So I'm going to speak about a problem that I have and that's that I'm a philosopher.
Danas ću govoriti o problemu kojeg imam a taj je da sam filozof.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
When I go to a party and people ask me what do I do and I say, "I'm a professor," their eyes glaze over. When I go to an academic cocktail party and there are all the professors around, they ask me what field I'm in and I say, "philosophy" -- their eyes glaze over.
Kada odem na zabavu i ljudi me pitaju čime se bavim i kažem im "ja sam profesor", odmah prestanu slušati. Kada otiđem na akademsku koktelsku zabavu na kojoj su samo profesori, pitaju me kojim se poljem znanosti bavim i ja im kažem filozofijom -- odmah prestanu slušati.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
When I go to a philosopher's party
Kada odem na zabavu filozofa
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
and they ask me what I work on and I say, "consciousness," their eyes don't glaze over -- their lips curl into a snarl.
i kada me pitaju na čemu radim i ja im kažem na svijesti, oni ne prestanu slušati -- već prijezirno frknu nosom.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And I get hoots of derision and cackles and growls because they think, "That's impossible! You can't explain consciousness." The very chutzpah of somebody thinking that you could explain consciousness is just out of the question.
Dobijem brdo prezira i hihotanja i gunđanja jer smatraju "To je nemoguće! Svijest se ne može objasniti". Sama drskost vaše pomisli da biste mogli objasniti svijest ne dolazi u obzir.
My late, lamented friend Bob Nozick, a fine philosopher, in one of his books, "Philosophical Explanations," is commenting on the ethos of philosophy -- the way philosophers go about their business. And he says, you know, "Philosophers love rational argument." And he says, "It seems as if the ideal argument for most philosophers is you give your audience the premises and then you give them the inferences and the conclusion, and if they don't accept the conclusion, they die. Their heads explode." The idea is to have an argument that is so powerful that it knocks out your opponents. But in fact that doesn't change people's minds at all.
Moj pokojni, neprežaljeni prijatelj Bob Nozick, odličan filozof, u jednoj od svojih knjiga, "Filozofska objašnjenja", tumači bit filozofije -- način na koji filozofi rade svoj posao. I kaže, "Filozofi vole racionalan argument". "Čini se kako je idealan argument, većini filozofa, dati publici premise, a zatim inferencije i zaključak, a ako ne prihvate zaključak moraju umrijeti. Glave im eksplodiraju". Zamisao je da imate argument koji je toliko jak da obori vaše suparnike. Zapravo, time uopće nećete promijeniti ničije mišljenje.
It's very hard to change people's minds about something like consciousness, and I finally figured out the reason for that. The reason for that is that everybody's an expert on consciousness. We heard the other day that everybody's got a strong opinion about video games. They all have an idea for a video game, even if they're not experts. But they don't consider themselves experts on video games; they've just got strong opinions. I'm sure that people here who work on, say, climate change and global warming, or on the future of the Internet, encounter people who have very strong opinions about what's going to happen next. But they probably don't think of these opinions as expertise. They're just strongly held opinions. But with regard to consciousness, people seem to think, each of us seems to think, "I am an expert. Simply by being conscious, I know all about this." And so, you tell them your theory and they say, "No, no, that's not the way consciousness is! No, you've got it all wrong." And they say this with an amazing confidence.
Vrlo je teško promijeniti nečije mišljenje oko nečeg kao što je svijest, i konačno sam otkrio razlog tome. Razlog tome je što su svi stručnjaci po pitanju svijesti. Neki smo dan čuli kako svi imaju čvrsti stav što se tiče video igrica. Svi imaju neko mišljenje o video igricama, čak ako i nisu stručnjaci. No ne smatraju se stručnjacima po pitanju video igrica, već samo imaju čvrsta mišljenja. Siguran sam da ljudi koji se bave recimo klimatskim promjenama i globalnim zagrijavanjem, ili budućnošću Interneta, susreću ljude koji imaju čvrst stav oko toga što će se sljedeće dogoditi. Samo što oni ne tumače ta mišljenja kao stručna. To su samo uvriježena mišljenja. No, što se tiče svijesti, ljudi misle, svatko od nas misli, "Ja sam stručnjak. Već samim time što sam svjestan znam sve o tome." I kada im iznesete svoju teoriju, oni kažu, "Ne, ne, svijest ne funkcionira tako! Ne, to ste sve pogrešno shvatili". I kažu vam to s nevjerojatnom količinom pouzdanja.
