I want to start with a game. Okay? And to win this game, all you have to do is see the reality that's in front of you as it really is, all right? So we have two panels here, of colored dots. And one of those dots is the same in the two panels. And you have to tell me which one.
我想要從一個遊戲開始 要贏這個遊戲 你所要做的就是認定你眼前所見的 就是真的 好嗎 這兒有兩片板子 上面有彩色圓點 兩片板子中其中一個圓點 是一樣的 你們得告訴我是哪一個
Now, I narrowed it down to the gray one, the green one, and, say, the orange one. So by a show of hands, we'll start with the easiest one. Show of hands: how many people think it's the gray one? Really? Okay. How many people think it's the green one? And how many people think it's the orange one? Pretty even split.
現在 將範圍縮小到 灰色 綠色 和橘色的好了 用舉手表示 我們從最容易的那個的開始 舉起你的手 有多少人認為是灰色的? 真的嗎? 好的 有多少人認為是綠色的? 多少人認為橘色才對? 分配滿平均的嘛
Let's find out what the reality is. Here is the orange one.
讓我們來讓真相大白 先看看橘色的
(Laughter)
(眾笑)
Here is the green one. And here is the gray one.
還有綠色的 再看看灰色的
(Laughter)
(眾人大笑)
So for all of you who saw that, you're complete realists. All right?
可以看破秘密的人 你們是徹底的現實主義者 (眾人大笑)
(Laughter)
So this is pretty amazing, isn't it? Because nearly every living system has evolved the ability to detect light in one way or another. So for us, seeing color is one of the simplest things the brain does. And yet, even at this most fundamental level, context is everything. What I'm going to talk about is not that context is everything, but why context is everything. Because it's answering that question that tells us not only why we see what we do, but who we are as individuals, and who we are as a society.
這很令人吃驚不是嗎 因為幾乎所有生命系統 都已經發展出可以設法感應光的能力 所以對我們而言 看見顏色應該是大腦最簡單的工作 然而即使是這最基本的事情 背景才是最重要的 今天我想要談論的不是「背景最重要」這件事 而是「為什麼背景最重要」 因為這不僅回答了我們 為何我們做了什麼就看到什麼 還有以個體的角度 以及在社會群體中我們的角色為何
But first, we have to ask another question, which is, "What is color for?" And instead of telling you, I'll just show you. What you see here is a jungle scene, and you see the surfaces according to the amount of light that those surfaces reflect. Now, can any of you see the predator that's about to jump out at you? And if you haven't seen it yet, you're dead, right?
但首先 我們需要問另一個問題 "顏色的功能是什麼?" 與其用講的不如秀給你看 現在我們看到的是叢林 你所看到的這外觀是根據 從物體表面反射的光的多寡 現在 有任何人看見一隻就要朝你跳出來的掠食動物嗎? 如果還沒看見大概死定了 對吧
(Laughter)
(眾人笑)
Can anyone see it? Anyone? No? Now let's see the surfaces according to the quality of light that they reflect. And now you see it.
有人可以看見嗎? 有人嗎? 沒有? 現在讓我們根據表面反射光的性質來看看 現在看到了吧
So, color enables us to see the similarities and differences between surfaces, according to the full spectrum of light that they reflect. But what you've just done is in many respects mathematically impossible. Why? Because, as Berkeley tells us, we have no direct access to our physical world, other than through our senses. And the light that falls onto our eyes is determined by multiple things in the world, not only the color of objects, but also the color of their illumination, and the color of the space between us and those objects. You vary any one of those parameters, and you'll change the color of the light that falls onto your eye.
