So I'm going to speak about a problem that I have and that's that I'm a philosopher.
Povedal vam bo nekaj o svoji težavi. Problem je v tem, da sem filozof.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
Ko grem na zabavo in me ljudje vprašajo, s čim se ukvarjam, povem: "Profesor sem." V odziv dobim odsotne poglede. Ko grem na sprejem za akademike in so zraven vsi profesorji, vprašajo, na katerem področju delam. Povem, da je to filozofija, in v odziv dobim odsotne poglede.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
When I go to a philosopher's party
Ko grem na zabavo filozofov,
(Laughter)
(smeh)
and they ask me what I work on and I say, "consciousness," their eyes don't glaze over -- their lips curl into a snarl.
me vprašajo, na čem delam. Povem: "Na zavesti." Njihov pogled ni odsoten - renčati začnejo.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
Požanjem posmeh, hehet in renčanje, ker si mislijo: "To ni mogoče. Ne moreš razložiti zavesti." Predrznost, da bi si kdo upal misliti, da lahko razloži zavest, ne pride v poštev.
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 žal preminuli prijatelj Bob Nozick, odlični filozof, je v svoji knjigi "Filozofske razlage" komentiral etos filozofije, kako se filozofi lotevajo svojega dela. Pravi, veste, da filozofi ljubijo racionalne argumente. Trdi tole: "Zdi se, da je idealni argument za večino filozofov to, da občinstvu dajo tezo, potem sklep in nato zaključek in če njihov zaključek ni sprejet, umrejo. Glavo jim raznese." Treba je imeti argument, ki je tako močan, da uniči nasprotnika. A v resnici to sploh ne spremeni mnenja ljudi.
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.
Težko spremeniš mnenja o nečem takem, kot je zavest in končno sem ugotovil, zakaj je temu tako. Razlog je v tem, da smo vsi strokovnjaki za zavest. Zadnjič smo slišali, da ima vsak svoje mnenje o video igrah. Imajo idejo za video igro, čeprav niso strokovnjaki. In se tudi nimajo za strokovnjake za video igre, le trdna prepričanja imajo. Prepričan sem, da se ljudje, ki se ukvarjajo s podnebnimi spremembami in globalnim segrevanjem ali s prihodnostjo interneta, srečujejo ljudi z zelo trdnimi prepričanji o tem, kaj se bo zgodilo. A verjetno teh stališč nimajo za strokovno znanje. To so samo globoka prepričanja. Ko pride do zavesti, se zdi, da ljudje mislijo, vsak od nas misli: "Strokovnjak sem. Ker sem pri zavesti, vem vse o tem." Poveste jim svojo teorijo in rekli bodo: "Ne, zavest ni taka! Popolnoma se motite." In to pravijo neverjetno samozavestno.
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.
Danes bom torej poskusil skrhati vašo samozavest. Saj poznam ta občutek. Tudi sam ga imam. Omajati hočem vaše prepričanje, da poznate svoj najbolj notranji um, da imate nadzor nad svojo zavestjo. To je danes na dnevnem redu.
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.
Tale slika kaže miselni balon, miselni mehurček. Mislim, da vsi vemo, kaj to pomeni. Prikazovalo naj bi tok zavesti. To je moja najljubša slika zavesti. Gre seveda za Saula Steinberga - za naslovnico New Yorkerja. Tale možakar gleda Braquovo sliko. Spominja ga na barok, barako, lajež (bark), pudlja, Suzanne R. - in tok ga odpelje. Tu gre za čudovit tok zavesti in če mu sledite, se naučite veliko o tem možu. Pri tej sliki mi je posebej všeč, da je Steinberg tipa napravil v tem točkastem stilu.
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."
To nas spominja, kakor je Rod Brooks včeraj omenil, na to, kaj smo, kaj je vsak od nas - kaj ste vi, kaj sem jaz, to je: približno sto trilijonov majhnih celičnih robotov. Iz tega smo narejeni. Brez drugih sestavin. Samo celice smo, okoli sto trilijonov le-teh. Niti ena od teh celic nima zavesti; niti ena od njih ne ve, kdo ste vi, niti ji to ni mar. Nekako pa moramo razložiti, kako, ko sestavimo ekipe, vojske, bataljone stotin milijonov majhnih robotskih celic brez zavesti, ki vsaka zase niso tako drugačne od bakterije, kako je rezultat lahko tole. Samo poglejte. Vsebina - barva, ideje, spomini, zgodovina. Nekako je vsa ta vsebina zavesti ustvarjena z delom množic nevronov. Kako je to mogoče? Mnogi mislijo, da sploh ni. Mislijo si: "Ne, ne more obstajati nikakršna naravna razlaga zavesti."