And so what I'm going to try to do today is to shake your confidence. Because I know the feeling -- I can feel it myself. I want to shake your confidence that you know your own innermost minds -- that you are, yourselves, authoritative about your own consciousness. That's the order of the day here.
Danas ću pokušati pokolebati vaše uvjerenje. Zato što mi je poznat taj osjećaj -- i sam ga mogu osjetiti. Želim pokolebati vaše uvjerenje da poznajete svoje najdublje misli -- da vi sami vladate svojom svijesti. To je plan programa za danas.
Now, this nice picture shows a thought-balloon, a thought-bubble. I think everybody understands what that means. That's supposed to exhibit the stream of consciousness. This is my favorite picture of consciousness that's ever been done. It's a Saul Steinberg of course -- it was a New Yorker cover. And this fellow here is looking at the painting by Braque. That reminds him of the word baroque, barrack, bark, poodle, Suzanne R. -- he's off to the races. There's a wonderful stream of consciousness here and if you follow it along, you learn a lot about this man. What I particularly like about this picture, too, is that Steinberg has rendered the guy in this sort of pointillist style.
Ova slika prikazuje misaoni oblak. Misaoni oblačić. Mislim da svi razumijemo što to znači. On bi trebao pokazivati struju svijesti. Ovo je moja omiljena slika svijesti. Autor je, naravno, Saul Steinberg -- i bila je na naslovnici New Yorkera. Ovaj čovjek tu gleda Braqueovu sliku. To ga je podsjetilo na riječ barok, baraka, lavež, pudlica, Suzanne R. -- njegov mozak radi sto na sat. Ovo je predivan prikaz struje svijesti i ako ju pratite saznat ćete puno o ovom čovjeku. Ono što mi se osobito sviđa kod ove slike je to da je Steinberg nacrtao ovog čovjeka na neki način poentilističkim stilom.
Which reminds us, as Rod Brooks was saying yesterday: what we are, what each of us is -- what you are, what I am -- is approximately 100 trillion little cellular robots. That's what we're made of. No other ingredients at all. We're just made of cells, about 100 trillion of them. Not a single one of those cells is conscious; not a single one of those cells knows who you are, or cares. Somehow, we have to explain how when you put together teams, armies, battalions of hundreds of millions of little robotic unconscious cells -- not so different really from a bacterium, each one of them -- the result is this. I mean, just look at it. The content -- there's color, there's ideas, there's memories, there's history. And somehow all that content of consciousness is accomplished by the busy activity of those hoards of neurons. How is that possible? Many people just think it isn't possible at all. They think, "No, there can't be any sort of naturalistic explanation of consciousness."
Što nas podsjeća, kao što je Rod Brooks rekao jučer: da smo mi, da je svatko od nas -- da ste vi, da sam ja -- približno 100 trilijuna malih staničnih robota. Od toga se sastojimo. Bez drugih dodataka. Sastojimo se samo od stanica, i to oko 100 trilijuna njih. Niti jedna od tih stanica nije svjesna, niti jedna od njih ne zna tko ste vi, niti ju je briga. Nekako moramo objasniti kako to da kada spojimo timove, vojske, bataljune stotina milijuna malih nesvjesnih robotskih stanica -- svaka od njih ne toliko različita od bakterije -- rezultat je ovo. Mislim, samo pogledajte. Taj sadržaj -- tu su boje, ideje, sjećanja, povijest. I nekako je sav taj sadržaj svijesti postignut aktivnošću gomila tih neurona. Kako je to moguće? Mnogi smatraju kako to uopće nije moguće. Misle, "Ne, ne može postojati nikakvo prirodoznanstveno objašnjenje svijesti".
