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 vam pričati o problemu drugih umova. I ovaj problem o kome ću pričati nije onaj koji nam je poznat iz filozofije, „Kako možemo znati da drugi ljudi imaju umove?“ Dakle, možda vi imate um, a svi ostali su samo jako ubedljivi roboti. To je filozofski problem. Ali u svrhu današnjeg izlaganja pretpostaviću da mnogi ovde u publici imaju um i da o tome ne moram da brinem.
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?"
Tu je i drugi problem, koji nam je možda i poznatiji kao roditeljima, učiteljima, supružnicima i piscima. A to je „ Zašto je tako teško znati šta neko drugi želi ili u šta veruje?“. Ili, možda značajnije, „Zašto je tako teško promeniti to što neko drugi želi ili u šta veruje?“
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 pisci to najbolje formulišu. Recimo Filip Rot, koji je rekao, A opet, šta nam je činiti sa onim što je užasno važno, a što su drugi ljudi? Svi mi tako smo slabo spremni da zamislimo unutrašnja previranja i nevidljive ciljeve jedni kod drugih." Ja se kao predavač i kao supruga, naravno, svakodnevno srećem sa ovim problemom. Ali kao naučnica, zainteresovana sam za drugačiji problem njihovih umova, a to je problem koji ću danas izneti pred vas. A problem glasi, "Kako to da je tako lako proniknuti u 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)
Da bih ilustrovala, potrebno je jako malo informacija, jedna slika nepoznate osobe da bi se pogodilo o čemu razmišlja ova žena, ili ovaj muškarac. Drugim rečima, srž problema je da je mašina koju koristimo za razmišljanje o drugim umovima, naš mozak, sastavljena od delova, moždanih ćelija koje delimo sa svim drugim životinjama, sa majmunima, miševima i čak sa morskim puževima. A ipak, postavite ih zajedno, tako da čine specifičnu mrežu i dobijate potencijal za pisanje "Romea i Julije". Ili, kao što je Alen Grinspen rekao, „Znam da misliš da razumeš ono što si mislio da sam rekao, ali nisam siguran da shvataš da ono što si čuo nije ono što sam mislio“. (Smeh)
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.
Dakle, zadatak moje oblasti kognitivne neuronauke je da se paralelno nosi sa ovim idejama. Kao i da pokuša da razume kako je moguće sastaviti jednostavne jedinice, jednostavne poruke kroz vreme i prostor, u jednu mrežu da bi se dobio zadivljujući ljudski potencijal za razmišljanje o umovima. Dakle, danas ću vam reći tri stvari na tu temu. Očigledno je da je ceo ovaj projekat ogroman. I ja ću vam pričati samo o našim prvim koracima, o otkrivanju posebne moždane regije za razmišljanje o mislima drugih ljudi. Zatim, o posmatranjima koja govore o sporom razvoju ovog sistema dok se učimo ovom teškom poslu. I na posletku, pokazaću da neke od razlika među ljudima, u tome kako sudimo o drugima, mogu da se objasne razlikama u ovom moždanom sistemu.
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)
Dakle pod jedan, prva stvar koju želim da vam ispričam jeste da u ljuskom mozgu,u vašim mozgovima, postoji moždana regija čiji posao je da misli o mislima drugih ljudi. Ovo je slika te regije. Zove se desna slepoočno - temena spojnica. Nalazi se iznad i iza vašeg desnog uha. I to je moždana regija koju ste koristili kada ste videli slike koje sam vam pokazala, ili kada ste čitali "Romeo i Julija", ili pokušavali da razumete Alena Grinspena. I nju ne koristite za rešavanje bilo kojih drugih logičkih problema. Ovu moždanu regiju zovemo "RTPJ". I ova slika pokazuje prosečnu aktivaciju u grupi takozvanih tipičnih odraslih ljudi. To su studenti fakulteta na MIT-u. (Smeh)
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.
Druga stvar koju želim da kažem o ovom moždanom sistemu je da, mada mi kao odrasli ljudi jesmo stvarno dobri u razumevanju umova drugih ljudi, nismo uvek bili takvi. Deci je potrebno puno vremena da uđu u sistem. Pokazaću vam delić tog dugog, postepenog procesa. Prva stvar koju ću vam pokazati je promena između treće i pete godine, kada deca uče da razumeju da neko drugi može imati uverenja koja se razlikuju od njihovih vlastitih. Tako ću vam pokazati petogodišnjaka kome je zadata standardna zagonetka koju zovemo zadatak lažnog uverenja.
Rebecca Saxe (Video): This is the first pirate. His name is Ivan. And you know what pirates really like?
