Today I'm going to talk to you about the problem of other minds. And the problem I'm going to talk about is not the familiar one from philosophy, which is, "How can we know whether other people have minds?" That is, maybe you have a mind, and everyone else is just a really convincing robot. So that's a problem in philosophy, but for today's purposes I'm going to assume that many people in this audience have a mind, and that I don't have to worry about this.
Danas ću govoriti o problemu drugih umova. Taj problem nije onaj poznati iz filozofije, koji glasi: „Kako možemo znati imaju li drugi ljudi um?" Odnosno, možda vi imate um, a svi drugi su samo uvjerljivi roboti. To je filozofski problem. No, za naše današnje potrebe pretpostavit ću da mnogi u publici imaju um, i da se ne moram brinuti oko toga.
There is a second problem that is maybe even more familiar to us as parents and teachers and spouses and novelists, which is, "Why is it so hard to know what somebody else wants or believes?" Or perhaps, more relevantly, "Why is it so hard to change what somebody else wants or believes?"
Postoji i drugi problem koji nam je možda još bliži kao roditeljima, učiteljima, supružnicima, i romanopiscima. A taj je: „Zašto je tako teško znati što netko drugi želi ili u što vjeruje?" Ili, možda, još važnije, "Zašto je tako teško promijeniti ono što netko želi ili vjeruje?"
I think novelists put this best. Like Philip Roth, who said, "And yet, what are we to do about this terribly significant business of other people? So ill equipped are we all, to envision one another's interior workings and invisible aims." So as a teacher and as a spouse, this is, of course, a problem I confront every day. But as a scientist, I'm interested in a different problem of other minds, and that is the one I'm going to introduce to you today. And that problem is, "How is it so easy to know other minds?"
Mislim da to pisci najbolje prikazuju. Poput Philipa Rotha, koji je rekao, "Pa ipak, što ćemo poduzeti u vezi tog strašno važnog pitanja - drugih ljudi? Vrlo smo loše opremljeni za uvid u unutarnja razmišljanja drugih i njihove nevidljive ciljeve." Kao učiteljica i supruga, s tim se problemom, naravno, srećem svakodnevno. No, kao znanstvenicu zanima me drugi problem u vezi s umovima drugih, i to je onaj koji ću vam danas predstaviti. Taj problem je: "Kako je tako lako upoznati umove drugih?"
So to start with an illustration, you need almost no information, one snapshot of a stranger, to guess what this woman is thinking, or what this man is. And put another way, the crux of the problem is the machine that we use for thinking about other minds, our brain, is made up of pieces, brain cells, that we share with all other animals, with monkeys and mice and even sea slugs. And yet, you put them together in a particular network, and what you get is the capacity to write Romeo and Juliet. Or to say, as Alan Greenspan did, "I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." (Laughter)
Počnimo s ilustracijom: gotovo da vam uopće ne trebaju informacije, kratak pogled na strankinju, i možete pogoditi što ova žena misli, ili što je ovaj čovjek. Drugim riječima, suština problema je ta da se stroj pomoću kojega razmišljamo o drugim umovima, naš mozak, sastoji od dijelova, moždanih stanica, koje dijelimo sa svim drugim životinjama, majmunima, miševima, pa čak i morskim puževima. A opet, povežite ih u specifičnu mrežu, i dobijete kapacitet za stvaranje Romea i Julije. Ili za reći, kao Alan Greenspan, "Znam da mislite kako razumijete što ste mislili da sam rekao, ali nisam siguran kako shvaćate da ono što ste čuli nije ono što sam mislio." (Smijeh)
So, the job of my field of cognitive neuroscience is to stand with these ideas, one in each hand. And to try to understand how you can put together simple units, simple messages over space and time, in a network, and get this amazing human capacity to think about minds. So I'm going to tell you three things about this today. Obviously the whole project here is huge. And I'm going to tell you just our first few steps about the discovery of a special brain region for thinking about other people's thoughts. Some observations on the slow development of this system as we learn how to do this difficult job. And then finally, to show that some of the differences between people, in how we judge others, can be explained by differences in this brain system.