This is a lovely book by a friend of mine named Lee Siegel, who's a professor of religion, actually, at the University of Hawaii, and he's an expert magician, and an expert on the street magic of India, which is what this book is about, "Net of Magic." And there's a passage in it which I would love to share with you. It speaks so eloquently to the problem. "'I'm writing a book on magic,' I explain, and I'm asked, 'Real magic?' By 'real magic,' people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. 'No,' I answer. 'Conjuring tricks, not real magic.' 'Real magic,' in other words, refers to the magic that is not real; while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic."
Ovo je divna knjiga mog prijatelja Leeja Siegela, profesora religije na Sveučilištu Havaja, on je stručnjak na polju magije, i stručnjak indijske ulične magije, o čemu je zapravo riječ u njegovoj knjizi "Mreža magije". U knjizi je odlomak koji bih rado podijelio s vama. Vrlo se uvjerljivo dotiče ovog problema. "Pišem knjigu o magiji", kažem i pitaju me "Pravoj magiji?" Pod pravom magijom ljudi smatraju čuda, čudotvorna djela i nadprirodne moći. "Ne", odgovaram. "O običnim trikovima, ne o pravoj magiji". Prava se magija, drugim riječima, odnosi na magiju koja nije prava, dok je magija koja jest prava, koja se može izvesti, nije prava magija".
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Now, that's the way a lot of people feel about consciousness.
Na isti način mnogi ljudi doživljavaju svijest.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Real consciousness is not a bag of tricks. If you're going to explain this as a bag of tricks, then it's not real consciousness, whatever it is. And, as Marvin said, and as other people have said, "Consciousness is a bag of tricks." This means that a lot of people are just left completely dissatisfied and incredulous when I attempt to explain consciousness. So this is the problem. So I have to do a little bit of the sort of work that a lot of you won't like, for the same reason that you don't like to see a magic trick explained to you. How many of you here, if somebody -- some smart aleck -- starts telling you how a particular magic trick is done, you sort of want to block your ears and say, "No, no, I don't want to know! Don't take the thrill of it away. I'd rather be mystified. Don't tell me the answer." A lot of people feel that way about consciousness, I've discovered. And I'm sorry if I impose some clarity, some understanding on you. You'd better leave now if you don't want to know some of these tricks.
Stvaran svijet nije tek vreća smicalica. Ako ćete ju objasniti kao vreću smicalica to onda nije prava svijest, što god da jest. I kao što je Marvin rekao, a isto su rekli i drugi, "Svijest je vreća smicalica". To znači da mnogi ljudi ostanu posve nezadovoljni i skeptični kada im pokušavam objasniti svijest. Dakle to je problem. Moram se potruditi odraditi mali dio posla koji se većini vas neće svidjeti, iz istog razloga iz kojeg ne želite da vam se objasni mađioničarski trik. Koliko vas, kada vam netko -- neki pametnjaković -- počinje objašnjavati kako određeni trik funkcionira, samo želi pokriti uši i reći "Ne, ne, ne želim znati! Nemoj mi pokvariti uzbuđenje. Neka ostane tajna. Nemoj mi odati tajnu trika". Otkrio sam da se mnogo ljudi isto tako ponaša kada je riječ o svijesti. I žao mi je ako ću vam nametnuti jasnoću, neko razumijevanje. Bolje da otiđete sada ako ne želite znati tajnu nekih trikova.
But I'm not going to explain it all to you. I'm going to do what philosophers do. Here's how a philosopher explains the sawing-the-lady-in-half trick. You know the sawing-the-lady-in-half trick? The philosopher says, "I'm going to explain to you how that's done. You see, the magician doesn't really saw the lady in half."