Video: ovo je prvi gusar. Zove se Ivan. A znaš šta gusari mnogo vole?
Child: What? RS: Pirates really like cheese sandwiches.
Gusari mnogo vole sendviče sa sirom.
Child: Cheese? I love cheese!
Dete: sir? Ja obožavam 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.: aha. E, Ivan ima ovaj senvič sa sirom pa kaže „Njam, njam, njam, njam, njam! Stvarno volim sendviče sa sirom.“ I Ivan stavi sendič ovde, na gusarsku škrinju. Ivan kaže „Znaš šta? Treba mi piće uz ručak“. I tako Ivan ode da uzme piće. A dok Ivan nije tu naiđe vetar, oduva sendvič dole na travu. I sada, evo i drugog gusara. Ovaj gusar se zove Džošua. I Džošua takođe mnogo voli sendviče sa sirom. I Džošua ima sendvič sa sirom i on kaže: „Njam, njam, njam, njam, njam! Stvarno volim sendviče sa sirom.“ I on stavi sendvič sa sirom ovde na gusarsku škrinju.
Child: So, that one is his.
Dete: znači, taj je njegov.
RS: That one is Joshua's. That's right.
R.S.: taj je Džošuin. Tako je.
Child: And then his went on the ground.
Dete: a onda je njegov pao na pod.
RS: That's exactly right.
R.S.: da, baš tako.
Child: So he won't know which one is his.
Dete: znači 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.: eh. Sada Džošua odlazi da uzme piće. Ivan se vraća i kaže „Hoću svoj sendvič sa sirom.“ Pa šta misliš koji će Ivan da uzme?
Child: I think he is going to take that one.
Dete: mislim da će da uzme onaj.
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.: misliš da će da uzme taj? U redu. Hajde da vidimo. Aha, 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.
Dakle ovaj petogodišnjak očigledno razume da drugi ljudi mogu imati lažna uverenja i kakve su posledice za njihove delatnosti. Sada ću vam pokazati 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, „ Hoću svoj sendvič sa sirom.“ Koji sendvič će uzeti? Misliš li da će uzeti taj? Da vidimo šta će se desiti. Da vidimo šta će uraditi. Evo Ivana. I on kaže, “Hoću svoj sendvič sa sirom.“ I uzima ovaj. Opa! Zašto je uzeo taj?
Child: His was on the grass.
Dete: njegov je bio u 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.: dakle, trogodišnjak dve stvari radi drugačije. Prvo, predviđa da će Ivan uzeti sendvič koji je stvarno njegov. Drugo, kada vidi kako Ivan uzima sendvič tamo gde je ostavio svoj, na šta bi mi rekli da ga uzima jer misli da je njegov, trogodišnjak smišlja drugo objašnjenje. On ne uzima svoj sendvič zato što ga ne želi, već zato što je sada prljav, na zemlji. Dakle, zbog toga uzima drugi sendvič. Naravno, razvoj se ne završava u petoj godini. Možemo videti nastavak ovog procesa učenja da se misli o mislima drugih tako što ćemo podići ulog i decu više ne pitati da predvide postupke već da donesu moralni sud. Dakle, prvo ću vam ponovo pokazati trogodišnjaka.
RS.: So is Ivan being mean and naughty for taking Joshua's sandwich?
Video: R.S.: pa je li Ivan zločest i nevaljao što je uzeo Džošuin sendvič?
Child: Yeah.
Dete: da.
RS: Should Ivan get in trouble for taking Joshua's sandwich?
R.S.: da li Ivan treba da bude kažnjen zato što je uzeo Džošuin sendvič?
Child: Yeah.
Dete: 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.: pa možda nije iznenađujuće što misli da je Ivan bio zločest kad je uzeo Džošuin sendvič. Budući da misli da je Ivan uzeo Džošuin sendvič samo da bi izbegao da jede svoj prljavi sendvič. Ali sada ću vam pokazati petogodišnjaka. Setite se da je petogodišnjak u potpunosti razumeo zašto je Ivan uzeo Džošuin sendvič.
RS: Was Ivan being mean and naughty for taking Joshua's sandwich?
Video: R.S.: da li je Ivan zločest i nevaljao zato što je uzeo Džošuin sendvič?
Child: Um, yeah.
Dete: hm, jeste.
And so, it is not until age seven that we get what looks more like an adult response.
R.S.: i tako, pre uzrasta od sedam godina ne dobijamo odgovor koji liči na odgovor odraslog.
RS: Should Ivan get in trouble for taking Joshua's sandwich?