所以 顏色讓我們可以看見 外觀上的相似與相異 根據他們反射的所有光譜 但你們剛做到的 在很多方面 不可能以數學方法解釋 為什麼 ? 因為就像Barkley告訴我們的 我們沒有直接進入真實世界的方法 除了透過我們的感受 而進入我們眼睛的光 是由外在世界許多東西決定的 不只是物體的顏色 還有照明的顏色 以及我們與物體間環境的色彩 只要你改變其中一項 將會改變進入你眼睛的光的顏色
This is a huge problem, because it means that the same image could have an infinite number of possible real-world sources. Let me show you what I mean. Imagine that this is the back of your eye, okay? And these are two projections from the world. They're identical in every single way. Identical in shape, size, spectral content. They are the same, as far as your eye is concerned. And yet they come from completely different sources. The one on the right comes from a yellow surface, in shadow, oriented facing the left, viewed through a pinkish medium. The one on the left comes from an orange surface, under direct light, facing to the right, viewed through sort of a bluish medium. Completely different meanings, giving rise to the exact same retinal information. And yet it's only the retinal information that we get.
這是一個很重要的問題 因為這代表 相同的影像可能來自 無限多個像源 讓我秀給你看我在說什麼 想像一下這是你眼睛的底部 這裡的兩個來自外在世界的投影 他們是完全相同的 包括形狀 大小 光譜 如你所見 他們一模一樣 然而他們來自完全不同的來源 右邊的這一個 來自黃色的表面 在陰影裡 面向左邊 從粉紅色物質看過去得到的 左邊這個則是從橘色表面 在直接光照下 面向右邊 從藍色物質看過去得到的 意義完全不同 卻造成了完全相同的視網膜訊息 而這還只是我們接收到的視網膜訊息 而這還只是我們接收到的視網膜訊息
So how on Earth do we even see? So if you remember anything in this next 18 minutes, remember this: that the light that falls onto your eye, sensory information, is meaningless, because it could mean literally anything. And what's true for sensory information is true for information generally. There's no inherent meaning in information. It's what we do with that information that matters.
在地球上我們甚至如何運用視覺? 如果你記得接下來這十八分鐘的任何事 只要記得:那都是進入你眼睛的光 感覺到的訊息是沒有意義的 因為那可以是任何東西 大致上來說感覺到的訊息的本質就跟一般的訊息一樣 本身並沒有任何意義 所謂的訊息就是這樣
So, how do we see? Well, we see by learning to see. The brain evolved the mechanisms for finding patterns, finding relationships in information, and associating those relationships with a behavioral meaning, a significance, by interacting with the world. We're very aware of this in the form of more cognitive attributes, like language. I'm going to give you some letter strings, and I want you to read them out for me, if you can.
所以我們如何能看? 其實 我們能看是學來的 大腦發展了辨識圖樣的機制 在訊息裡頭的找出關聯性 並賦予這些前因後果 行為上的意義 藉由與外在世界互動所得的意義 我們對於 較多認知特質的形式相當敏銳 像是語言 我將會給你們一些字串 並且希望你們為我念出來 如果你可以的話
Audience: "Can you read this?" "You are not reading this." "What are you reading?"
觀眾:『你可以讀這個嗎?』 『你不能讀這個』 『你正在讀什麼?』
Beau Lotto: "What are you reading?" Half the letters are missing, right? There's no a priori reason why an "H" has to go between that "W" and "A." But you put one there. Why? Because in the statistics of your past experience, it would have been useful to do so. So you do so again. And yet you don't put a letter after that first "T." Why? Because it wouldn't have been useful in the past. So you don't do it again.
包拉托:『你正在讀什麼?』裡有一半的字母不見了對吧? 沒有什麼道理H一定要在 W和A中間 但是你這麼做了 為什麼? 因為根據你過去經驗的統計 以前這樣做都很有用 所以你就再次這麼做了 然而你不會放個字母在第一個T後面 為什麼? 因為過去這麼做並沒有用 所以你不會再次這樣做
So, let me show you how quickly our brains can redefine normality, even at the simplest thing the brain does, which is color. So if I could have the lights down up here. I want you to first notice that those two desert scenes are physically the same. One is simply the flipping of the other. Now I want you to look at that dot between the green and the red. And I want you to stare at that dot. Don't look anywhere else. We're going to look at it for about 30 seconds, which is a bit of a killer in an 18-minute talk.
