So I'm going to speak about a problem that I have and that's that I'm a philosopher.
Govoriću o jednom problemu koji imam a to je da sam ja 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.
Kada odem na zabavu i kada me pitaju čime se bavim i ja im odgovorim "Ja sam profesor", oni prevrnu očima. Kada odem na akademsku zabavu gde su svuda samo profesori, i kada me pitaju kojom se oblašću bavim i ja kažem filozofijom - oni prevrnu očima.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
When I go to a philosopher's party
Kada odem na zabavu filozofa
(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.
i kada me pitaju na kojoj temi radim i ja kažem na svesnosti, oni ne prevrnu očima -- oni zareže na mene.
(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.
I dobijem brdo podsmeha i kokodakanja i lajanja zato što pomisle: "To je nemoguće! Ne možeš objasniti svest." Sama pomisao da bi neko mogao misliti da je moguće objasniti svest 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 nekadašnji prijatelj Bob Nozik, odličan filozof, u jednoj od svojih knjiga, "Filozoska Objašnjenja", komentariše sam karakter filozofije -- način na koji filozofi rade svoj posao. I on tu kaže, znate, "Filozofi vole racionalne argumente". I kaže, "Čini se da je idealan argument za većinu filozofa kada date svojoj publici premise i potom ih uputite u proces zaključivanja i date im i sam zaključak, i ukoliko ne prihvate taj zaključak, oni umiru. Njihove glave ekslplodiraju. "Ideja je da imate argument koji je toliko moćan da obara vaše suparnike. Ali u suštini to uopšte ne menja nečije 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.
Jako je teško da promenite nečije mišljenje pogotovo oko nečega kao što je svest, i najzad sam došao do objašnjenja zašto je to tako. Razlog tome jeste da su svi eksperti na temu svesnosti. Pre neki dan smo čuli da svako ima čvrsto mišljenje o video igricama. Svi imaju ideju o video igricama, čak i ukoliko nisu eksperti. Ali oni ne smatraju sebe ekspertima za video igrice, oni samo imaju čvrsta mišljenja. Siguran sam da ljudi koji rade na, recimo, klimatskim promenama i globalnom zagrevanju, ili o budućnosti interneta, srećo ljude koji imaju jako čvrsta mišljenja o tome šta će se sledeće desiti. Ali oni sigurno ne misle da ih ta čvrsta mišljenja čine ekspertima. Oni samo imaju čvrsta mišljenja. Ali kada se radi o svesnosti, ljudi izgleda da misle, svaki od nas misli, "Ja sam ekspert. Jednostavno zbog toga što sam svestan, znam sve o tome." I tako, kada im iznesete svoju teoriju oni odgovore, "Ne, ne, to nije svesnost! Ne, pogrešno ste shvatili". I oni to kažu sa neverovatnim samopouzdanjem.
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.
I ono što ću ja pokušati da uradim danas jeste da uzdrmam vaše samopouzdanje. Zato što mi je poznato to osećanje -- imam ga i ja. Želim da uzdrmam vašu sigurnost u ono što se nalazi duboko u vašim umovima -- a to je da ste vi sami autoriteti svoje svesnosti. To je glavni današnji zadatak ovde.
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.
Sada, ova fina slika pokazuje jedan misaoni balončić. Misaoni mehurić. Mislim da svi razumeju šta to znači. Ona bi trebalo da prikaže jedan misaoni tok. Ovo je moja omiljena slika svesnosti koja je ikada urađena. To je Sol Stajnberg naravno -- to je bilo na naslovnici Njujorkera. I ovaj lik ovde posmatra sliku Braha. I to ga asocira na reč barok, baraka, kora, pudla, Suzana R. -- i on je isključen sa trke. Ovo je fenomenalan prikaz toka svesti i ukoliko ga ispratite, naučićete mnogo o ovom čoveku. Ono što ja naročito volim kod ove slike, jeste to što je Stajnberg odradio ovog čoveka nekom vrstom pointilističkog stila.
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 podseća, kako je Rod Bruks rekao juče: ono šta smo mi, šta je svako od nas -- šta si ti, šta sam ja -- je približno oko 100 triliona malih ćelija-robota. Od toga smo sačinjeni. Bez drugih dodataka. Napravljeni smo isključivo od ćelija, oko 100 triliona njih. Niti jedna jedina od njih nije svesna, ni jedna jedina od njih nema pojma o tome ko si ti, niti je briga. Nekako, mi moramo da objasnimo kako to da kada spojimo timove, armije, bataljone hiljada miliona malih nesvesnih ćelija-robota -- ne toliko različitih od bakterije, svaka od njih -- rezultat je ovo. Mislim, pa pogledajte samo. Sadržaj -- tu su boje, tu su ideje, tu su sećanja, tu je istorija. I nekako je ceo taj sadržaj svesnosti postignut aktivnošću te horde neurona. Kako je to moguće? Mnogi ljudi misle da to uopšte i nije moguće. Oni misle, "Ne, ne može postojati nikakva vrsta naturalističkog objašnjenja svesnosti."