Video: R.S.: da li Ivan treba da bude kažnjen zato što je uzeo Džošuin sendvič?
Child: No, because the wind should get in trouble.
Dete: ne, zato što vetar treba da bude kažnjen.
He says the wind should get in trouble for switching the sandwiches. (Laughter)
R.S.: kaže da vetar treba da bude kažnjen jer je zamenio sendviče. (Smeh)
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.
I sad, u mojoj laboratoriji počeli smo da stavljamo decu u aparat za skeniranje mozga i postavljamo pitanje šta se dešava u njihovom mozgu dok se razvija ova sposobnost razmišljanja o mislima drugih ljudi. I prva stvar je da kod dece uočavamo aktivnost iste moždane regije RTPJ, dok deca razmišljaju o drugim ljudima. Ali postoje razlike u odnosu na mozak odraslih.
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.
Dok je kod odraslih, kao što sam vam rekla, ova moždana regija skoro u potpunosti specijalizovana. Skoro da ne radi ništa drugo, osim razmišljanja o mislima drugih ljudi. Kod dece to važi u mnogo manjoj meri, kada su u uzrastu od pet do osam godina, što je uzrast dece koju sam vam upravo pokazala. I zapravo, ako pogledamo čak i uzrast od osam do jedanaest godina, na pragu rane adolescencije, još uvek nemaju u potpunosti istu moždanu regiju kao odrasli. tako, možemo videti da tokom detinjstva i čak u ranoj adolescenciji, kognitivni sistem, sposobnost uma da razmišlja o umovima drugih ljudi, kao i moždani sistem koji to podržava, nastavljaju polako da se razvijaju.
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.
Ali, naravno, verovatno ste i sami svesni da se čak i u odraslom dobu ljudi razlikuju međusobno po sposobnosti da razmišljaju o umovima dugih ljudi, koliko često to rade i sa kojim stepenom tačnosti. Dakle, mi smo želeli da saznamo, da li je moguće objasniti razlike među odraslima u tome kako razmišljaju o mislima drugih ljudi, putem razlika koje postoje u ovoj moždanoj regiji. Zato smo najpre zadali odraslima varijantu gusarske dileme koju smo davali deci. I sada ću je ja zadati vama.
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.
Dakle, Grejs i njena prijateljica obilaze hemijsko postrojenje i naprave pauzu da popiju kafu. Grejsina prijateljica traži šećer u svojoj kafi. Grejs odlazi da napravi kafu i pored kafe nalazi posudu sa belim prahom, tačnije šećerom. Ali prah je obeležen kao „ Smrtonosni otrov“. Stoga Grejs misli da je prah smrtonosni otrov. I ona stavi taj prah prijateljici u kafu. Njena prijateljica popije kafu i ne bude joj ništa.
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 smatra da je bilo moralno dopustivo to što je Grejs stavila prah u kafu? U redu. Dobro je. (Smeh) Dakle, ljude smo pitali koliko krivice Grejs snosi, u ovom slučaju, koji smo nazvali "neuspeli pokušaj da se nanese povreda".
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 ovo možemo uporediti sa drugim slučajem gde je u stvarnosti sve isto. Prah je i dalje šećer, ali ono što se razlikuje je šta Grejs misli. Sada ona misli da je prah šećer. I možda nije nikakvo iznenađenje, ako Grajs misli da je prah šećer i stavi ga prijateljici u kafu, što ljudi kažu da nije ni za šta kriva. Dok u slučaju kada misli da je prah otrov, iako je ustvari šećer, kažu da je njena krivica velika, iako je ono što se u stvarnosti desilo potpuno isto.
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 njena krivica veća u ovom slučaju, neuspelom pokušaju da se nanese povreda, nego u drugom, koji nazivamo nesrećom. Tu je Grejs mislila da je prah šećer, zato što je imao natpis „ Šećer“ i stajao je pored mašine za kafu, ali je ustvari prah bio otrov. Pa čak i u slučaju kada je prah bio otrov, prijateljica popila kafu i umrla, ljudi kažu da Grejs snosi manje krivice u ovom slučaju, kada je nevino mislila da je to šećer, nego u drugom slučaju, kada je mislila da je otrov i nikome nije naudila.
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 ne slažu u potpunosti sa tim kolika je krivica koja pada na Grejs u slučaju nesreće. Neki misle da je njena krivica veća, neki da je manja. A ja ću vam pokazati šta smo našli kada smo pogledali unutra, u mozgove ljudi dok su donosili sud o tome. Dakle, sada vam prikazujem, sleva na desno, kolika je bila aktivnost u ovoj moždanoj regiji i od vrha ka dnu, koliko krivice ljudi pripisuju Grejs.
