

19世紀 Maxwell 發現

that you can't explain electromagnetic phenomena

不能用當時存在的基本概念——

in terms of the existing fundamentals —

空間、時間、質量、牛頓定律

space, time, mass, Newton's laws —

來解釋電磁現象，

so he postulated fundamental laws

因此他設定了電磁現象的

of electromagnetism

基本定律，

and postulated electric charge

設定電荷作為

as a fundamental element

這些定律的

that those laws govern.

基本元素。

I think that's the situation we're in

我認為這與我們在

with consciousness.

研究意識上的情形是一樣的，

If you can't explain consciousness

如果你不能用現有的

in terms of the existing fundamentals —

基本概念來解釋意識、

space, time, mass, charge —

空間、時間、質量、電荷，

then as a matter of logic, you need to expand the list.

那麼從邏輯上來講就應該擴展清單。

The natural thing to do is to postulate

自然就應該假設意識

consciousness itself as something fundamental,

為某種根本的東西，

a fundamental building block of nature.

自然界中最基本的一部分。

This doesn't mean you suddenly can't do science with it.

這不意味著突然就不能用它來研究科學，

This opens up the way for you to do science with it.

它為你研究科學開闢了一條新路，

What we then need is to study

我們需要做的就是研究

the fundamental laws governing consciousness,

控制意識的基本定律、

the laws that connect consciousness

那些將意識與其他基本概念，

to other fundamentals: space, time, mass,

空間、時間、質量

physical processes.

相聯繫的概念。

Physicists sometimes say

物理學家有時會說

that we want fundamental laws so simple

我們希望基本定律簡單地

that we could write them on the front of a t-shirt.

能讓我們印在T恤上，

Well I think something like that is the situation

我想對意識的研究

we're in with consciousness.

也同樣如此。

We want to find fundamental laws so simple

我們希望基本定律簡單的

we could write them on the front of a t-shirt.

能讓我們印在T恤上。

We don't know what those laws are yet,

我們現在還不知道這些定律，

but that's what we're after.

但這是我們接下來要做的。

The second crazy idea

第二個瘋狂的想法是

is that consciousness might be universal.

意識也許是普遍存在的。

Every system might have some degree

每個系統都有

of consciousness.

某種程度的意識，

This view is sometimes called panpsychism:

這種觀點被稱作泛心論，

pan for all, psych for mind,

一切皆有心理活動，

every system is conscious,

每個系統都是有意識的，

not just humans, dogs, mice, flies,

不僅僅是人類、狗、老鼠、蒼蠅，

but even Rob Knight's microbes,

甚至 Rob Knight 的微生物，

elementary particles.

基本粒子都有意識，

Even a photon has some degree of consciousness.

甚至一個光子都有某種程度的意識。

The idea is not that photons are intelligent

這一觀點並不表明光子擁有智慧

or thinking.

或更夠思考，

It's not that a photon

不是說一個光子會

is wracked with angst

陷入深深地焦慮，

because it's thinking, "Aww, I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light.

因為它想著：「我總是以光速跑來跑去，

I never get to slow down and smell the roses."

從未停下來輕嗅玫瑰。」

No, not like that.

並不是這樣。

But the thought is maybe photons might have

而是表明光子也可能有

some element of raw, subjective feeling,

一些原始的主觀體驗，

some primitive precursor to consciousness.

一些原始的意識的前兆，

This may sound a bit kooky to you.

這對你來說可能有些奇怪，

I mean, why would anyone think such a crazy thing?

為什麼會有人思考這種瘋狂的事呢？

Some motivation comes from the first crazy idea,

一些動機來自第一個瘋狂的想法，

that consciousness is fundamental.

即意識是基本概念。

If it's fundamental, like space and time and mass,

如果它同空間、時間、質量一樣是基本概念，

it's natural to suppose that it might be universal too,

那自然也可以假定它具有普遍性，

the way they are.

同其他基本概念一樣。

It's also worth noting that although the idea

還有一點值得注意的是，

seems counterintuitive to us,

雖然這個想法對我們來說是反直覺的，

it's much less counterintuitive to people

但對於來自其他文化的人來說

from different cultures,

沒那麼反直覺，

where the human mind is seen as much more

那裡人的心靈同自然

continuous with nature.