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."
To je krasna knjiga mojega prijatelja Leeja Siegla, ki je profesor religije na univerzi na Havajih. Je strokovnjak čarodej in strokovnjak za indijsko ulično čarovnijo, o čemer piše knjiga, "Mreža magije". V njej je odlomek, ki bi ga rad delil z vami. Tako jasno govori o težavi. "Pišem knjigo o magiji," pojasnim, in vprašajo me: "O pravi magiji?" S 'pravo magijo' ljudje mislijo čudeže, tavmaturška dejanja in nadnaravne moči. "Ne," odgovorim. "O čarovniških trikih, ne o pravi magiji." Z drugimi besedami: 'prava magija' se nanaša na magijo, ki ni prava; medtem ko prava magija, tista, ki jo je možno napraviti, ni prava magija."
(Laughter)
(smeh)
Now, that's the way a lot of people feel about consciousness.
Tako veliko ljudi meni o zavesti.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
Prava zavest ni vreča trikov. Če jo hočete razložiti kot tako, potem ni prava zavest, karkoli pač že je. In kot so povedali Marvin in drugi: "Zavest je vreča trikov." To pomeni, da veliko ljudi ostane popolnoma nezadovoljnih in nejevernih, ko skušam razložiti zavest. V tem je torej problem. Zato moram opraviti nekaj takega dela, ki mnogim med vami ne bo všeč iz enakega razloga, iz katerega si ne želite vedeti, kako poteka čarovniški trik. Ko vam kak pametnjakovič začne razlagati, kako narediti nek čarovniški trik, kdo med vami si hoče zatisniti ušesa in reči: "Ne, ne, nočem vedeti! Ne uničite vznemirjenja, raje sem v dvomu. Ne povejte mi odgovora." Ugotovil sem, da ima veliko ljudi tak odnos do zavesti. In žal mi je, če vam bom vsilil nekaj pojasnil, nekaj razumevanja. Če nočete slišati o teh trikih, raje odidite zdaj.
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."
A ne bom vam pojasnil vsega. Po filozofsko bom to rešil. Tako filozof pojasni trik žaganja ženske na pol. Saj poznate ta trik, ne? Filozof pravi: "Pojasnil vam bom, kako to poteka. Veste, čarodej v resnici ženske ne prežaga na pol."
(Laughter)
(smeh)
"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 zavede vas, da mislite, da jo." "In kako to stori?" On odvrne: "To pa ni moje področje, žal."
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
Pokazal vam bom, kako filozofi pojasnijo zavest. Hkrati vam bom tudi skušal pokazati, da zavest ni tako čudovita - vaša zavest ni tako krasna - kot ste mislili, da je. O tem Lee Siegel govori v svoji knjigi. Opisuje, kako bo ustvaril čarovniško predstavo in kako bodo potem ljudje prisegali, da je naredil X, Y in Z. Teh stvari nikoli ne naredi. Niti poskusi ne. Človeški spomini napihnejo to, kar mislijo, da so videli. Isto velja za zavest.
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.
Poglejmo, ali bo tole delovalo. V redu. Oglejmo si tole. Pazljivo glejte. Delam z mladim računalniškim animatorjem Nickom Deamerjem, ki je zame napravil tale demo, del večjega projekta, ki vas bo morda zanimal. Iščemo podpornika. Gre za celovečerni dokumentarec o zavesti. No, ste videli, kaj se je spremenilo, ne? Koliko vas je opazilo, da so vsi kvadrati spremenili barvo? Vsi. Ponovno vam bom pokazal. Celo ko veste, da bodo vsi spremenili barvo, je to težko opaziti. Res se morate osredotočiti, da opazite kakršnokoli spremembo.
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.