Moje područje kognitivnih neuroznanosti se bavi time da stoji s tim idejama, po jedna u svakoj ruci. I pokušava shvatiti kako možete sklopiti jednostavne jedinice, jednostavne poruke kroz prostor i vrijeme, u mrežu, i dobiti taj zapanjujući ljudski kapacitet za razmišljanje o drugim umovima. Reći ću vam tri stvari o ovome danas. Cijeli ovaj projekt je očito ogroman. I govorit ću samo o nekoliko prvih koraka u otkrivanju specijalne regije mozga koja služi za razmišljanje o tuđim mislima. Nekoliko opažanja o sporom razvoju ovog sustava dok učimo kako obaviti taj težak posao. I zatim, napokon, pokazat ću da se neke razlike među ljudima, to kako procjenjujemo druge, mogu objasniti razlikama u tom sustavu mozga.
So first, the first thing I want to tell you is that there is a brain region in the human brain, in your brains, whose job it is to think about other people's thoughts. This is a picture of it. It's called the Right Temporo-Parietal Junction. It's above and behind your right ear. And this is the brain region you used when you saw the pictures I showed you, or when you read Romeo and Juliet or when you tried to understand Alan Greenspan. And you don't use it for solving any other kinds of logical problems. So this brain region is called the Right TPJ. And this picture shows the average activation in a group of what we call typical human adults. They're MIT undergraduates. (Laughter)
Prva stvar koju vam želim reći je ta da postoji područje u ljudskom mozgu, vašem mozgu, čiji je zadatak razmišljanje o mislima drugih ljudi. Evo prikaza. Zove se desni privremeno-parijetalni čvor (RTPJ). Nalazi se iznad i iza vašeg desnog uha. A ovo je područje mozga koje ste koristili kad ste vidjeli slike koje sam vam pokazala, ili dok ste čitali Romea i Juliju, ili dok ste pokušavali razumjeti Alana Greenspana. To područje ne koristite za rješavanje drugih logičkih problema. Dakle, ta regija mozga zove se RTPJ. A ova slika prikazuje prosječnu aktivaciju kod skupine koju nazivamo tipične odrasle osobe. Oni su studenti MIT-a. (Smijeh)
The second thing I want to say about this brain system is that although we human adults are really good at understanding other minds, we weren't always that way. It takes children a long time to break into the system. I'm going to show you a little bit of that long, extended process. The first thing I'm going to show you is a change between age three and five, as kids learn to understand that somebody else can have beliefs that are different from their own. So I'm going to show you a five-year-old who is getting a standard kind of puzzle that we call the false belief task.
Drugo što želim reći o ovom sustavu mozga je da, premda smo mi, odrasli ljudi vrlo dobri u razumijevanju drugih umova, nismo uvijek bili takvi. Djeci treba dugo vremena da usvoje taj sustav. Pokazat ću vam malo tog dugog, razvučenog procesa. Prvo što ću vam pokazati je promjena u dobi od treće do pete godine, kada djeca uče razumjeti da drugi ljudi mogu imati uvjerenja koja se razlikuju od njihovih. Pa ću vam pokazati petogodišnje dijete koje dobiva standardnu zagonetku koju nazivamo zadatak pogrešnog vjerovanja.
Rebecca Saxe (Video): This is the first pirate. His name is Ivan. And you know what pirates really like?
Video: Ovo je prvi pirat. Njegovo ime je Ivan. A znaš što pirati stvarno vole?
Child: What? RS: Pirates really like cheese sandwiches.
Pirati stvarno vole sendviče sa sirom.
Child: Cheese? I love cheese!
Dijete: Sir? Ja volim sir!
RS: Yeah. So Ivan has this cheese sandwich, and he says, "Yum yum yum yum yum! I really love cheese sandwiches." And Ivan puts his sandwich over here, on top of the pirate chest. And Ivan says, "You know what? I need a drink with my lunch." And so Ivan goes to get a drink. And while Ivan is away the wind comes, and it blows the sandwich down onto the grass. And now, here comes the other pirate. This pirate is called Joshua. And Joshua also really loves cheese sandwiches. So Joshua has a cheese sandwich and he says, "Yum yum yum yum yum! I love cheese sandwiches." And he puts his cheese sandwich over here on top of the pirate chest.