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 Li Sigela, profesora religije na Univeerzitetu na Havajima, i on je ekspert na polju magije, i ekspert ulične magije Indije, o čemu zapravo govori i knjiga, "Mreža magije". I tu je i jedan deo koji bih želeo da podelim sa vama. Tako lepo govori o ovom problemu. "'Pišem knjigu o magiji,' objasnih, i postavljeno mi je pitanje, 'Pravoj magiji?' Pod pravom magijom, ljudi podrazumevaju čuda, magična dela, natprirodne moći. 'Ne', odgovorih. 'Obični trikovi, ne prava magija.' Prava magija, drugim rečima, se odnosi na magiju koja nije prava, dok magija koja se zapravo može izvesti, nije prava magija."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Now, that's the way a lot of people feel about consciousness.
E sada, to je način na koji ljudi najčešće doživljavaju svesnost.
(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 svesnost nije vreća trikova. Ako nameravate da je objasnite kao vreću trikova, onda to nije prava svest, šta god da je u pitanju. I, kao što je Marvin rekao, i kao što su drugi ljudi rekli, "Svest je samo vreća trikova". To znači da su mnogi ljudi ostali potpuno nezadovoljeni i nepoverljivi kada sam pokušao da im objasnim svesnost. Tako da to je problem. Tako ja moram da se potrudim da odradim jedan posao koji se većini neće dopasti, iz istog razloga iz kog ne volite da vidite objašnjenje nekog mađioničarskog trika. Koliko vas ovde, ako i iko -- možda neki pametnjaković -- kada neko počne da vam objašnjava kako je neki trik izveden, vi poželite da prekrijete oči i kažete, "Ne, ne, ne želim da znam! Nemoj da mi oduvaš čaroliju. Neka ostane tajnovito. Nemoj da mi odaš rešenje." Mnogi ljudi se tako osećaju kada je u pitanju svesnost, otkrio sam. I izvinjavam se ako sam vam nemetnuo neku jasnoću, neko razumevanje. Bolje da odete odmah ako ne želite da saznate neke od ovih 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. Uradiću ono što svi filozofi rade. Evo kako filozof objašnjava damu presečenu na pola u triku. Znate li za trik sa damom presečenom na pola? Filozof kaže, "Sada ću vam objasniti kako se to radi. Vidite, mađioničar zapravo ne seče damu na pola."
(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."
"On samo učini da vi mislite da on to radi." I vi kažete "Da, ali kako on to uradi?" A on odgovori, "O, to već nije moje područje, žao mi je."
(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.
E sada ću vam ilustrovati kako filozofi objašnjavaju svesnost. Ali pokušaću takođe i da vam dokažem da svesnost i nije baš toliko veličanstvena -- vaša lična svest nije tako predivna -- kako vi inače mislite da je. To je nešto, između ostalog, o čemu Li Sigel govori u svojoj knjizi. On prvo sa oduševljenjem najavljuje magični šou, i posle toga ljudi će se zakleti da su ga videli da radi X, Y i Z. A on nikada ne uradi te stvari. Nije se čak ni potrudio da ih uradi. Ljudska memorija naduvava ono što su mislili da su videli. I ista je i istina o svesnosti.
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.
Sada da vidimo da li će ovo da radi. U redu. Pogledajmo sada ovo. Gledajte pažljivo. Radim sa jednim mladim komjuter-animatorom dokumentarac zove se Nik Dimer, i ovo je jedan mali demo koji je uradio za mene, deo jednog većeg projekta za koji bi neki od vas možda bili zainteresovani. Tražimo nekog da nas pokriva. To je dugometražni dokumentarac o svesnosti. Ok, svi ste videli šta se promenilo, je l' da? Koliko vas je primetilo da je svaki od ovih kvadrata promenio boju? Svi. Pokazaću vam još jednom. Čak i kada znate da će promeniti boju, veoma je teško primetiti. Morate se jako skoncentrisati da bi uhvatili bilo koju promenu.
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.