緊密相連。

A deeper motivation comes from the idea that

從這個想法中得到的更深一層動機是

perhaps the most simple and powerful way

也許找出將意識同物理過程

to find fundamental laws connecting consciousness

相聯繫的

to physical processing

最簡單有效的方法就是

is to link consciousness to information.

將意識與資訊相結合。

Wherever there's information processing,

有資訊處理的地方

there's consciousness.

就有意識，

Complex information processing, like in a human,

複雜的資訊處理，比如人類的

complex consciousness.

複雜的意識，

Simple information processing,

簡單的資訊處理，

simple consciousness.

就有簡單的意識。

A really exciting thing is in recent years

近年來最令人興奮的是

a neuroscientist, Giulio Tononi,

神經學家 Giulio Tononi

has taken this kind of theory

採用了這種理論

and developed it rigorously

並將其嚴格按照

with a mathematical theory.

數學理論發展。

He has a mathematical measure

他有一個關於資訊整合的

of information integration

數學測量，

which he calls phi,

他稱之為 phi，

measuring the amount of information

用來測量一個系統中

integrated in a system.

資訊整合的量。

And he supposes that phi goes along

他推測 phi 同

with consciousness.

意識相關

So in a human brain,

所以在人類大腦中

incredibly large amount of information integration,

有令人難以置信的資訊整合數量，

high degree of phi,

高度的 phi 值，

a whole lot of consciousness.

大量的意識。

In a mouse, medium degree of information integration,

老鼠有中等程度的資訊整合數量，

still pretty significant,

但數目仍然龐大，

pretty serious amount of consciousness.

有大量的意識。

But as you go down to worms,

但降至蠕蟲、

microbes, particles,

微生物、粒子，

the amount of phi falls off.

phi 的值就會跌落，

The amount of information integration falls off,

資訊整合數量下降，

but it's still non-zero.

但並沒有降至零。

On Tononi's theory,

在 Tononi 的理論中，

there's still going to be a non-zero degree

意識程度也不會

of consciousness.

降至為零。

In effect, he's proposing a fundamental law

事實上他提出了一個 關於意識的基本定律，

of consciousness: high phi, high consciousness.

phi 值越高，意識程度越高。

Now, I don't know if this theory is right,

現在我不清楚這個理論是否正確，

but it's actually perhaps the leading theory right now

但它實際上是意識科學的

in the science of consciousness,

前沿理論，

and it's been used to integrate a whole range

並且它被用於整合

of scientific data,

各方面的科學數據，

and it does have a nice property that it is in fact simple enough

並有一個優勢，就是它實際上十分簡單，

you can write it on the front of a t-shirt.

可以印在T恤上。

Another final motivation is that

另一個最終動機就是

panpsychism might help us to integrate

泛心論可以幫助我們將

consciousness into the physical world.

意識和物理世界相結合。

Physicists and philosophers have often observed

物理學家和哲學家經常發現

that physics is curiously abstract.

物理學十分深奧抽象，

It describes the structure of reality

它用一連串方程式去

using a bunch of equations,

描述現實結構，

but it doesn't tell us about the reality

但又不告訴我們

that underlies it.

構成它的現實基礎。

As Stephen Hawking puts it,

正如 Stephen Hawking 所說，

what puts the fire into the equations?

什麼把火放入了方程式？

Well, on the panpsychist view,

從泛心論者來看，

you can leave the equations of physics as they are,

物理方程式可以是它現在的樣子，

but you can take them to be describing

也可以用它們來描述

the flux of consciousness.

意識的量。

That's what physics really is ultimately doing,

這是物理學最終要做的，

describing the flux of consciousness.

描述意識的量，

On this view, it's consciousness

從這一角度

that puts the fire into the equations.

是意識把火放進了方程式。

On that view, consciousness doesn't dangle

從那種觀點來看

outside the physical world

意識不是晃蕩在物理世界之外

as some kind of extra.

某種剝離出來的東西，

It's there right at its heart.