Ali neću vam sve objasniti. Napravit ću ono što rade filozofi. Evo kako filozofi objašnjavanju trik rezanja žena na pola. Znate trik rezanja žene na pola? Filozof kaže, "Objasnit ću ti kako se to radi. Znaš, mađioničar zapravo ne razreže ženu na pola."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
"He merely makes you think that he does." And you say, "Yes, and how does he do that?" He says, "Oh, that's not my department, I'm sorry."
"Samo te uvjeri kako je to napravio". A vi kažete, "Da, ali kako je to učinio?" On kaže, "Ma, to nije moje područje, žao mi je".
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
So now I'm going to illustrate how philosophers explain consciousness. But I'm going to try to also show you that consciousness isn't quite as marvelous -- your own consciousness isn't quite as wonderful -- as you may have thought it is. This is something, by the way, that Lee Siegel talks about in his book. He marvels at how he'll do a magic show, and afterwards people will swear they saw him do X, Y, and Z. He never did those things. He didn't even try to do those things. People's memories inflate what they think they saw. And the same is true of consciousness.
Sada ću vam razjasniti kako filozofi objašnjavaju svijest. Isto tako ću vam nastojati pokazati da svijest i nije tako čudesna -- vaša svijest nije toliko predivna -- koliko vi mislite da jest. Uzgred rečeno, o ovome govori Lee Siegel u svojoj knjizi. Divi se tome kako kada napravi mađioničarsku predstavu, ljudi se poslije kunu kako su ga vidjeli da je napravio X, Y i Z. Stvari koje nikada nije učinio. Nije niti pokušao napraviti te stvari. Ljudsko sjećanje preuveliča ono što misli da je vidjelo. Isto je i sa svijesti.
Now, let's see if this will work. All right. Let's just watch this. Watch it carefully. I'm working with a young computer-animator documentarian named Nick Deamer, and this is a little demo that he's done for me, part of a larger project some of you may be interested in. We're looking for a backer. It's a feature-length documentary on consciousness. OK, now, you all saw what changed, right? How many of you noticed that every one of those squares changed color? Every one. I'll just show you by running it again. Even when you know that they're all going to change color, it's very hard to notice. You have to really concentrate to pick up any of the changes at all.
Da vidimo hoće li ovo raditi. Dobro. Pogledajmo ovo. Pažljivo gledajte. Radim s mladim dokumentaristom koji se bavi kompjuterskom animacijom Nickom Deamerom, a ovo je mala demonstracija koju je napravio za mene, dio je većeg projekta za koji će neki od vas biti zainteresirani. Tražimo sponzora. Radi se o dugomentražnom dokumentarcu o svijesti. Dobro, svi ste vidjeli što se promijenilo, zar ne? Koliko je vas primijetilo kako je svaki od kvadrata promijenio boju? Svi. Pokazat ću vam još jednom. Čak i kada znate da će promijeniti boju, vrlo je teško to i primijetiti. Stvarno se morate koncentrirati da biste zapazili bilo kakve promjene.
Now, this is an example -- one of many -- of a phenomenon that's now being studied quite a bit. It's one that I predicted in the last page or two of my 1991 book, "Consciousness Explained," where I said if you did experiments of this sort, you'd find that people were unable to pick up really large changes. If there's time at the end, I'll show you the much more dramatic case. Now, how can it be that there are all those changes going on, and that we're not aware of them? Well, earlier today, Jeff Hawkins mentioned the way your eye saccades, the way your eye moves around three or four times a second. He didn't mention the speed. Your eye is constantly in motion, moving around, looking at eyes, noses, elbows, looking at interesting things in the world. And where your eye isn't looking, you're remarkably impoverished in your vision. That's because the foveal part of your eye, which is the high-resolution part, is only about the size of your thumbnail held at arms length. That's the detail part. It doesn't seem that way, does it? It doesn't seem that way, but that's the way it is. You're getting in a lot less information than you think.
