Right now you have a movie playing inside your head. It's an amazing multi-track movie. It has 3D vision and surround sound for what you're seeing and hearing right now, but that's just the start of it. Your movie has smell and taste and touch. It has a sense of your body, pain, hunger, orgasms. It has emotions, anger and happiness. It has memories, like scenes from your childhood playing before you. And it has this constant voiceover narrative in your stream of conscious thinking. At the heart of this movie is you experiencing all this directly. This movie is your stream of consciousness, the subject of experience of the mind and the world.
Prav zdaj se v vaši glavi vrti film. Je neverjeten film. Ima 3D grafiko in prostorski zvok za tisto, kar vidite in slišite prav zdaj, ampak to je šele začetek. Vaš film omogoča tudi vonj in okus in dotik. Podaja vse občutke vašega telesa, bolečino, lakoto, orgazme. Vsebuje čustva; jezo in srečo. Kaže spomine, kot so podobe iz vašega otroštva, ki se vrtijo pred vami. In ima stalni komentar, ki se odvija skupaj s tokom vaše zavesti. Zvezda tega filma ste vi, ki vse to neposredno izkušate. Ta film je vaš tok zavesti, zaznavanje lastnega uma in sveta. Zavest je eno od poglavitnih dejstev človeškega obstoja.
Consciousness is one of the fundamental facts of human existence. Each of us is conscious. We all have our own inner movie, you and you and you. There's nothing we know about more directly. At least, I know about my consciousness directly. I can't be certain that you guys are conscious.
Vsak od nas se zaveda. Vsakemu od nas se vrti notranji film, vam in vam in vam. Ničesar ne poznamo bolj neposredno od zavesti. Vsaj o svoji zavesti vem neposredno. Ne morem zares vedeti, ali se vi zavedate.
Consciousness also is what makes life worth living. If we weren't conscious, nothing in our lives would have meaning or value. But at the same time, it's the most mysterious phenomenon in the universe. Why are we conscious? Why do we have these inner movies? Why aren't we just robots who process all this input, produce all that output, without experiencing the inner movie at all? Right now, nobody knows the answers to those questions. I'm going to suggest that to integrate consciousness into science, some radical ideas may be needed.
Zaradi zavesti se nam zdi življenje vredno živeti. Brez zavesti nič v našem življenju ne bi imelo pomena ali vrednosti. Hkrati pa je to najskrivnostnejši pojav v vesolju. Zakaj se zavedamo? Zakaj gledamo te notranje filme? Zakaj nismo le roboti, ki samo obdelujejo vse te podatke, in samo proizvajajo vse te reči, ne da bi ta notranji film zares izkusili? Ta trenutek nihče ne ve odgovora na ta vprašanja. Menim, da bi za vključitev zavesti v znanost, potrebovali nekaj res radikalnih idej.
Some people say a science of consciousness is impossible. Science, by its nature, is objective. Consciousness, by its nature, is subjective. So there can never be a science of consciousness. For much of the 20th century, that view held sway. Psychologists studied behavior objectively, neuroscientists studied the brain objectively, and nobody even mentioned consciousness. Even 30 years ago, when TED got started, there was very little scientific work on consciousness.
Nekateri menijo, da je znanost o zavesti povsem nemogoča. Znanost je, po svoji naravi, objektivna. Zavest je, po svoji naravi, subjektivna. Zato nikoli ne more biti znanosti o zavesti. Večino dvajsetega stoletja se to mnenje ni spremenilo. Psihologi so objektivno preučevali vedenje, nevroznanstveniki so objektivno preučevali možgane, in nihče ni zavesti niti omenil. Celo pred tridesetimi leti, ko se je oblikoval TED, je bilo opravljenih zelo malo raziskav na področju zavesti. Pred približno dvajsetimi leti,
Now, about 20 years ago, all that began to change. Neuroscientists like Francis Crick and physicists like Roger Penrose said now is the time for science to attack consciousness. And since then, there's been a real explosion, a flowering of scientific work on consciousness. And this work has been wonderful. It's been great. But it also has some fundamental limitations so far. The centerpiece of the science of consciousness in recent years has been the search for correlations, correlations between certain areas of the brain and certain states of consciousness. We saw some of this kind of work from Nancy Kanwisher and the wonderful work she presented just a few minutes ago. Now we understand much better, for example, the kinds of brain areas that go along with the conscious experience of seeing faces or of feeling pain or of feeling happy. But this is still a science of correlations. It's not a science of explanations. We know that these brain areas go along with certain kinds of conscious experience, but we don't know why they do. I like to put this by saying that this kind of work from neuroscience is answering some of the questions we want answered about consciousness, the questions about what certain brain areas do and what they correlate with. But in a certain sense, those are the easy problems. No knock on the neuroscientists. There are no truly easy problems with consciousness. But it doesn't address the real mystery at the core of this subject: why is it that all that physical processing in a brain should be accompanied by consciousness at all? Why is there this inner subjective movie? Right now, we don't really have a bead on that.