R.S.: Da. Pa tako Ivan ima sendvič sa sirom. i kaže "Njam njam njam njam njam!" Jako volim sendviče sa sirom." I Ivan stavlja svoj sendvič ovdje, na vrh piratske škrinje. I Ivan kaže, "Znaš što? Treba mi piće uz ručak." I Ivan ode po piće. I dok Ivana nema zapuše vjetar, i sruši sendvič sa škrinje na travu. I sad dolazi drugi pirat. Ovaj pirat se zove Joshua. Joshua također jako voli sendviče sa sirom. Pa Joshua ima sendvič sa sirom i kaže, "Njam njam njam njam njam! Volim sendviče sa sirom." I stavlja svoj sendvič sa sirom na vrh piratske škrinje.
Child: So, that one is his.
Dijete: O, to je znači njegov.
RS: That one is Joshua's. That's right.
R.S.: To je Joshuin. Tako je.
Child: And then his went on the ground.
Dijete: A tada je njegov pao na zemlju.
RS: That's exactly right.
R.S.: Baš tako.
Child: So he won't know which one is his.
Dijete: I on neće znati koji je njegov.
RS: Oh. So now Joshua goes off to get a drink. Ivan comes back and he says, "I want my cheese sandwich." So which one do you think Ivan is going to take?
R.S.: Oo. Sad Joshua odlazi nabaviti piće. Ivan se vraća i kaže, "Hoću svoj sendvič sa sirom." Pa što misliš, koji će sendvič Ivan uzeti?
Child: I think he is going to take that one.
Dijete: Mislim da će uzeti ovaj.
RS: Yeah, you think he's going to take that one? All right. Let's see. Oh yeah, you were right. He took that one.
R.S.: Da, misliš da će uzeti ovaj? Dobro. Hajdemo vidjeti. O da, bio si u pravu. Uzeo je taj.
So that's a five-year-old who clearly understands that other people can have false beliefs and what the consequences are for their actions. Now I'm going to show you a three-year-old who got the same puzzle.
Eto, imate petogodišnjaka koji jasno razumije da drugi ljudi mogu imati pogrešna uvjerenja i koje su posljedice njihovih djela. A sada ćete vidjeti trogodišnjaka koji je dobio istu zagonetku.
RS: And Ivan says, "I want my cheese sandwich." Which sandwich is he going to take? Do you think he's going to take that one? Let's see what happens. Let's see what he does. Here comes Ivan. And he says, "I want my cheese sandwich." And he takes this one. Uh-oh. Why did he take that one?
Video: R.S.: I Ivan kaže, „Želim svoj sendvič sa sirom." Koji sendvič će uzeti? Misliš da će uzeti taj? Pogledajmo što će biti. Pogledajmo što će učiniti. Dolazi Ivan. Kaže, "Želim svoj sendvič sa sirom." I uzima ovaj. O-o. Zašto je uzeo ovaj?
Child: His was on the grass.
Dijete: Njegov je bio na travi.
So the three-year-old does two things differently. First, he predicts Ivan will take the sandwich that's really his. And second, when he sees Ivan taking the sandwich where he left his, where we would say he's taking that one because he thinks it's his, the three-year-old comes up with another explanation: He's not taking his own sandwich because he doesn't want it, because now it's dirty, on the ground. So that's why he's taking the other sandwich. Now of course, development doesn't end at five. And we can see the continuation of this process of learning to think about other people's thoughts by upping the ante and asking children now, not for an action prediction, but for a moral judgment. So first I'm going to show you the three-year-old again.