讓我告訴你我們的大腦可以多快重新定義常態 甚至是大腦所處理最簡單的事情 也就是色彩 如果我把燈關掉 我想要你們先注意那兩個沙漠景像實際上是一樣的 其中一張只是另一張的翻轉 現在請你們看著 在綠與紅之間的圓點 好嗎 而且你門要盯著這個圓點不要看其它地方 我們將會看著它約三十秒 它就是這場十八分鐘的演講裡最迷人的東西
(Laughter)
(眾笑)
But I really want you to learn. And I'll tell you -- don't look anywhere else -- I'll tell you what's happening in your head. Your brain is learning, and it's learning that the right side of its visual field is under red illumination; the left side of its visual field is under green illumination. That's what it's learning. Okay? Now, when I tell you, I want you to look at the dot between the two desert scenes. So why don't you do that now?
但我其實是想要你去學 而且我將告訴你--不要看其他地方 我將告訴你在你的腦袋裡發生了什麼事 你的大腦正在學 學習視野的右邊 是在紅色照明下 視野左邊則是綠色照明下 這就是大腦正在學的 現在 當我告訴我想要你看著沙漠景像中間的圓點 所以你們何不現在做?
(Laughter)
(眾人笑)
Can I have the lights up again?
可以把燈打開嗎?
I take it from your response they don't look the same anymore, right?
我從你們的反應知道他們看起來不再一樣了對吧?
(Applause)
(鼓掌)
Why? Because your brain is seeing that same information as if the right one is still under red light, and the left one is still under green light. That's your new normal. Okay? So, what does this mean for context? It means I can take two identical squares, put them in light and dark surrounds, and the one on the dark surround looks lighter than on the light surround. What's significant is not simply the light and dark surrounds that matter. It's what those light and dark surrounds meant for your behavior in the past.
這是為什麼呢? 因為你們的大腦正以相同的訊息在看東西 就像右邊那個仍在紅光下 左邊仍在綠光下 這就是你新的常態 所以這對背景有何意義? 它代表我可以把這兩個相同的正方形 放到亮的跟暗的環境中 現在在被黑暗包圍的那個看起來比被光包圍的還要亮 有意義的並非周圍亮暗 而是周圍亮暗這件事對你過去的行為意味著什麼
So I'll show you what I mean. Here we have that exact same illusion. We have two identical tiles on the left, one in a dark surround, one in a light surround. And the same thing over on the right. Now, I'll reveal those two scenes, but I'm not going to change anything within those boxes, except their meaning. And see what happens to your perception.
接下來我將展示我的意思是什麼 這一樣是錯覺 左邊有兩個相同的磁磚 一個在暗背景中 一個在亮背景中 右邊也是同樣的情形 現在 我將檢視這兩幅景象 但不改變這兩幅圖中任何事物 除了他們的意義 並且看看你們的感知發生了什麼事
Notice that on the left the two tiles look nearly completely opposite: one very white and one very dark, right? Whereas on the right, the two tiles look nearly the same. And yet there is still one on a dark surround, and one on a light surround. Why? Because if the tile in that shadow were in fact in shadow, and reflecting the same amount of light to your eye as the one outside the shadow, it would have to be more reflective -- just the laws of physics. So you see it that way.
注意左邊的這幅 兩個磁磚看起來幾乎完全相反 一個很亮一個很暗 是吧 相反地 右邊這幅 兩個磁磚看起來幾乎一樣 但也是一個在暗背景中 一個在亮背景中 為什麼? 因為如果磁磚在那樣的陰影裡 是真的在陰影內 而且反射了和陰影外那個磁磚 一樣多的光到你的眼睛 那它勢必要更能反射光線才行 這是物理定律 所以你看見一暗一亮的視覺效果
Whereas on the right, the information is consistent with those two tiles being under the same light. If they're under the same light reflecting the same amount of light to your eye, then they must be equally reflective. So you see it that way. Which means we can bring all this information together to create some incredibly strong illusions.