E sada, ovo je primer -- jedan od mnogih -- fenomena koji će se sada prostudirati. O ovome sam govorio na poslednjim stranama svoje knjige iz 1991, "Objašnjenje svesnosti", gde sam istakao da ako sprovodite eksperimente ove vrste, otkrićete da ljudi nisu sposobni da primete izuzetno velike promene. Ako nam ostane vremena pri kraju, pokazaću vam još dramatičniji primer. Sada, kako je moguće da se tolike promene dese, a mi ih nismo svesni? Nešto ranije danas, Džef Hokins je spominjao očne sakade, način na koji se oči pokreću tri do četiri puta u sekundi. Nije spomenuo brzinu. Vaše oko je konstantno u pokretu, kreće se naokolo, gleda oči, noseve, laktove, posmatra interesantne stvari u svetu. I tamo gde vaše oči ne gledaju, vi ste neverovatno uskraćeni za potpun doživljaj. To je iz razloga što je vaš fovalni deo oka, koji je i deo sa najvećom rezolucijom, veličine vašeg nokta na palcu kada ga držite na udaljenosti dužine vaše ispružene ruke. To je deo za detalje. Ne deluje baš tako, zar ne? Ne deluje, ali upravo je tako. Dobijate 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.
Ovo je jedan potpuno drugačiji efekat. Ovo je Belotoova slika. Nalazi se u muzeju Severne Karoline. Beloto je bio Kanaletov student. I ja jako volim takve slike -- slika je otprlike iste veličine kao ova ovde. I ja volim Kanaleta, jer on na slikama prikazuje neverovatne detalje, i možete se približiti i videti sve te detalje na slici. Tako sam ja krenuo holom u Severnoj Karolini, jer sam mislio da je to verovatno Kanaleto, i mislio da ću videti svaki detalj. I primetio sam da se na mostu nalazi mnogo ljudi -- jedva da ih možete i videti uopšte kako prelaze most. Pomislio sam kako sam prilazio bliže da ću videti sve detalje većine ljudi, videti njihovu odeću, i tako redom. I kako sam prilazio bliže i bliže, zamalo sam vrisnuo. Uzviknuo sam jer kako sam prišao bliže, otkrio sam da detalji uopšte ne postoje. Tu su bili samo mali balončići boje. I kako sam prilazio slici, očekivao sam detalje koji uopšte nisu bili tu. Umetnik je veoma domišljato pretpostavio ljude i odeću vagone i svakojake stvari, i moj mozak je prihvatio tu 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.
Poznata vam je skorašnja tehnologija, koja je -- tu. Možete dobiti bolji prikaz balončića. Vidite, kada se približite oni su samo balončići boje. Videli ste nešto ovako -- ovo je obrnuti efekat. Daću 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.
E sad, šta vaš mozak radi kada prihvati sugestiju? Kada oblikovani balončić boje, ili dva, urađeni od strane umetnika, nagoveštavaju osobu -- recimo, jednu od Marvin Minskijevih malih društava uma -- da li oni šalju male slikare da popune sve nedostajeće detalje negde u vašem mozgu? Ne verujem. Nema šanse. Ali onda, za ime boga, kako se to dešava? Pa, sećate se filozofovog objašnjenja prepolovljene dame? Ista je stvar. Mozak samo učini da vi pomislite da su detalji tamo. Vi mislite da su detalji tamo, ali oni nisu. Mozak ne ubacuje detalje u vašu glavu uopšte. Samo čini da vi očekujete 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?
Hajde da uradimo ovaj eksperiment jako brzo. Da li je oblik na levoj strani isti obliku na desnoj, samo rotiran? Da. Koliko vas je to otkrilo tako što su rotirali oblik na levoj strani u svojoj glavi, da bi videli da li se poklapa sa oblikom na desnoj? A koliko od vas su rotirali onaj na desnoj? Ok. A kako znate da ste uradili baš to?
(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.
Odvija se jedna jako interesantna debata tačnije besni već 20 godina u kognitivnoj nauci -- počevši sa različitim eksperimentima Rodžera Šeparda, koji je merio ugaonu brzinu rotacije mentalnih slika. Da, moguće je to raditi. Mada su detalji tog procesa još uvek znatno kontroverzni. I ako budete čitali tu literaturu, jedna od stvari sa kojom ćete morati da se pomirite jeste to da čak i kada ste subjekt u eksperimentu, vi to ne znate. Ne znaš ni kako ti to radiš. Samo znaš da imaš određena uverenja. I ona dolaze određenim redom, u određeno vreme. I šta objašnjava činjenicu da je upravo to ono što misliš? Pa, to je trenutak kada treba da odeš iza pozornice i upitaš mađioničara.
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 figura koju jako volim: Bredli, Petri i Dumejz. Možda pomislite da sam varao, da sam stavio svetlije bele granice ovde. Koliko vas vidi neku vrstu granica, sa Nekerovom kockom kako pluta iznad krugova? Vidite li? Pa znate, u suštini, granice su ipak tu, u određenom smislu. Vaš mozak je zapravo načinio tu granicu, granicu koja ide upravo tuda. Sada, primećujete da postoje dva načina da vidite kocku, je l' da? To je Nekerova kocka. Svi mogu videti dva načina za doživljaj kocke? Ok. Možete li videti četiri načina da je vidite? Jer postoji i drugačiji način kako je možete gledati. Ako je vidite kao kocku koja lebdi ispred nekih krugova, crnih krugova, postoji drugi način da je vidite. Kao kocka, na crnoj pozadini, viđena kao parče švajcarskog sira.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Can you get it? How many of you can't get it? That'll help.