R.S. Trogodišnjak dvije stvari radi različito. Prvo predviđa da će Ivan uzeti sendvič koji je stvarno njegov. A drugo, kad vidi Ivana da uzima sendvič s mjesta gdje je ostavio svoj, kad bismo mi rekli da uzima taj jer misli da je njegov, trogodišnjak ima drugo objašnjenje. Pirat neće uzeti svoj sendvič zato što ga ne želi, zato što je taj sendvič sada prljav, na zemlji. Pa zato uzima drugi sendvič. Naravno, razvoj ne staje u petoj godini. Pa nastavak ovog procesa učenja o tome kako razmišljati o tuđim mislima vidimo kad odemo korak dalje i ne tražimo od djece da predvide akciju, već ih pitamo za moralnu prosudbu. Prvo ću vam opet pokazati trogodišnjaka.
RS.: So is Ivan being mean and naughty for taking Joshua's sandwich?
Video: R.S.: Je li Ivan zao i zločest zato što je uzeo Joshuin sendvič?
Child: Yeah.
Dijete: Da.
RS: Should Ivan get in trouble for taking Joshua's sandwich?
R.S.: Bi li Ivan trebao dobiti kaznu zato što je uzeo Joshuin sendvič?
Child: Yeah.
Dijete: Da.
So it's maybe not surprising he thinks it was mean of Ivan to take Joshua's sandwich, since he thinks Ivan only took Joshua's sandwich to avoid having to eat his own dirty sandwich. But now I'm going to show you the five-year-old. Remember the five-year-old completely understood why Ivan took Joshua's sandwich.
R.S.: Možda nije iznenađujuće što on misli da je zločesto od Ivana što je uzeo Joshuin sendvič. Zato što on misli da je Ivan uzeo Joshuin sendvič samo zato da izbjegne jesti svoj prljavi sendvič. Ali sada ćete vidjeti petogodišnjaka. Sjetite se da je petogodišnjak potpuno shvatio zašto je Ivan uzeo Joshuin sendvič.
RS: Was Ivan being mean and naughty for taking Joshua's sandwich?
Video: R.S.: Je li Ivan zao i zločest zato što je uzeo Joshuin sendvič?
Child: Um, yeah.
Dijete: Mm, da.
And so, it is not until age seven that we get what looks more like an adult response.
R.S.: I tako, prije dobi od sedam godina nećemo dobiti nešto što bi sličilo na odgovor odrasle osobe.
RS: Should Ivan get in trouble for taking Joshua's sandwich?
Video: R.S.: Hoće li Ivan biti u nevolji zato što je uzeo Joshuin sendvič?
Child: No, because the wind should get in trouble.
Dijete: Ne, vjetar treba biti u nevolji.
He says the wind should get in trouble for switching the sandwiches. (Laughter)
R.S. On kaže da vjetar treba biti u nevolji jer je zamijenio sendviče. (Smijeh)
And now what we've started to do in my lab is to put children into the brain scanner and ask what's going on in their brain as they develop this ability to think about other people's thoughts. So the first thing is that in children we see this same brain region, the Right TPJ, being used while children are thinking about other people. But it's not quite like the adult brain.
Ono što smo počeli raditi u mojem laboratoriju je da stavljamo djecu u skener mozga i pitamo se što se događa u njihovom mozgu dok razvijaju tu sposobnost razmišljanja o mislima drugih. Prva stvar je da vidimo da djeca koriste isto područje mozga, RTPJ, dok razmišljaju o drugim ljudima. Ali nije potpuno isto kao u odraslom mozgu.
So whereas in the adults, as I told you, this brain region is almost completely specialized -- it does almost nothing else except for thinking about other people's thoughts -- in children it's much less so, when they are age five to eight, the age range of the children I just showed you. And actually if we even look at eight to 11-year-olds, getting into early adolescence, they still don't have quite an adult-like brain region. And so, what we can see is that over the course of childhood and even into adolescence, both the cognitive system, our mind's ability to think about other minds, and the brain system that supports it are continuing, slowly, to develop.
Kod odraslih, kako sam vam rekla, ta regija mozga je skoro potpuno specijalizirana. Ne radi skoro ništa drugo, samo razmišlja o mislima drugih ljudi. Kod djece je to puno manje slučaj, u dobi od pet do osam godina, starosna dob koju sam vam upravo pokazala. Čak i ako promatramo dob od osam do 11 godina, ulazak u rani pubertet, djeca još uvijek nemaju to područje mozga sasvim kao odrasli. Ono što vidimo je da se tijekom djetinjstva, pa čak i ulaskom u pubertet, kako oboje, kognitivni sustav, sposobnost našeg mozga da razmišlja o mislima drugih, i sustav mozga koji mu pruža podršku, polako nastavljaju razvijati.