相反地 右邊那幅訊息是一致的 兩個磁磚都是在相同的光照之下 如果是在相同的照明下 它們反射到你眼睛的光 是一樣多的 那他們的反射能力是一樣的 所以你覺得他們一樣亮 這意味著我們可以把所有的訊息結合在一起 創造出一些難以置信的強烈錯覺
This is one I made a few years ago. And you'll notice you see a dark brown tile at the top, and a bright orange tile at the side. That is your perceptual reality. The physical reality is that those two tiles are the same.
這是我在多年前做的一張圖 你們將會發現你們看到了一個褐色磁磚在上邊 還有一個亮橘色磁磚在旁邊 這是你的感知的事實 但科學事實是 這兩個磁磚是一樣的
Here you see four gray tiles on your left, seven gray tiles on the right. I'm not going to change those tiles at all, but I'm going to reveal the rest of the scene. And see what happens to your perception. The four blue tiles on the left are gray. The seven yellow tiles on the right are also gray. They are the same. Okay? Don't believe me? Let's watch it again.
這兒你則看到四個灰色磁磚在你的左邊 七的灰色磁磚在右邊 我不會改變這些磁磚一丁點兒 但我將揭開其餘的畫面 看看你的感知會有什麼變化 右邊四個藍色的磁磚是灰色的 左邊七個黃色的瓷磚也是灰色的 它們是一樣的 不相信我嗎? 再看一次
What's true for color is also true for complex perceptions of motion. So, here we have -- let's turn this around -- a diamond. And what I'm going to do is, I'm going to hold it here, and I'm going to spin it. And for all of you, you'll see it probably spinning this direction. Now I want you to keep looking at it. Move your eyes around, blink, maybe close one eye. And suddenly it will flip, and start spinning the opposite direction. Yes? Raise your hand if you got that. Yes? Keep blinking. Every time you blink, it will switch. So I can ask you, which direction is it rotating? How do you know? Your brain doesn't know, because both are equally likely. So depending on where it looks, it flips between the two possibilities.
顏色的真相,就像複雜的情緒感知的結果 這兒我們有 讓我們把這個翻過來 一個鑽石 接下來我要做的是把它放在這兒 然後旋轉它 你們大家大概都會看到它往這個方向轉 現在我要你們繼續看著它 轉轉你的眼睛 眨一眨 或者閉上一隻眼 突然間它就這麼反轉了 往相反方向旋轉 有沒有? 如果你看到就舉手 有吧? 繼續眨眨眼 每眨一次他就切換一次 對吧 所以我問你 哪個方向是它旋轉的方向? 你怎麼知道? 你的大腦不知道 因為兩種可能性相等 根據它從那兒看 它會在 兩種可能性之間反轉
Are we the only ones that see illusions? The answer to this question is no. Even the beautiful bumblebee, with its mere one million brain cells, which is 250 times fewer cells than you have in one retina, sees illusions, does the most complicated things that even our most sophisticated computers can't do. So in my lab we work on bumblebees, because we can completely control their experience, and see how it alters the architecture of their brain. We do this in what we call the Bee Matrix.
我們是唯一看見錯覺的嗎? 這個問題的答案是否 即使是漂亮的大黃蜂 有著僅僅一百萬個腦細胞 比你一個視網膜的細胞的兩百五十分之一還少 一樣看到錯覺 處理最複雜的事 而且是我們最精密的電腦都無法辦到的 在我的實驗室 我們當然也研究了大黃蜂 因為我們可以完全控制牠們的實驗 並且看那如何改變他們的大腦結構 我們做的這個叫做蜜蜂矩陣
Here you have the hive. You can see the queen bee, the large bee in the middle. Those are her daughters, the eggs. They go back and forth between this hive and the arena, via this tube. You'll see one of the bees come out here. You see how she has a little number on her? There's another one coming out, she also has a number on her. Now, they're not born that way, right? We pull them out, put them in the fridge, and they fall asleep. Then you can superglue little numbers on them.