它就在物理世界的核心。

This view, I think, the panpsychist view,

我認為這種泛心論觀點

has the potential to transfigure our relationship

有改變我們與自然關係的

to nature,

潛質，

and it may have some pretty serious social

並有可能產生一些嚴重的

and ethical consequences.

社會倫理影響，

Some of these may be counterintuitive.

其中一些可能是違背直覺的。

I used to think I shouldn't eat anything

我過去認為自己不應該吃

which is conscious,

任何有生命的東西，

so therefore I should be vegetarian.

因此我成為素食主義者，

Now, if you're a panpsychist and you take that view,

現在如果你是泛心論者並同意這一觀點，

you're going to go very hungry.

你就要挨餓了。

So I think when you think about it,

所以當你思考它的時候，

this tends to transfigure your views,

會使你有改變觀點的傾向，

whereas what matters for ethical purposes

但對於倫理目標和

and moral considerations,

道德考量來說，

not so much the fact of consciousness,

最重要的不是關於意識的事實，

but the degree and the complexity of consciousness.

而是意識的程度和複雜性。

It's also natural to ask about consciousness

最然也會探討

in other systems, like computers.

其他系統中的意識，比如電腦。

What about the artificially intelligent system

電影《她》中的人工智慧 Samantha

in the movie "Her," Samantha?

是什麼情況？

Is she conscious?

她有意識嗎？

Well, if you take the informational,

如果你用這種資訊性的

panpsychist view,

泛心論的觀點來看，

she certainly has complicated information processing

她能進行複雜的資訊處理

and integration,

和整合，

so the answer is very likely yes, she is conscious.

答案很有可能是，她有意識。

If that's right, it raises pretty serious

如果答案正確，

ethical issues about both the ethics

那麼不管開發智能計算機系統，

of developing intelligent computer systems

還是關閉它們

都會引發很嚴重的倫理問題。

and the ethics of turning them off.

Finally, you might ask about the consciousness

最後你可能問

of whole groups,

集體意識、

the planet.

星球的意識、

Does Canada have its own consciousness?

加拿大有自己的意識嗎？

Or at a more local level,

或從地方層面來說，

does an integrated group

一個組合的整體

like the audience at a TED conference,

比如 TED 演講的觀眾

are we right now having a collective TED consciousness,

擁有集體 TED 意識嗎？

an inner movie

這個 TED 集體的

for this collective TED group

內在電影

which is distinct from the inner movies

與我們每個人的

of each of our parts?

內在電影不同嗎？

I don't know the answer to that question,

我不知道這個問題的答案，

but I think it's at least one

但我認為至少它

worth taking seriously.

值得重視。

Okay, so this panpsychist vision,

泛心論者的觀點

it is a radical one,

十分激進，

and I don't know that it's correct.

我不知道它是否正確，

I'm actually more confident about

我其實對第一個瘋狂的想法

the first crazy idea,

更有信心，

that consciousness is fundamental,

即意識是一種基本概念，

than about the second one,

而不是第二個想法，

that it's universal.

意識是普遍存在的。

I mean, the view raises any number of questions,

我的意思是，這個觀點引發了很多問題，

has any number of challenges,

有很多挑戰，

like how do those little bits

比如那些意識的片段

of consciousness add up

是如何疊加成

to the kind of complex consciousness

我們熟知並喜愛的

we know and love.

複雜意識的。

If we can answer those questions,

如果我們你回答這些問題，

then I think we're going to be well on our way

那我們就能在通往嚴肅意識理論的

to a serious theory of consciousness.

道路上順利走下去。

If not, well, this is the hardest problem perhaps

如果不能，這些也許就是科學和

in science and philosophy.

哲學上最難的問題。

We can't expect to solve it overnight.

我們不能期待一個晚上就解決，

But I do think we're going to figure it out eventually.

但我想我們最終會解決它，

Understanding consciousness is a real key, I think,

理解意識

both to understanding the universe

是理解宇宙和我們自己的關鍵，

and to understanding ourselves.

It may just take the right crazy idea.

這也許只需要 採取正確的瘋狂想法。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）