Ovo je primjer -- jedan od mnogih -- pojave kojom se sada znanstvenici mnogo bave. Pojava je to koju sam predvidio na zadnjim stranicama svoje knjige "Objašnjenja svijest" iz 1991. godine., gdje sam objasnio, ukoliko se naprave ovakve vrste pokusa, otkrit će se da ljudi nisu sposobni primijetiti vrlo velike promjene. Ako ćemo imati vremena na kraju pokazat ću vam puno drastičnije primjere. Kako je moguće da se ove promjene događaju, ali mi nismo njih svjesni? Ranije je Jeff Hawkins spomenuo način na koji oči trzaju, način na koji se pokreću tri ili četiri puta u sekundi. Nije spomenuo brzinu. Vaše su oči u neprestanom pokretu, kreću se, gledaju oči, noseve, laktove, gledaju zanimljive stvari na svijetu. Tamo, kamo vaše oči ne gledaju nevjerojatno ste zakinuti na vidnom polju. To je zato što je fovealni dio oka, dio koji je zadužen za oštar vid, veličine nokta na palcu kada ga držite na dužini ispružene ruke. Taj je dio zadužen za detalje. Ne čini nam se tako, zar ne? Ne čini nam se, ali zapravo jest tako. Dobivate mnogo manje informacija nego što mislite.
Here's a completely different effect. This is a painting by Bellotto. It's in the museum in North Carolina. Bellotto was a student of Canaletto's. And I love paintings like that -- the painting is actually about as big as it is right here. And I love Canalettos, because Canaletto has this fantastic detail, and you can get right up and see all the details on the painting. And I started across the hall in North Carolina, because I thought it was probably a Canaletto, and would have all that in detail. And I noticed that on the bridge there, there's a lot of people -- you can just barely see them walking across the bridge. And I thought as I got closer I would be able to see all the detail of most people, see their clothes, and so forth. And as I got closer and closer, I actually screamed. I yelled out because when I got closer, I found the detail wasn't there at all. There were just little artfully placed blobs of paint. And as I walked towards the picture, I was expecting detail that wasn't there. The artist had very cleverly suggested people and clothes and wagons and all sorts of things, and my brain had taken the suggestion.
Sada, posve suprotan učinak. Ovo je Bellottova slika. Ovo je iz muzeja u Sjevernoj Karolini. Bellotto je bio Canalettov učenik. Volim ovakve slike -- slika je približno iste veličine kao i ovdje. Volim Canalettova djela jer je Canaletto fantastičan po pitanju detalja, i možete se posve približiti i vidjeti detalje na slici. Krenuo sam preko dvorane u Sjevernoj Karolini, jer sam mislio kao se radi o Canalettovom djelu, i imat će sve te detalje. Primijetio sam kako se ondje na mostu nalazi mnogo ljudi -- jedva da ih možete vidjeti kako prelaze preko mosta. Kako sam se približavao, pomislio sam da ću vidjeti detalje većine ljudi vidjeti njihovu odjeću, i tako dalje. Kako sam se sve više približio, stvarno sam vrisnuo. Uzviknuo sam jer kada sam se približio otkrio sam da detalja uopće nema. Na slici su bile samo malene mrlje boje. Kako sam se približavao slici očekivao sam detalje kojih nije bilo. Umjetnik je vrlo vješto sugerirao ljude i odjeću i teretna kola i razne stvari na slici, a moj je mozak prihvatio njegovu sugestiju.
You're familiar with a more recent technology, which is -- There, you can get a better view of the blobs. See, when you get close they're really just blobs of paint. You will have seen something like this -- this is the reverse effect. I'll just give that to you one more time.
Upoznati ste sa suvremenijom tehnologijom, koja je -- ovdje. Možete bolje vidjeti mrlje. Kada se približite zapravo vidite mrlje bolje. Zacijelo ste vidjeli nešto ovakvo -- ovo je obrnuti učinak. Pokazat ću vam to još jednom.