To je primer - eden mnogih - pojava, ki ga precej preučujemo. Predvidel sem ga na zadnjih straneh svoje knjige "Pojasnjena zavest" iz leta 1991, kjer sem trdil, da če izvajate take poskuse, boste ugotovili, da ljudje ne zaznajo zelo velikih sprememb. Če bo na koncu čas, vam pokažem veliko bolj dramatičen primer. Kako je mogoče, da se dogajajo vse te spremembe, pa se jih ne zavedamo? Prejle je Jeff Hawkins omenil, kako se oko hitro premika, kako se pogled premakne tri- ali štirikrat na sekundo. Ni omenil hitrosti. Vaše oko se stalno giblje, premika naokoli, gleda oči, nosove, komolce, opazuje zanimive stvari po svetu. In ko oko ne gleda, je vaš vid neverjetno slabši. To pa zato, ker je fovea očesa, ki skrbi za visoko resolucijo, velika le toliko kot noht, viden na iztegnjeni roki. To je detajl, ki ga vidimo. Ampak ne zdi se tako, mar ne? Ne zdi se tako, a tako je. Dobivate veliko manj informacij, kot si 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.
Tole je povsem drug učinek. To je Bellottova slika. Nahaja se v muzeju v Severni Karolini. Bellotto je bil Canalettov študent. Rad imam take slike - tale je približno tako velika kot tukaj. Rad imam Canalettove slike, ker imajo čudovit detajl, lahko se približate in vidite vse detajle na sliki. Začel sem na drugi strani dvorane v Severni Karolini, ker sem mislil, da gre za Canaletta, in sem to videl v podrobnosti. Opazil sem, da je na mostu veliko ljudi, komaj jih lahko vidite, kako ga prečkajo. Mislil sem, da ko se bom približal, bom lahko videl podrobnosti večine ljudi, njihove obleke in tako naprej. Ko sem bil še bliže, sem kar zakričal. To pa zato, ker ko sem se približal, sem ugotovil, da detajla sploh ni. Samo umetelno postavljene packe barve so bile. Ko sem se bližal sliki, sem pričakoval detajl, ki ga ni bilo. Umetnik je pametno nakazal ljudi in oblačila ter vagone in druge stvari, moji možgani pa so sprejeli te znake.
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.
Novejša tehnologija je - vidite - lahko bolje vidite packe. Ko se približate, so to res le barvne packe. Tole ste že videli; gre za obraten učinek. Še enkrat vam bom pokazal.
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.
Kaj vaši možgani storijo, ko dobijo namig? Ko spretna umetnikova packa ali dve namigne na osebo - recimo majhno družbo umov Marvina Minskega - mar pošljejo majhne slikarje, da zapolnijo vrzeli v možganih? Mislim, da ne. Niti slučajno. Ampak, kako pa se potem to zgodi? Se spomnite filozofske razlage ženske? Gre za isto stvar. Možgani vas napeljejo, da mislite, da obstaja ta detajl. Mislite, da je tam, vendar ga ni. Možgani sploh ne slikajo detajla v vaši glavi. Samo navedejo vas, da ga pričakujete.
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?
Naredimo hiter poskus. Je oblika na levi ista kot tista na desni, ki je obrnjena? Da. Koliko vas je v mislih obrnilo levo obliko, da bi videli, ali se ujema z desno? Koliko vas je obrnilo desno? OK. Kako veste, da ste to storili?
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
Zadnjih dvajset let v kognitivni znanosti poteka zelo zanimiva razprava, Roger Shepherd je sprožil več poskusov merjenja kotne hitrosti rotacije miselnih slik. Ja, to se da meriti. A podrobnosti postopka so še vedno kontroverzne. Če berete to literaturo, se morate sprijazniti s tem, da tudi kot subjekt v poskusu, ne morete vedeti. Ne veste, kako se to zgodi. Veste samo, da ste v nekaj prepričani. Prepričanja si sledijo v določenem redu, v določenem času. Kako pojasniti, da je to to, kar mislite? Hja, to je čas, da greste v zaodrje in vprašate čarodeja.
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.
Tale mi je všeč: Bradley, Petrie in Dumais. Mislite, da sem goljufal, da sem označil malo preveč belo mejo? Koliko vas vidi mejo, kjer Neckerjeva kocka lebdi pred krogi? Jo vidite? Veste, v bistvu je meja nekako res tam. Možgani ustvarjajo to mejo, ki poteka točno tukaj. Opazite, da lahko kocko vidite na dva načina? To je Neckerjeva kocka. Jo lahko vsi vidite na dva načina? Prav. Jo lahko vidite na štiri načine? Ker obstaja še en način. Če jo vidite kot kocko, ki lebdi pred nekaj krogi, nekaj črnimi krogi, potem obstaja še en način gledanja. Kot kocka na črnem ozadju, ki jo gledamo skozi švicarski sir.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
Can you get it? How many of you can't get it? That'll help.