se je vse to začelo spreminjati. Nevroznanstveniki, kot Francis Crick, in fiziki, kot Roger Penrose, so dejali, da je sedaj čas, da znanost napade zavest. In od tedaj imamo pravo eksplozijo, razcvet znanstvenih raziskav na področju zavesti. In te raziskave so bile čudovite. Bile so odlične. A so do sedaj imele v sebi tudi nekaj temeljnih omejitev. Glavni del znanosti o zavesti v zadnjih letih je bil iskanje medsebojnih povezav, medsebojnih povezav med določenimi deli možganov in določenimi stanji zavesti. Nekaj takih raziskav smo videli s strani Nancy Kanwisher kot je tudi čudovita raziskava, ki jo je predstavila pred nekaj minutami. Zdaj veliko bolje razumemo tiste dele možganov, ki sodelujejo pri zavestnih izkušnjah, kot so gledanje obrazov ali občutenje bolečine, ali biti vesel. A to je še vedno znanost medsebojnih povezav. Ni znanost razlag. Vemo, da ta območja možganov sodelujejo pri določenih zavestnih izkušnjah, a ne vemo, zakaj. To rad opišem tako: da to delo nevroznanstvenikov odgovarja na nekatera vprašanja, ki jih imamo o zavesti. O tem, kaj delajo določeni deli možganov in s čim so povezani. A z drugega vidika, so to lahki problemi. Ne podcenjujem nevroznanstvenikov. Ni zares lahkih vprašanj na področju zavesti. A to se ne dotika prave skrivnosti, ki je v središču te tematike: zakaj sploh mora vso fizično delovanje v možganih spremljati tudi zavest? Zakaj sploh obstaja ta subjektivni notranji film? Ta trenutek se nam sploh ne sanja, zakaj.
And you might say, let's just give neuroscience a few years. It'll turn out to be another emergent phenomenon like traffic jams, like hurricanes, like life, and we'll figure it out. The classical cases of emergence are all cases of emergent behavior, how a traffic jam behaves, how a hurricane functions, how a living organism reproduces and adapts and metabolizes, all questions about objective functioning. You could apply that to the human brain in explaining some of the behaviors and the functions of the human brain as emergent phenomena: how we walk, how we talk, how we play chess, all these questions about behavior. But when it comes to consciousness, questions about behavior are among the easy problems. When it comes to the hard problem, that's the question of why is it that all this behavior is accompanied by subjective experience? And here, the standard paradigm of emergence, even the standard paradigms of neuroscience, don't really, so far, have that much to say.
In lahko bi rekli, pustimo nevroznanosti nekaj let. Izkazalo se bo, da je to še en nastajajoč pojav, kot prometni zamaški, kot orkanske nevihte, kot življenje in bomo že našli odgovor. Klasični primeri nastajanja, so vsi primeri nastajajočega vedenja, kako se obnaša prometni zastoj, kako deluje orkanska nevihta, kako se razmnožuje živ organizem in kako se prilagaja in presnavlja, vsa so vprašanja o objektivnem delovanju. To bi lahko prenesli na človeške možgane, za razlago nekaterih vedenj in funkcij človeških možganov kot nastajajočih pojavov: kako hodimo, kako govorimo, kako igramo šah, vsa ta vprašanja o vedenju. A ko pridemo do zavesti, so vprašanja glede vedenja ena lažjih. Ko pride do težkega vprašanja, vprašanja, zakaj je tako, da je vse to vedenje pospremljeno s subjektivno izkušnjo? In tukaj standardna paradigma nastajanja, celo standardna paradigma nevroznanosti, do sedaj nimata veliko za povedati.