Now, what does your brain do when it takes the suggestion? When an artful blob of paint or two, by an artist, suggests a person -- say, one of Marvin Minsky's little society of mind -- do they send little painters out to fill in all the details in your brain somewhere? I don't think so. Not a chance. But then, how on Earth is it done? Well, remember the philosopher's explanation of the lady? It's the same thing. The brain just makes you think that it's got the detail there. You think the detail's there, but it isn't there. The brain isn't actually putting the detail in your head at all. It's just making you expect the detail.
Što vaš mozak radi kada prihvati sugestiju? Kada mrlja boje ili dvije, napravljene od strane umjetnika, sugeriraju osobu -- primjerice kao u društvu uma Marvina Minskyja -- pošalju li se i maleni slikari koji tada upotpune detalje negdje u vašem mozgu? Ne bih rekao. Nema šanse. Ali, zaboga, što se onda događa? Sjećate se filozofskog objašnjenja trika s rezanjem žene? Ista je stvar. Mozak vas uvjeri kako ondje postoje detalji. Vi mislite kako su detalji ondje, ali zapravo nisu. Mozak uopće ne stavlja detalje u vaš glavu. On očekuje da vi pretpostavite detalje.
Let's just do this experiment very quickly. Is the shape on the left the same as the shape on the right, rotated? Yes. How many of you did it by rotating the one on the left in your mind's eye, to see if it matched up with the one on the right? How many of you rotated the one on the right? OK. How do you know that's what you did?
Napravimo jedan pokus vrlo brzo. Je li, rotirano, oblik s lijeve strane jednak obliku s desne strane? Da. Koliko vas je to zaključilo rotirajući oblik s lijeve stane u svojoj glavi, kako biste vidjeli da li se slaže s onim na desnoj strani? Koliko vas je rotiralo oblik s desne strane? U redu. Kako znate da ste upravo to učinili?
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
There's in fact been a very interesting debate raging for over 20 years in cognitive science -- various experiments started by Roger Shepherd, who measured the angular velocity of rotation of mental images. Yes, it's possible to do that. But the details of the process are still in significant controversy. And if you read that literature, one of the things that you really have to come to terms with is even when you're the subject in the experiment, you don't know. You don't know how you do it. You just know that you have certain beliefs. And they come in a certain order, at a certain time. And what explains the fact that that's what you think? Well, that's where you have to go backstage and ask the magician.
Zapravo, postoji zanimljiva rasprava u kognitivnoj znanosti koja traje već 20 godina -- započeo ju je Roger Shepherd raznim pokusima, koji su mjerili kutnu brzinu rotacije mentalnih slika. Da, moguće je to napraviti. Međutim, detalji tog procesa još su uvijek vrlo kontroverzni. Ako ste čitali literaturu o tome, jedna od stvari s kojom ćete se morati pomiriti čak ako ste bili sudionik pokusa, je ta da jednostavno ne znate. Ne znate kako ste to napravili. Samo znate da imate određena uvjerenja. I ona prate određen redoslijed, u određeno vrijeme. I to objašnjava činjenicu kako je to ono što vi mislite? Pa sad, trebali biste otići iza kulisa i pitati to međioničara.
This is a figure that I love: Bradley, Petrie, and Dumais. You may think that I've cheated, that I've put a little whiter-than-white boundary there. How many of you see that sort of boundary, with the Necker cube floating in front of the circles? Can you see it? Well, you know, in effect, the boundary's really there, in a certain sense. Your brain is actually computing that boundary, the boundary that goes right there. But now, notice there are two ways of seeing the cube, right? It's a Necker cube. Everybody can see the two ways of seeing the cube? OK. Can you see the four ways of seeing the cube? Because there's another way of seeing it. If you're seeing it as a cube floating in front of some circles, some black circles, there's another way of seeing it. As a cube, on a black background, as seen through a piece of Swiss cheese.