But of course, as you're probably aware, even in adulthood, people differ from one another in how good they are at thinking of other minds, how often they do it and how accurately. And so what we wanted to know was, could differences among adults in how they think about other people's thoughts be explained in terms of differences in this brain region? So, the first thing that we did is we gave adults a version of the pirate problem that we gave to the kids. And I'm going to give that to you now.
Naravno, kao što ste vjerojatno svjesni, čak i odrasli ljudi se međusobno razlikuju po tome koliko su dobri u razmišljanju o umu drugih, koliko to često čine, i koliko točno. Ono što smo mi željeli znati je mogu li se razlike među odraslima, u tome kako razmišljaju o mislima drugih objasniti pomoću razlika u ovom području mozga. Prvo što smo napravili je da smo dali odraslima verziju piratskog problema kojeg su bila dobila i djeca. Sada ću vam to pokazati.
So Grace and her friend are on a tour of a chemical factory, and they take a break for coffee. And Grace's friend asks for some sugar in her coffee. Grace goes to make the coffee and finds by the coffee a pot containing a white powder, which is sugar. But the powder is labeled "Deadly Poison," so Grace thinks that the powder is a deadly poison. And she puts it in her friend's coffee. And her friend drinks the coffee, and is fine.
Grace i njezina prijateljica su u obilasku tvornice kemikalija i naprave pauzu za kavu. Graceina prijateljica traži šećer za svoju kavu. Grace ide napraviti kavu i kraj kave nađe posudu s bijelim prahom, šećerom. Ali na posudi piše „Smrtonosni otrov“. Pa Grace misli kako je taj prah smrtonosni otrov. I stavlja taj prah prijateljici u kavu. Njezina prijateljica popije kavu, i dobro je.
How many people think it was morally permissible for Grace to put the powder in the coffee? Okay. Good. (Laughter) So we ask people, how much should Grace be blamed in this case, which we call a failed attempt to harm?
Koliko vas misli da je moralno dopustivo da Grace stavi taj prah u kavu? OK. Dobro. (Smijeh) Pa pitamo ljude koliko je Grace kriva u ovom slučaju, kojeg nazivamo neuspjelim pokušajem povrede.
And we can compare that to another case, where everything in the real world is the same. The powder is still sugar, but what's different is what Grace thinks. Now she thinks the powder is sugar. And perhaps unsurprisingly, if Grace thinks the powder is sugar and puts it in her friend's coffee, people say she deserves no blame at all. Whereas if she thinks the powder was poison, even though it's really sugar, now people say she deserves a lot of blame, even though what happened in the real world was exactly the same.
I to možemo usporediti s drugim slučajem u kojem je sve u stvarnom svijetu isto. Prah je isto šećer, ali je drugačije ono što Grace misli. Sada ona misli da je prah šećer. I, možda očekivano, ako Grace misli da je prah šećer i stavi ga prijateljici u kavu, ljudi kažu da je ne treba ništa kriviti. Dok, ako je mislila da je prah otrov, premda je zapravo šećer, ljudi misle da je silno kriva, premda je ono što se dogodilo u stvarnom svijetu jednako.
And in fact, they say she deserves more blame in this case, the failed attempt to harm, than in another case, which we call an accident. Where Grace thought the powder was sugar, because it was labeled "sugar" and by the coffee machine, but actually the powder was poison. So even though when the powder was poison, the friend drank the coffee and died, people say Grace deserves less blame in that case, when she innocently thought it was sugar, than in the other case, where she thought it was poison and no harm occurred.