這兒有個蜂巢 你可以看到蜂后 那隻巨大的黃蜂就在中間那兒 那些卵全都是她的女兒們 他們在蜂房與活動場所之間 藉由這個管子來回走動 你將看到其中一隻蜜蜂從這兒出來 你可以看出她如何得到她的編號 呀 又有一隻跑出來了 她變成了另一號 牠們不是生來就有編號的 對吧? 我們把牠們拿出來 將牠們放進冰箱 讓他們睡著 然後你可以替牠們黏上小數字
(Laughter)
(眾笑)
And now, in this experiment they get a reward if they go to the blue flowers. They land on the flower, stick their tongue in there, called a proboscis, and drink sugar water. She's drinking a glass of water that's about that big to you and I, will do that about three times, then fly. And sometimes they learn not to go to the blue, but to go where the other bees go. So they copy each other. They can count to five. They can recognize faces. And here she comes down the ladder. And she'll come into the hive, find an empty honey pot, and throw up, and that's honey.
在這個實驗牠們若去藍色的花那兒將會被獎勵 牠們停在花上 將舌頭伸進去 那稱為口器 然後他們吸食糖水 現在她喝了一杯對你我來說大概這麼多的水 大概喝了三倍之後 就會飛走 有的時候他們學到不要飛到藍色的花 而是到其他黃蜂去的地方 所以他們可以吸取彼此的經驗 可以數到五 也可以辨識長相 這時她 她將會進到蜂巢 找個空的蜂蜜槽 開始嘔吐 那就是蜂蜜
(Laughter)
(眾笑)
Now remember, she's supposed to be going to the blue flowers, but what are these bees doing in the upper right corner? It looks like they're going to green flowers. Now, are they getting it wrong? And the answer to the question is no. Those are actually blue flowers. But those are blue flowers under green light. So they're using the relationships between the colors to solve the puzzle, which is exactly what we do.
現在請記得 (笑) 她預期要去藍花那兒 但其他的黃蜂正在右上邊的角落做什麼呢? 看起來牠們正在往綠花那兒去 牠們弄錯了嗎? 當然不是 這些實際上是藍色的花 只是這些藍色的花是在綠色照明下 所以他們正跟我們一樣 利用顏色的關係 解開謎團
So, illusions are often used, especially in art, in the words of a more contemporary artist, "to demonstrate the fragility of our senses." Okay, this is complete rubbish. The senses aren't fragile. And if they were, we wouldn't be here. Instead, color tells us something completely different, that the brain didn't actually evolve to see the world the way it is. We can't. Instead, the brain evolved to see the world the way it was useful to see in the past. And how we see is by continually redefining normality.
所以 錯覺常常被利用 特別是在藝術 應該說是較為當代的藝術家 拿來『展示我們知覺的脆弱』 這是一派胡言 知覺不是脆弱的 如果是 我們不會在這兒 另一方面 顏色告訴我們有些事物是完全不同的 就是大腦並非真的進化來看出世界真正的樣子 我們不能 取而代之的是 大腦是進化來理解世界的 在過去這對「看」是很有用的 我們能看是藉由不停地定義常態
So, how can we take this incredible capacity of plasticity of the brain and get people to experience their world differently? Well, one of the ways we do it in my lab and studio is we translate the light into sound, and we enable people to hear their visual world. And they can navigate the world using their ears.
所以我們如何能利用這個 大腦不可思議的可塑性 並且使人們以不同方式體驗他們的世界? 在我們的實驗室及工作室所用的其中一種方法 是將光轉成聲音 讓人們可以聽見他們所見的世界 他們可以用耳朵遨遊世界
Here's David on the right, and he's holding a camera. On the left is what his camera sees. And you'll see there's a faint line going across that image. That line is broken up into 32 squares. In each square, we calculate the average color. And then we just simply translate that into sound. And now he's going to turn around, close his eyes, and find a plate on the ground with his eyes closed.