Vidite? Koliko vas vidi? To bo pomagalo.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
Zdaj vidite. To sta dva različna pojava. Ko kocko vidite izza zaslona, meje izginejo. A ostaja še določeno polnilo, kot lahko vidimo tule. Nimamo težav videti kocko, a kje se spremeni barva? Ali možgani pošljejo na delo majhne slikarje? Se vijolični in zeleni malarji borijo za to, kdo bo pobarval kos za zaslonom? Ne. Možgani se ne ukvarjajo s tem. Ni jim treba zapolniti tega. Ko sem začel govoriti o primeru Bradleya, Petrieja in Dumaisa, ki ste ga pravkar videli, naj ga še enkrat pokažem - sem dejal, da tam ni polnila. Predvideval sem, da je to splošna resnica, da vedno drži. A Rob van Lier je pred kratkim pokazal, da ni 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.
Če mislite, da vidite bledo rumeno, bom še nekajkrat pokazal. Glejte na siva območja, morda boste videli nekakšne sence, ki se premikajo. Noro, ne? Nič ni tam. Nobenega trika ni. (Nezmožnost opaziti spremembe na slikah) To je delo Rona Rensinka, ki ga je nekako navdihnil predlog na koncu knjige. Naj ustavim tole za trenutek.
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."
To je slepota za spremembo. Videli boste dve sliki, kjer je ena malce drugačna. Tu sta rdeča in siva streha in med njima bo maska za četrtinko sekunde, kar je samo prazen zaslon. Videli boste prvo sliko, potem masko, potem drugo sliko, potem masko. To se bo nadaljevalo, vi pa morate pritisniti gumb, ko vidite spremembo. Pokažimo original za 240 milisekund. Praznina. Druga slika za 240 milisekund. Praznina. In tako naprej, dokler udeleženec ne pritisne gumba, kar pomeni: "Vidim spremembo."
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?
Bodimo zdaj mi udeleženci poskusa. Začeli bomo enostavno. Nekaj primerov. Brez težav.. Vsi vidite? V redu. Rensinkovi udeleženci so potrebovali malo več kot sekundo za pritisk na gumb. Vidite tole? 2,9 sekunde. Koliko vas še vidi? Kakšna je streha na tistem seniku?
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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?
Enostavno je. Je most ali dok? Še nekaj bolj dramatičnih pride, potem pa končam. Morate videti nekaj prav osupljivih. Tale je tako velika, a vseeno jo je težko opaziti. Vidite?
Audience: Yes.
(občinstvo:) 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.
(Dan Dennett:) Vidite, kako gredo sence naprej in nazaj? Noro. Tule je povprečni čas udeležencev, 15,5 sekund.
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?
Tega obožujem. Ta bo zadnji, ker je tako očiten in pomemben. Koliko vas še ne vidi? Koliko vas še ne vidi? Koliko motorjev je na krilu tega Boeinga?
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
Sredi slike! Hvala za pozornost. Pokazati sem vam hotel, da znanstveniki, ki uporabljajo metode od zunaj, z vidika tretje osebe, lahko povedo stvari o vaši zavesti, o katerih vi ne bi niti sanjali, in da vi niste tak gospodar svoje zavesti, kot mislite, da ste. Velik napredek dosegamo pri razvoju 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."
Jeff Hawkins je zjutraj opisoval poskus priti do dobre velike teorije v nevroznanosti. Prav ima. V tem je problem. Nekoč sem bil na predavanju Harvardske šole medicine, kjer je direktor laboratorija dejal: "Pri nas imamo pregovor, da če delate na enem nevronu, je to nevroznanost. Če delate na dveh, pa je psihologija."
(Laughter)
(smeh)
We have to have more theory, and it can come as much from the top down.
Potrebujemo več teorije in ta lahko pride tudi od zgoraj.
Thank you very much.
Hvala lepa.
(Applause)
(aplavz)