Ovo je slika koju volim: Bradley, Petrie i Dumais. Vjerojatno mislite kako sam varao, da sam stavio nešto svjetlije bijele granice ovdje. Koliko vas vidi takvu granicu, s Neckerovom kockom kako pluta ispred krugova? Vidite li? Znate, u biti, u određenom smislu, granica postoji. Vaš mozak je zapravo pretpostavio tu granicu, granicu koja ide ovdje. Primijetite kako postoje dva načina gledanja kocke, zar ne? To je Neckerova kocka. Svi vidite dva načina promatranje kocke? Dobro. Vidite li četiri načina gledanja kocke? Postoji još jedan način gledanja. Ako ju promatrate kao kocku koja lebdi ispred nekih krugova, crnih krugova, postoji još jedan način promatranja. Kao kocku na crnoj pozadini, koju kao da gledate kroz komad švicarskog sira.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Can you get it? How many of you can't get it? That'll help.
Vidite li? Koliko vas možete ovo primijetiti? Ovo će pomoći.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Now you can get it. These are two very different phenomena. When you see the cube one way, behind the screen, those boundaries go away. But there's still a sort of filling in, as we can tell if we look at this. We don't have any trouble seeing the cube, but where does the color change? Does your brain have to send little painters in there? The purple-painters and the green-painters fight over who's going to paint that bit behind the curtain? No. Your brain just lets it go. The brain doesn't need to fill that in. When I first started talking about the Bradley, Petrie, Dumais example that you just saw -- I'll go back to it, this one -- I said that there was no filling-in behind there. And I supposed that that was just a flat truth, always true. But Rob Van Lier has recently shown that it isn't.
Vidite li sada. Ovo su dvije vrlo različite pojave. Kada gledate kocku na jedan način, iza ekrana, granice nestaju. Ali postoji neka vrsta popunjavanja, koju možemo primijetiti ako pogledamo ovo. Vidimo kocku bez problema, ali gdje se događa promjena boje? Mora li mozak poslati male slikare? Grimizne i zelene slikare koji se bore oko toga koji će obojit dio iza zastora? Ne. Mozak to samo pusti. On ne mora to popuniti. Kada sam prvi puta pričao o Bradley, Petrie i Dumais primjeru, koji ste upravo vidjeli -- vratit ću mu se, ovome -- rekao sam da ne postoji pozadinsko popunjavanje. Pretpostavio sam da je to čista istina, bez greške. Međutim, Rob Van Lier je nedavno pokazao kako to nije tako.
Now, if you think you see some pale yellow -- I'll run this a few more times. Look in the gray areas, and see if you seem to see something sort of shadowy moving in there -- yeah, it's amazing. There's nothing there. It's no trick. ["Failure to Detect Changes in Scenes" slide] This is Ron Rensink's work, which was in some degree inspired by that suggestion right at the end of the book. Let me just pause this for a second if I can.
Ako mislite kako vidite neku blijedo žutu -- pustit ću to još nekoliko puta. Pogledajte siva područja, pokušajte vidjeti da li se nešto sjenovito kreće tamo -- da! Nevjerojatno. Tamo nema ničega. To nije trik. [ "Nesposobnost primjećivanja promjena kod slika"] Ovo je djelo Rona Rensinka, koje je jednim djelom inspirirano onim prijedlogom na kraju knjige. Samo da zaustavim ovo na trenutak, ako je to moguće.
This is change-blindness. What you're going to see is two pictures, one of which is slightly different from the other. You see here the red roof and the gray roof, and in between them there will be a mask, which is just a blank screen, for about a quarter of a second. So you'll see the first picture, then a mask, then the second picture, then a mask. And this will just continue, and your job as the subject is to press the button when you see the change. So, show the original picture for 240 milliseconds. Blank. Show the next picture for 240 milliseconds. Blank. And keep going, until the subject presses the button, saying, "I see the change."
