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

是這兩者的關係：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

例如你嚐到巧克力味道的體驗

or the feeling of velvet?

或天鵝绒的手感。

Now, this mystery is not new.

這個謎倒不是新的。

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

"為什麼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.

他只是不知道原因是何。

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

在其時代的科學界裡這是個謎。

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.

我認爲我們只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謎解了。

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，

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

但同時也有賴於有機體本身、其狀態及行動。

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

有機體都無法對現實有感知

but are just tuned to fitness

而只是單單地成了形體

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

導致能看到現實真貌的有機體絕種。

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

説到底，演化並不偏向高低向度的知覺，

or accurate perceptions.

也不偏向精密知覺。

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.

這不太能用直覺思考。

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小伎倆塑造出來的。

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，就是誤解了界面的目的了。

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、軟體的位元組之類的。

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.

實質物體也就只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,

只不過是電腦桌面的圖標，

why don't you step in front of it?

為何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，