右邊這是大衛 他正拿著照相機 左邊是他的攝影機所見的 你可以看見這兒有條線 一條跨過影像的淡線 這條線分離為三十二個正方形 每個方形我們計算它的平均顏色 我們只是簡單地將它轉成聲訊 現在他正要 轉過身 閉上眼睛 並閉上眼睛找一塊在地上的板子
(Continuous sound)
(Sound changes momentarily)
(Sound changes momentarily)
(Sound changes momentarily)
(Sound changes momentarily)
(Sound changes momentarily)
Beau Lotto: He finds it. Amazing, right? So not only can we create a prosthetic for the visually impaired, but we can also investigate how people literally make sense of the world. But we can also do something else. We can also make music with color. So, working with kids, they created images, thinking about what might the images you see sound like if we could listen to them. And then we translated these images. And this is one of those images. And this is a six-year-old child composing a piece of music for a 32-piece orchestra. And this is what it sounds like.
他找到了 神奇吧? 所以我們不僅能為視覺創傷製做義眼 也能研究人類如何 如實地感覺世界 但我們還可做更多事 我們可以 和孩子們一起 他們創作影像 想像你可能看到什麼影像 聽起來就像我們可以了解他們 然後我們開始轉譯這些影像 這是其中一幅影像 也是一位六歲孩子以三十二件樂器組成的樂團 所創作的音樂作品 這就是它聽起來的樣子
(Electronic representation of orchestral music)
So, a six-year-old child. Okay?
一個六歲的小孩子喔
Now, what does all this mean? What this suggests is that no one is an outside observer of nature, okay? We're not defined by our central properties, by the bits that make us up. We're defined by our environment and our interaction with that environment, by our ecology. And that ecology is necessarily relative, historical and empirical. So, what I'd like to finish with is this over here. Because what I've been trying to do is really celebrate uncertainty. Because I think only through uncertainty is there potential for understanding.
這所有種種表示什麼? 它暗示沒有人是自然界中 置身事外的觀察者 我們並非由自身的特性所定義 也不是是組成我們的點滴 我們是被我們的環境以及我們和環境之間的交互作用所定義 也就是我們的生態 而這生態必然是相對的 並基於歷史及經驗的 我想要以此做結 因為過去我所嘗試去做的實際上正是頌揚不確定性 因為我認為只有透過不確定性才有了解的潛力
So, if some of you are still feeling a bit too certain, I'd like to do this one. So, if we have the lights down. And what we have here -- Can everyone see 25 purple surfaces on your left, and 25, call it yellowish, surfaces on your right? So now, what I want to do, I'm going to put the middle nine surfaces here under yellow illumination, by simply putting a filter behind them. Now you can see that changes the light that's coming through there, right? Because now the light is going through a yellowish filter and then a purplish filter. I'm going to do the opposite on the left here. I'm going to put the middle nine under a purplish light.
所以如果你們其中某些人仍有點兒覺得萬事必然 我想要做件事 我們關掉燈 這兒看到的是 大家都看到二十五個紫色面了嗎? 在你的左邊 以及二十五個所謂的淡黃面在你右邊 接下來 我想要做的是 我要使中間九個 在黃色照明下 只要在它們後面放上簡單的濾片就行了 好了 現在你可以看到那使光改變了 光從這兒過來 對吧 因為現在光線通過了淡黃色的濾片 然後用紫色的濾片 接下來我要反過來 把中間這九個放在紫光下
Now, some of you will have noticed that the consequence is that the light coming through those middle nine on the right, or your left, is exactly the same as the light coming through the middle nine on your right. Agreed? Yes? Okay. So they are physically the same. Let's pull the covers off. Now remember -- you know that the middle nine are exactly the same. Do they look the same? No. The question is, "Is that an illusion?" And I'll leave you with that.
現在 你們其中有些人將察覺到接下來一連串發生的 右邊的中間九個所透過的光 或左邊的 和右邊中間九個所透過的光 是完全相同的 同意吧? 很好 所以它們實際上一樣 讓我們推開罩子 請記得 你知道中間九個是完全一樣的 但它們看起來一樣嗎? 不 問題來了 「那真的是錯覺嗎?」 我把這問題給你們
So, thank you very much.
謝謝大家
(Laughter)
(鼓掌)
(Applause)