Now, I'm a scientific materialist at heart. I want a scientific theory of consciousness that works, and for a long time, I banged my head against the wall looking for a theory of consciousness in purely physical terms that would work. But I eventually came to the conclusion that that just didn't work for systematic reasons. It's a long story, but the core idea is just that what you get from purely reductionist explanations in physical terms, in brain-based terms, is stories about the functioning of a system, its structure, its dynamics, the behavior it produces, great for solving the easy problems — how we behave, how we function — but when it comes to subjective experience — why does all this feel like something from the inside? — that's something fundamentally new, and it's always a further question. So I think we're at a kind of impasse here. We've got this wonderful, great chain of explanation, we're used to it, where physics explains chemistry, chemistry explains biology, biology explains parts of psychology. But consciousness doesn't seem to fit into this picture. On the one hand, it's a datum that we're conscious. On the other hand, we don't know how to accommodate it into our scientific view of the world. So I think consciousness right now is a kind of anomaly, one that we need to integrate into our view of the world, but we don't yet see how. Faced with an anomaly like this, radical ideas may be needed, and I think that we may need one or two ideas that initially seem crazy before we can come to grips with consciousness scientifically.
Po srcu sem znanstveni materialist. Hočem znanstveno teorijo zavesti, ki deluje. Dolgo časa sem si razbijal glavo in iskal teorijo zavesti v povsem fizičnem pomenu, ki bi delovala. A sčasoma sem prišel do zaključka, da to ne deluje iz čisto sistematičnih razlogov. To je dolga zgodba, a bistvo je, da to, kar dobite iz povsem zreduciranih razlag, v čisto fizičnem pomenu, na osnovi možganov, so zgodbe o delovanju sistema, o njegovi strukturi, dinamiki, vedenju, ki ga povzroča, odlično za reševanje lahkih problemov - kako se vedemo, kako delujemo - a ko pridemo do subjektivne izkušnje - zakaj je to čutiti kot nekaj od znotraj? - to je nekaj temeljno novega, in je vedno tisto naslednje vprašanje. Tako mislim, da smo prišli na neprehodno točko. Imamo to čudovito verigo razlag, ki smo je navajeni, kjer fizika razlaga kemijo, kemija razlaga biologijo, biologija razlaga dele psihologije. A zavest nekako ne sodi v ta kontekst. Na eni strani je dejstvo, da se zavedamo. Po drugi strani, ne vemo, kako jo vključiti v naš znanstveni pogled na svet. Zato mislim, da je v tem trenutku zavest neke vrste anomalija, ki jo moramo vključiti v naš pogled na svet, a še ne vemo, kako. Ko se soočimo s tako anomalijo, so mogoče potrebne radikalne ideje in mislim, da potrebujemo eno ali dve, ki se spočetka zdita nori, preden se lahko spoprimemo z zavestjo na znanstven način. Obstaja nekaj kandidatk za te nore ideje.
Now, there are a few candidates for what those crazy ideas might be. My friend Dan Dennett, who's here today, has one. His crazy idea is that there is no hard problem of consciousness. The whole idea of the inner subjective movie involves a kind of illusion or confusion. Actually, all we've got to do is explain the objective functions, the behaviors of the brain, and then we've explained everything that needs to be explained. Well I say, more power to him. That's the kind of radical idea that we need to explore if you want to have a purely reductionist brain-based theory of consciousness. At the same time, for me and for many other people, that view is a bit too close to simply denying the datum of consciousness to be satisfactory. So I go in a different direction. In the time remaining, I want to explore two crazy ideas that I think may have some promise.
Moj prijatelj, Dan Dennett, ki je danes tu, ima eno. Po njegovem sploh ni težkega problema na področju zavesti Da cela ideja notranjega subjektivnega filma vključuje neko vrsto iluzije ali zmede. Potrebno je samo razložiti objektivne funkcije, vedenje možganov. in s tem smo pojasnili vse, kar je treba pojasniti. Jaz pravim, zaploskajmo mu. To je taka radikalna ideja, ki bi jo morali raziskati. Če želite imeti povsem zreducirano teorijo zavesti, ki temelji na možganih. Istočasno je zame in mnoge druge ta pogled preveč podoben enostavnemu zanikanju obstoja zavesti da bi bil zadovoljiv. Zato bom šel v drugo smer. V času, ki ga še imamo, bi želel raziskati dve nori ideji, ki bi lahko bili obetavni.