Zapravo, ljudi kažu da je ona više kriva u ovom slučaju, neuspjelom pokušaju povrede, nego u drugom slučaju, kojega zovemo slučajna nezgoda. U kojem Grace misli da je prah šećer, jer je na njemu pisalo „šećer“ i nalazio se kraj aparata za kavu, ali je taj prah, u stvari, bio otrov. Dakle, čak i ako je prah bio otrov, prijateljica ga je popila i umrla, ljudi kažu da Grace nije toliko kriva kad je nedužno mislila da je riječ o šećeru, kao u drugom slučaju, kada je mislila kako je riječ o otrovu, premda se nije dogodilo ništa loše.
People, though, disagree a little bit about exactly how much blame Grace should get in the accident case. Some people think she should deserve more blame, and other people less. And what I'm going to show you is what happened when we look inside the brains of people while they're making that judgment. So what I'm showing you, from left to right, is how much activity there was in this brain region, and from top to bottom, how much blame people said that Grace deserved.
Ipak, ljudi se malo razlikuju u mišljenju koliko je krivice na Grace u slučaju nezgode. Neki misle kako je više kriva, a neki da je manje kriva. Sada ću vam pokazati što se događa unutar mozg kada ljudi donose tu prosudbu. Ono što vam pokazujem, s lijeva na desno, je koliko je aktivnosti bilo u tom području mozga. A odozgo prema dolje vidite koliko krivice ljudi kažu da je Grace zaslužila.
And what you can see is, on the left when there was very little activity in this brain region, people paid little attention to her innocent belief and said she deserved a lot of blame for the accident. Whereas on the right, where there was a lot of activity, people paid a lot more attention to her innocent belief, and said she deserved a lot less blame for causing the accident.
Na lijevoj strani vidite da kad je bilo malo aktivnosti u tom području mozga, ljudi su vrlo malo pažnje posvetili njezinom nedužnom vjerovanju i rekli su da ona snosi puno krivice. Dok su na desnoj strani, kad je bilo puno moždane aktivnosti, ljudi posvetili puno pažnje njezinom nedužnom vjerovanju, i rekli kako snosi manje krivice za to što je prouzročila nesreću.
So that's good, but of course what we'd rather is have a way to interfere with function in this brain region, and see if we could change people's moral judgment. And we do have such a tool. It's called Trans-Cranial Magnetic Stimulation, or TMS. This is a tool that lets us pass a magnetic pulse through somebody's skull, into a small region of their brain, and temporarily disorganize the function of the neurons in that region.
To je dobro, ali mi bismo radije pronašli način da utječemo na funkcioniranje tog područja u mozgu, i vidjeti možemo li promijeniti moralne prosudbe ljudi. Imamo alat za to. Zovemo ga Transkranijalna magnetska stimulacija, ili TMS. To nam oruđe omogućava da pustimo magnetski puls kroz nečiju lubanju, u malo područje mozga, i privremeno poremetimo funkcioniranje neurona u tom području.
So I'm going to show you a demo of this. First, I'm going to show you that this is a magnetic pulse. I'm going to show you what happens when you put a quarter on the machine. When you hear clicks, we're turning the machine on. So now I'm going to apply that same pulse to my brain, to the part of my brain that controls my hand. So there is no physical force, just a magnetic pulse.
Sada ću vam to demonstrirati. Prvo ću vam pokazati da je to magnetski puls, pokazat ću što se događa kad stavite kovanicu na uređaj. Kad začujete klikanje, uređaj se uključuje. A sada ću taj puls primijeniti na svoj mozak, na dio mozga koji upravlja mojom rukom. Dakle, nema fizičke sile, samo magnetna.
Woman (Video): Ready, Rebecca? RS: Yes.
Video: Žena: Spremna? Rebecca Saxe: Da.
Okay, so it causes a small involuntary contraction in my hand by putting a magnetic pulse in my brain. And we can use that same pulse, now applied to the RTPJ, to ask if we can change people's moral judgments. So these are the judgments I showed you before, people's normal moral judgments. And then we can apply TMS to the RTPJ and ask how people's judgments change. And the first thing is, people can still do this task overall.