Vidite li? Koliko vas ne može da vidi? Ovo će pomoći.
(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.
Sada je vidite. Ovo su dva veoma različita fenomena. Kada vidite kocku na jedan način, iza ekrana, ove granice nestaju. Ali i dalje postoji neka vrsta popunjavanja, što možemo reći ukoliko pogledamo ovo. Nemamo nikakvih problema da vidimo kocku, ali gde se menja boja? Da li vaš mozak mora da šalje male slikare tamo? Purpurne i zelene slikare koji se bore oko toga ko će da slika iza zavese? Ne. Vaš mozak se samo prepušta. Ne mora da popunjava to. Kada sam prvi put počeo da govorim o Bredlij, Petri, Dumejz primeru koji ste upravo videli -- vratiću se na to, ovo -- rekao sam da ne postoji popunjavanje u pozadini. I pretpostavio sam da je to bila čista istina, uvek ispravna. Ali Rob Van Lier je skoro pokazao da to nije slučaj.
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 da vidite neku bledo žutu -- pustiću ovo još nekoliko puta. Gledajte ove sive delove, i vidite da li vam se čini da vidite neko tajnovito kretanje tamo -- da! To je neverovatno. Tamo nema ničega. I to nije trik. ["Greška u detekciji promena u nauci"] To je rad Rona Rensinka, koji je u izvesnom stepenu bio inspirisan sugestijom na kraju te knjige. Dajte da pauziram ovo na sekund ako je 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 je slepilo za promene. Ono što ćete videti na ovim dvema slikama, jeste da su one prilično drugačije jedna od druge. Vidite ovde jedan crveni krov i jedan sivi, i između njih će biti maska, koja će predstavljati samo prazan ekran, u trajanju od otprilike četvrtinu sekunde. Tako ćete videti prvu sliku, onda masku. I onda drugu sliku, pa opet masku. I tako će se to ponavljati, a vaš posao kao subjekta je da pritisnete dugme kada primetite promenu. Prikaži originalnu sliku na 240 milisekundi. Prazno. Prikaži sledeću sliku na 240 milisekundi. Prazno. I nastavi, dok subjekt ne pritisne dugme, i izgovori "Video sam promenu".
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 subjekti u eksperimentu. Počećemo polako. Nekoliko primera. Nema problema ovde. Mogu li svi da vide? U redu. Zaista, Rensinkovim subjektima je trebalo nešto malo preko jedne sekunde da pritisnu dugme. Vidite li ovu? 2.9 sekundi. Koliko vas još uvek ne vidi? Šta je na krovu tog ambara?
(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?
Ovo je lako. Je li to most ili dok? Ima još nekoliko dramatičnih, i onda završavam. Hoću da vidite nekoliko koji su posebno upečatljivi. Ova zbog toga što je toliko velika a ipak je teško opaziti. 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 li senku koja ide napred - nazad? Prilično veliko. 15 ipo sekundi je prosečno vreme za subjekte u ovom eksperimentu.
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?
Ovu baš volim. Završiću sa njom, jer je ovo jedna tako očigledna i važna stvar. Koliko vas još ne vidi? Koliko vas još ne vidi? Koliko je motora na krilu tog Boinga?
(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.
Tačno u sredini slike! Hvala vam puno na vašoj pažnji. Ono što sam želeo da vam pokažem jeste da naučnici, koristeći spoljne metode iz trećeg lica, mogu da vam kažu stvari o vašoj svesti o kojima ne biste mogli ni da sanjate. A to je, u suštini, da vi niste autoriteti vaše svesnosti u onoj meri u kojoj ste mislili da jeste. I mi zaista pravimo veliki napredak 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."
Džef Hokins je, ovoga jutra, opisivao pokušaj da dođe do teorije, dobre obuhvatne teorije, u neuronauci. I on je u pravu. To jeste problem. Na jednom govoru kome sam prisustvovao, na medicinskom fakultetu na Harvardu, direktor laboratorije je rekao, "U našoj laboratoriji, imamo izreku. Ako radite na jednom neuronu, to je neuronauka. Ako radite na dva neurona, to je psihologija".
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
We have to have more theory, and it can come as much from the top down.
Moramo imati više teorija, a mnogo ih može doći sa vrha prema dnu.
Thank you very much.
Puno vam hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)