The first crazy idea is that consciousness is fundamental. Physicists sometimes take some aspects of the universe as fundamental building blocks: space and time and mass. They postulate fundamental laws governing them, like the laws of gravity or of quantum mechanics. These fundamental properties and laws aren't explained in terms of anything more basic. Rather, they're taken as primitive, and you build up the world from there. Now sometimes, the list of fundamentals expands. In the 19th century, Maxwell figured out that you can't explain electromagnetic phenomena in terms of the existing fundamentals — space, time, mass, Newton's laws — so he postulated fundamental laws of electromagnetism and postulated electric charge as a fundamental element that those laws govern. I think that's the situation we're in with consciousness. If you can't explain consciousness in terms of the existing fundamentals — space, time, mass, charge — then as a matter of logic, you need to expand the list. The natural thing to do is to postulate consciousness itself as something fundamental, a fundamental building block of nature. This doesn't mean you suddenly can't do science with it. This opens up the way for you to do science with it. What we then need is to study the fundamental laws governing consciousness, the laws that connect consciousness to other fundamentals: space, time, mass, physical processes. Physicists sometimes say that we want fundamental laws so simple that we could write them on the front of a t-shirt. Well I think something like that is the situation we're in with consciousness. We want to find fundamental laws so simple we could write them on the front of a t-shirt. We don't know what those laws are yet, but that's what we're after.
Prva nora ideja je, da je zavest temeljna. Fiziki včasih nekatere elemente vesolja označijo za temeljne zidake: prostor in čas in masa. Zastavijo temeljne zakone, ki jim vladajo, zakone gravitacije ali kvantne mehanike. Te temeljne lastnosti in zakoni niso razloženi z nečim še bolj osnovnim. Namesto tega so razumljeni kot osnova iz katerih se gradi svet. Občasno se ta seznam razširi. V devetnajstem stoletju je Maxwell ugotovil, da ne morete razložiti elektromagnetnih pojavov z obstoječimi osnovami - prostor, čas, masa, Newtonovi zakoni - zato je osnoval temeljne zakone elektromagnetizma in postavil električni naboj kot temeljni element, ki mu ti zakoni vladajo. Mislim, da smo v podobnem položaju glede zavesti. Če zavesti ne morete razložiti z obstoječimi temeljnimi pojmi - prostor, čas, masa, naboj - potem je stvar logike, da morate seznam razširiti. Naravno je torej postaviti prav zavest kot nekaj temeljnega, temeljni gradnik narave. To ne pomeni, da nenadoma z njo ne morete biti znanstveni. To vam odpre pot, da se z njo znanstveno ukvarjate. Potem moramo preučiti temeljne zakone, ki zavesti vladajo, zakone, ki zavest povezujejo z ostalimi temelji: prostor, čas, masa, fizični procesi. Fiziki včasih pravijo, da želimo tako preproste temeljne zakone, da bi jih lahko napisali na majico. Mislim, da je to podobno položaju, v katerem smo pri zavesti. Želimo tako preproste temeljne zakone, da bi jih lahko napisali na majico. Ne vemo še, kaj so ti zakoni, a to je, kar iščemo.
The second crazy idea is that consciousness might be universal. Every system might have some degree of consciousness. This view is sometimes called panpsychism: pan for all, psych for mind, every system is conscious, not just humans, dogs, mice, flies, but even Rob Knight's microbes, elementary particles. Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. The idea is not that photons are intelligent or thinking. It's not that a photon is wracked with angst because it's thinking, "Aww, I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light. I never get to slow down and smell the roses." No, not like that. But the thought is maybe photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling, some primitive precursor to consciousness.
Druga nora ideja je, da je zavest nekaj univerzalnega. Vsak sistem bi lahko imel neko stopnjo zavesti. Ta nazor se včasih imenuje 'panpsihizem': 'pan' za vse in 'psih' za um, vsak sistem ima zavest, ne le ljudje, psi, miši, muhe, ampak celo mikrobi Roba Knighta, elementarni delci. Celo foton ima neko stopnjo zavesti. To ne pomeni, da so fotoni inteligentni ali misleči. To ne pomeni, da se foton spopada s tesnobo, ker misli: "Ah, vedno frčim naokrog s skoraj svetlobno hitrostjo. Nikoli se ne morem ustaviti, da bi povohal cvetlice." Ne, ni tako. A fotoni bi lahko imeli elemente surovega, subjektivnega občutka, neke vrste primitiven predhodnik zavesti.
This may sound a bit kooky to you. I mean, why would anyone think such a crazy thing? Some motivation comes from the first crazy idea, that consciousness is fundamental. If it's fundamental, like space and time and mass, it's natural to suppose that it might be universal too, the way they are. It's also worth noting that although the idea seems counterintuitive to us, it's much less counterintuitive to people from different cultures, where the human mind is seen as much more continuous with nature.