OK, dakle, došlo je do malog spontanog grčenja moje ruke uslijed magnetskog pulsa u mojem mozgu. Možemo koristiti isti taj puls, primijeniti ga na područje RTPJ, kako bismo vidjeli možemo li promijeniti moralne prosudbe ljudi. Ovo su prosudbe koje sam vam već pokazala, normalne ljudske prosudbe. A zatim ćemo primijeniti TMS na RTPJ i upitati se kako se prosudbe mijenjaju. Prvo, ljudi i dalje mogu općenito obaviti zadatak.
So their judgments of the case when everything was fine remain the same. They say she deserves no blame. But in the case of a failed attempt to harm, where Grace thought that it was poison, although it was really sugar, people now say it was more okay, she deserves less blame for putting the powder in the coffee.
Njihove prosudbe u slučaju u kojem je sve u redu ostaju iste. Kažu da ona nije kriva. Ali u slučaju neuspjelog pokušaja povrede, kad je Grace mislila da je riječ o otrovu, a bio je šećer, ljudi sada kažu da je prihvatljivije, manje je kriva što je stavila prah u šalicu.
And in the case of the accident, where she thought that it was sugar, but it was really poison and so she caused a death, people say that it was less okay, she deserves more blame. So what I've told you today is that people come, actually, especially well equipped to think about other people's thoughts.
A u slučaju nezgode kada je mislila da je šećer, ali je zapravo bio otrov, pa je ona prouzročila smrt, ljudi kažu da nije toliko prihvatljivo, da je na njoj veća krivica. Ono što sam vam danas rekla je da su ljudi, zapravo, sasvim dobro opremljeni za razmišljanje o mislima drugih ljudi.
We have a special brain system that lets us think about what other people are thinking. This system takes a long time to develop, slowly throughout the course of childhood and into early adolescence. And even in adulthood, differences in this brain region can explain differences among adults in how we think about and judge other people.
Imamo poseban sustav u mozgu koji nam omogućava razmišljati o mislima drugih. Taj sustav se razvija dugo vremena, polako tijekom djetinjstva, sve do ranog puberteta. A čak i kod odraslih razlike u ovom području mozga mogu objasniti razlike među ljudima u pogledu toga kako razmišljamo i sudimo o drugima.
But I want to give the last word back to the novelists, and to Philip Roth, who ended by saying, "The fact remains that getting people right is not what living is all about anyway. It's getting them wrong that is living. Getting them wrong and wrong and wrong, and then on careful reconsideration, getting them wrong again." Thank you. (Applause)
Ali završnu riječ želim prepustiti romanopiscima. I Philipu Rothu, koji je završio rekavši, "Ostaje činjenica da točno shvatiti ljude ionako nije suština života. Život čini ono kad ljude razumijemo pogrešno. Shvaćamo ih krivo i krivo i krivo, a zatim, nakon pažljivog razmatranja, shvatimo ih krivo ponovno." Hvala vam. (Pljesak)
Chris Anderson: So, I have a question. When you start talking about using magnetic pulses to change people's moral judgments, that sounds alarming. (Laughter) Please tell me that you're not taking phone calls from the Pentagon, say.
Chris Anderson: Kad počnete pričati o korištenju magnetskog pulsa radi mijenjanja moralnih prosudbi, to zvuči alarmantno. (Smijeh) Molim vas, recite mi da se ne javljate na pozive iz Pentagona, recimo.
RS: I'm not. I mean, they're calling, but I'm not taking the call. (Laughter)
Rebecca Saxe: Ne. Mislim, zovu oni, ali se ne javljam. (Smijeh)
CA: They really are calling? So then seriously, you must lie awake at night sometimes wondering where this work leads. I mean, you're clearly an incredible human being, but someone could take this knowledge and in some future not-torture chamber, do acts that people here might be worried about.
C.A.: Stvarno zovu? No, ozbiljno, ozbiljno, mora da katkada noću ležite budni i pitate se gdje ovaj rad vodi. Mislim, vi ste očito sjajna osoba. Ali netko bi mogao iskoristiti to znanje i u budućnosti ne soba za mučenje, raditi stvari koje bi mogle brinuti ovdje nazočne.
RS: Yeah, we worry about this. So, there's a couple of things to say about TMS. One is that you can't be TMSed without knowing it. So it's not a surreptitious technology. It's quite hard, actually, to get those very small changes. The changes I showed you are impressive to me because of what they tell us about the function of the brain, but they're small on the scale of the moral judgments that we actually make.