Ovo se naziva sljepoća za promjene. Vidjet ćete dvije slike od kojih se jedna neznatno razlikuje od druge. Ovdje vidite crveni krov i smeđi krov, i između njih će biti maska, što je zapravo prazan ekran, u trajanju četvrtine sekunde. Znači, prvo ćete vidjeti sliku, a zatim masku. Zatim drugu sliku, pa masku. Taj slijed će se nastaviti, a vaš posao kao sudionika je da pritisnete gumb kada vidite promjenu. Znači, 240 milisekundi prikaži originalnu sliku. Prazno. Pokaži sljedeću sliku 240 milisekundi. Prazno. I nastavi taj slijed sve dok sudionik ne pritisne gumb i kaže "vidim promjenu".
So now we're going to be subjects in the experiment. We're going to start easy. Some examples. No trouble there. Can everybody see? All right. Indeed, Rensink's subjects took only a little bit more than a second to press the button. Can you see that one? 2.9 seconds. How many don't see it still? What's on the roof of that barn?
Sada ćemo biti sudionici tog pokusa. Počet ćemo s lakšim primjerima. Neki primjeri. Tu nema problema. Svi vidite? Dobro. Rensinkovim sudionicima je trebalo malo više od sekunde za pritisak gumba. Vidite li ovu? 2,9 sekundi. Koliko vas još uvijek ne vidi? Što je na krovu te staje?
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
It's easy. Is it a bridge or a dock? There are a few more really dramatic ones, and then I'll close. I want you to see a few that are particularly striking. This one because it's so large and yet it's pretty hard to see. Can you see it?
Ovo je lagano. Je li ovo most ili dok? Još par vrlo dramatičnih, pa ćemo završiti. Želim vam pokazati nekoliko vrlo upečatljivih. Ovu jer je vrlo velika, a opet je teško primijetiti razliku. Vidite li?
Audience: Yes.
Publika: Da.
Dan Dennett: See the shadows going back and forth? Pretty big. So 15.5 seconds is the median time for subjects in his experiment there.
Vidite kako se sjene miču naprijed natrag? Zaista veliko. Prosječno je vrijeme bilo 15 i pol sekundi za sudionike njegova pokusa.
I love this one. I'll end with this one, just because it's such an obvious and important thing. How many still don't see it? How many still don't see it? How many engines on the wing of that Boeing?
Volim ovu. Završit ću s njom samo zato što je tako očita i važna stvar. Koliko vas još uvijek ne vidi? Koliko vas još uvijek ne vidi? Koliko je motora na krilu tog Boeinga?
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Right in the middle of the picture! Thanks very much for your attention. What I wanted to show you is that scientists, using their from-the-outside, third-person methods, can tell you things about your own consciousness that you would never dream of, and that, in fact, you're not the authority on your own consciousness that you think you are. And we're really making a lot of progress on coming up with a theory of mind.
Točno u sredini fotografije! Hvala vam na pozornosti. Želio sam vam pokazati kako vam znanstvenici, koristeći izvanjske, metode trećeg lica, mogu reći stvari o vašoj svijesti, stvari o kojima ne biste ni sanjali. I da zapravo vi ne vladate svojom svijesti onoliko koliko mislite da vladate. Mnogo napredujemo u stvaranju teorije uma.
Jeff Hawkins, this morning, was describing his attempt to get theory, and a good, big theory, into the neuroscience. And he's right. This is a problem. Harvard Medical School once -- I was at a talk -- director of the lab said, "In our lab, we have a saying. If you work on one neuron, that's neuroscience. If you work on two neurons, that's psychology."
Jutros je Jeff Hawkins opisivao svoj pokušaj stvaranje teorije, i to dobre sveobuhvatne teorije, neuroznanosti. U pravu je. Ovo jest problem. Ravnatelj laboratorija Harvardske škole medicine -- na govoru na kojem sam bio -- je rekao "U našem laboratoriju imamo uzrečicu. Ako radite ne jednom neuronu to je neuroznanost. Ako radite na dva neurona, onda je to psihologija".
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
We have to have more theory, and it can come as much from the top down.
Potrebno nam je više teorije, a do nje možemo doći raščlanjivanjem i analizom.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam najljepša.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)