To se vam lahko zdi malce noro. Le zakaj bi nekdo pomislil na kaj takega? Nekaj motivacije prihaja iz prve nore ideje: da je zavest temeljna. Če je temeljna, kot prostor, čas in masa, je naravno sklepati, da je mogoče tudi univerzalna, tako kot so oni. Vredno si je zapomniti, da čeprav se nam ideja zdi čudna, je veliko manj čudna ljudem iz različnih kultur, kjer je človeški um veliko bolj skladen z naravo.
A deeper motivation comes from the idea that perhaps the most simple and powerful way to find fundamental laws connecting consciousness to physical processing is to link consciousness to information. Wherever there's information processing, there's consciousness. Complex information processing, like in a human, complex consciousness. Simple information processing, simple consciousness.
Globlji motiv prihaja iz ideje, da je mogoče najpreprostejši in najboljši način za odkritje temeljnih zakonov, ki povezujejo zavest in fizično obdelavo, povezava zavesti z informacijami. Kjerkoli se obdelujejo informacije, obstaja tudi zavest. Zapletena obdelava informacij, kot pri ljudeh, zapletena zavest. Enostavna obdelava, preprosta zavest.
A really exciting thing is in recent years a neuroscientist, Giulio Tononi, has taken this kind of theory and developed it rigorously with a mathematical theory. He has a mathematical measure of information integration which he calls phi, measuring the amount of information integrated in a system. And he supposes that phi goes along with consciousness. So in a human brain, incredibly large amount of information integration, high degree of phi, a whole lot of consciousness. In a mouse, medium degree of information integration, still pretty significant, pretty serious amount of consciousness. But as you go down to worms, microbes, particles, the amount of phi falls off. The amount of information integration falls off, but it's still non-zero. On Tononi's theory, there's still going to be a non-zero degree of consciousness. In effect, he's proposing a fundamental law of consciousness: high phi, high consciousness. Now, I don't know if this theory is right, but it's actually perhaps the leading theory right now in the science of consciousness, and it's been used to integrate a whole range of scientific data, and it does have a nice property that it is in fact simple enough you can write it on the front of a t-shirt.
Zares razburljiva novica zadnjih let je znanstvenik, Giulio Tononi, ki se je oprl na tako teorijo in jo podrobno razvil z matematično teorijo. Ima matematično mero integracije informacij, ki jo imenuje phi, merjenje količine informacij, ki so vključene v sistem. In meni, da gre phi skupaj z zavestjo. Torej v človeških možganih je visoka stopnja integracije informacij, visoka stopnja phi, veliko zavesti. Pri miših, srednja stopnja integracije informacij, še vedno omembe vredno, kar resna mera zavesti, A ko se spustite k črvom, mikrobom, delcem, količina phi pade. Količina sprejemanja informacij pade, a je še vedno več od nič. Po Tononijevi teoriji, bo tam še vedno ne-nična stopnja zavesti. Pravzaprav predlaga temeljni zakon zavesti: visok phi, visoka stopnja zavesti. Ne vem, ali ima teorija prav, a je v tem trenutku mogoče vodilna teorija v znanosti o zavesti. Uporabili so jo za integracijo cele vrste znanstvenih podatkov in ima lepo lastnost, da je res dovolj preprosta, da jo napišete na majico. Še zadnji motiv je,
Another final motivation is that panpsychism might help us to integrate consciousness into the physical world. Physicists and philosophers have often observed that physics is curiously abstract. It describes the structure of reality using a bunch of equations, but it doesn't tell us about the reality that underlies it. As Stephen Hawking puts it, what puts the fire into the equations? Well, on the panpsychist view, you can leave the equations of physics as they are, but you can take them to be describing the flux of consciousness. That's what physics really is ultimately doing, describing the flux of consciousness. On this view, it's consciousness that puts the fire into the equations. On that view, consciousness doesn't dangle outside the physical world as some kind of extra. It's there right at its heart.
da nam panpsihizem lahko morda pomaga integrirati zavest v fizični svet. Fiziki in filozofi so pogosto opazili, da je fizika nenavadno abstraktna. Opisuje strukturo realnosti z uporabo kopice enačb, a nam ne razlaga realnosti, ki je v njenem ozadju. Kot je dejal Stephen Hawking, kaj daje žar enačbam? S stališča panpsihistov lahko pustite fizikalne enačbe kot so, a jih jemljete, kot da opisujejo tok zavesti. Kajti to konec koncev fizika počne, opisuje tok zavesti. S tega vidika je zavest tisto, kar daje enačbam žar. S tega vidika, zavest ne obstaja zunaj fizičnega sveta, kot nekaj dodatnega. Je prav tu v njegovem središču.