R.S.: Da, razmišljamo o tome. Treba reći nekoliko stvari o TMS-u. Jedna je da ne možete primiti puls bez da ste svjesni toga. Dakle, nije riječ o skrivenoj tehnologiji. Zapravo je sasvim teško postići ove vrlo male promjene. Promjene koje sam vam pokazala su meni impresivne zbog onoga što nam govore o funkciji mozga. Ali su male u usporedbi s moralnim prosudbama koje ljudi u stvarnosti donose.
And what we changed was not people's moral judgments when they're deciding what to do, when they're making action choices. We changed their ability to judge other people's actions. And so, I think of what I'm doing not so much as studying the defendant in a criminal trial, but studying the jury.
A mi i nismo promijenili moralne prosudbe koje ljudi donose kad odlučuju što učiniti, kad donose odluke o djelovanju. Mi smo promijenili njihovu sposobnost da ocijene tuđa djela. I zato o onome što radim ne razmišljam kao o proučavanju branjenika u kaznenom postupku, već više kao o proučavanju porote.
CA: Is your work going to lead to any recommendations in education, to perhaps bring up a generation of kids able to make fairer moral judgments?
C.A.: Hoće li vaš rad voditi nekim preporukama za obrazovni sustav, možda odgojiti naraštaj djece sposobne za pravednije moralne prosudbe?
RS: That's one of the idealistic hopes. The whole research program here of studying the distinctive parts of the human brain is brand new. Until recently, what we knew about the brain were the things that any other animal's brain could do too, so we could study it in animal models. We knew how brains see, and how they control the body and how they hear and sense. And the whole project of understanding how brains do the uniquely human things -- learn language and abstract concepts, and thinking about other people's thoughts -- that's brand new. And we don't know yet what the implications will be of understanding it.
R.S.: To je jedna od idealističnih nada. Cijeli istraživački projekt, proučavanje različitih dijelova ljudskog mozga je potpuno nov. Donedavno smo o mozgu znali samo ono što može raditi i mozak svake životinje. Pa smo ga mogli proučavati i na životinjama. Znali smo kako mozak vidi, kako kontrolira tijelo, kako čuje i ima osjete. A cijeli projekt razumijevanja toga kako mozak obavlja stvari jedinstvene za ljude, uči jezik, apstraktne koncepte, i razmišlja o mislima drugih, je posve nov. I ne znamo još kakve će biti implikacije toga razumijevanja.
CA: So I've got one last question. There is this thing called the hard problem of consciousness, that puzzles a lot of people. The notion that you can understand why a brain works, perhaps. But why does anyone have to feel anything? Why does it seem to require these beings who sense things for us to operate? You're a brilliant young neuroscientist. I mean, what chances do you think there are that at some time in your career, someone, you or someone else, is going to come up with some paradigm shift in understanding what seems an impossible problem?
C.A.: Imam zadnje pitanje. Postoji nešto što se zove težak problem svjesnosti, koji mnoge zbunjuje. Shvaćanje da je moguće razumjeti zašto mozak radi, možda. Ali zašto bi itko morao išta osjećati? Zašto se čini da je potrebno da osjećamo da bismo funkcionirali? Vi ste briljantna mlada neuroznanstvenica. Kakve su šanse da bi u nekom trenutku vaše karijere netko, vi ili netko drugi, mogao doći do pomaka paradigme u razumijevanju toga što se čini kao nemoguć problem.
RS: I hope they do. And I think they probably won't.
R.S.: Nadam se da hoće. A mislim da vjerojatno neće.
CA: Why?
C.A.: Zašto?
RS: It's not called the hard problem of consciousness for nothing. (Laughter)
R.S.: Ne zove se to težak problem svjesnosti tek tako. (Smijeh)
CA: That's a great answer. Rebecca Saxe, thank you very much. That was fantastic. (Applause)
C.A.: Sjajan odgovor. Rebecca Saxe, hvala vam lijepa. Ovo je bilo fantastično. (Pljesak)