This view, I think, the panpsychist view, has the potential to transfigure our relationship to nature, and it may have some pretty serious social and ethical consequences. Some of these may be counterintuitive. I used to think I shouldn't eat anything which is conscious, so therefore I should be vegetarian. Now, if you're a panpsychist and you take that view, you're going to go very hungry. So I think when you think about it, this tends to transfigure your views, whereas what matters for ethical purposes and moral considerations, not so much the fact of consciousness, but the degree and the complexity of consciousness.
Ta, panpsihistični pogled, ima po mojem mnenju potencial, da preoblikuje naš odnos z naravo in ima morda precej resne socialne in etične posledice. Nekatere od teh so mogoče v nasprotju z občutki. Nekoč sem menil, da ne bi smel pojesti ničesar z zavestjo, zato bi moral biti vegetarijanec. Če ste panpsihist in zavzamete to stališče, boste zelo lačni. Zato, če pomislite, lahko to zelo preoblikuje vaša načela, bodisi na področju etike in moralnih vprašanj; ne samo dejstvo zavesti, ampak stopnja in kompleksnost zavesti. Naravno se je vprašati o zavesti v drugih sistemih - računalnikih.
It's also natural to ask about consciousness in other systems, like computers. What about the artificially intelligent system in the movie "Her," Samantha? Is she conscious? Well, if you take the informational, panpsychist view, she certainly has complicated information processing and integration, so the answer is very likely yes, she is conscious. If that's right, it raises pretty serious ethical issues about both the ethics of developing intelligent computer systems and the ethics of turning them off.
Kaj pa umetno inteligentni istem v filmu "Ona", Samantha? Ali ima zavest? Če pogledate z informacijskega, panpsihističnega vidika, sta tu gotovo zapletena obdelava informacij in integracija, zato je odgovor najverjetneje, ja, ima zavest. In če je to res, se pojavijo precej resna etična vprašanja o etiki razvoja inteligentnih računalnikov pa tudi o etiki njihovega ugašanja.
Finally, you might ask about the consciousness of whole groups, the planet. Does Canada have its own consciousness? Or at a more local level, does an integrated group like the audience at a TED conference, are we right now having a collective TED consciousness, an inner movie for this collective TED group which is distinct from the inner movies of each of our parts? I don't know the answer to that question, but I think it's at least one worth taking seriously.
Končno bi lahko vprašali o zavesti celotnih skupin, planeta. Ima Kanada svojo zavest? Ali bolj lokalno, ali ima integrirana skupina, kot je občinstvo na TED konferenci, ali imamo v tem trenutku kolektivno TED zavest, notranji film za to TED skupino, ki se razlikuje od notranjih filmov vsakega posameznika? Odgovora ne poznam, a mislim, da je eno od tistih, ki ga je vredno resno preučiti. Ta panpsihistični pogled je radikalen
Okay, so this panpsychist vision, it is a radical one, and I don't know that it's correct. I'm actually more confident about the first crazy idea, that consciousness is fundamental, than about the second one, that it's universal. I mean, the view raises any number of questions, has any number of challenges, like how do those little bits of consciousness add up to the kind of complex consciousness we know and love. If we can answer those questions, then I think we're going to be well on our way to a serious theory of consciousness. If not, well, this is the hardest problem perhaps in science and philosophy. We can't expect to solve it overnight. But I do think we're going to figure it out eventually. Understanding consciousness is a real key, I think, both to understanding the universe and to understanding ourselves. It may just take the right crazy idea.
in ne vem ali je pravilen. Veliko bolj zaupam prvi nori ideji, da je zavest temeljna, kot drugi, da je univerzalna. Ta pogled sproža številna vprašanja in skriva številne izzive, na primer: kako se vsi ti mali koščki zavesti seštevajo v to kompleksno zavest, ki jo ljubimo in poznamo. Če bomo odgovorili na ta vprašanja, mislim, da bomo na dobri poti k resni teoriji o zavesti. Če ne... To je morda najtežji problem v znanosti in filozofiji. Ne moremo pričakovati rešitve čez noč. A mislim, da jo bomo sčasoma našli. Razumevanje zavesti, je resnično ključ. Tako do razumevanja vesolja, kot tudi nas samih. Mogoče potrebujemo samo pravo noro idejo. Hvala.
Thank you.
(Aplavz)
(Applause)