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.
I možete da vidite, na levoj strani, kada je bilo vrlo malo aktivnosti u ovoj moždanoj regiji, ljudi su malo pažnje poklanjali nevinosti njenog uverenja i rekli su da je na njoj velika krivica za nesreću. Nasuprot tome, sa desne strane, kada je bilo intenzivne aktivnosti, ljudi su u većoj meri obratili pažnju na nevinost njenih uverenja i rekli da je njena krivica za izazivanje nesreće mnogo manja.
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.
Pa to je dobro, ali naravno, želeli bismo da imamo načina da utičemo na funkcionisanje ove moždane regije i pokušamo da promenimo moralno rasuđivanje ljudi. A mi imamo instrument za to. To je magnetna stimulacija kroz lobanju, ili skraćeno "TMS". Ovaj instrument nam omogućuje da propustimo impuls magnetnog polja kroz nečiju lobanju, ciljano u malu regiju njihovog mozga i privremeno poremetimo funkciju neurona u toj regiji.
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.
Dakle, pokazaću vam demonstraciju. Najpre ću vam pokazati, da bih vam pokazala da je ovo impuls magnetnog polja, pokazaću vam šta se dešava kada stavite novčić u mašinu. Kada čujete kliktanje to mi uključujemo mašinu. A sada ću primeniti taj isti impuls na svoj mozak, na deo mozga koji kontroliše moju ruku. Dakle, nema fizičke sile, samo impuls magnetnog polja.
Woman (Video): Ready, Rebecca? RS: Yes.
Video: Žena: Spremni? Rebeka Saks: 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.
U redu, dakle to uzrokuje slabu nevoljnu kontrakciju u mojoj ruci izazvanu propuštanjem impulsa magnetnog polja kroz moj mozak. I možemo koristiti taj isti impuls, u ovom slučaju usmeren na RTPJ region, da vidimo da li možemo da promenimo moralne sudove ljudi. Dakle, ovo su sudovi koje sam vam prethodno pokazala, normalni moralni sudovi ljudi. A zatim možemo primeniti TMS na RTPJ regiju i videti kako se sudovi koje ljudi donose menjaju. Prva stvar je da ljudi i dalje mogu da obave ovaj zadatak u celini gledano.
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.
Pa, njihovi sudovi u slučaju kada je sve bilo u redu ostaju isti. Oni kažu da uopšte nije kriva. Ali u slučaju neuspelog pokušaja da se nanese povreda, kada je Grejs mislila da je to otrov, iako je to zapravo bio šećer, ljudi sada kažu da je to prihvatljivije, na njoj je manja krivica zbog stavljanja praha u kafu.
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 nesreće, kada je mislila da je to šećer, ali je to zapravo bio otrov kojim je ona izazvala smrt, ljudi kažu da je to manje prihvatljivo, njena krivica je veća. Dakle, danas sam vam ispričala kako su ljudi zapravo, posebno dobro opremljeni da razmišljaju 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.
Posedujemo posebni moždani sistem koji nam omogućuje da mislimo o tome šta je sadržaj misli drugih. Ovom sistemu potrebno je dosta vremena da se razvije, to čini polako tokom čitavog detinjstva i rane adolescencije. Čak i u odraslom dobu, razlike u ovom moždanom regionu mogu da objasne razlike među odraslim individuama u tome kako razmišljamo i rasuđujemo o drugim ljudima.
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 poslednju reč na ovu temu želim da vratim piscima. Tačnije, Filipu Rotu koji na kraju kaže: „Izvesno je da razumeti ljude nije ono što čini život. Živeti jeste razumeti ih pogrešno. Razumeti ih pogrešno, pogrešno i pogrešno i onda nakon pažljivog premišljanja, ponovo ih pogrešno razumeti.“ Hvala vam (Aplauz)
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.
Kris Anderson: Kada pričate o korišćenju impulsa magnetnog polja za menjanje moralnog rasuđivanja ljudi, zvuči uznemirujuće. (Smeh) Molim Vas, recite da ne primate telefonske pozive iz, recimo, Pentagona.
RS: I'm not. I mean, they're calling, but I'm not taking the call. (Laughter)
Rebeka Saks: Ne. Mislim, oni zovu, ali ja ne primam pozive. (Smeh)
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? Pa, sad ozbiljno, stvarno ozbiljno, mora da ponekad ležite budni noću i pitate se gde vodi vaš rad. Hoću reći, očigledno je da ste izuzetna osoba. Ali neko bi mogao da uzme ovo znanje i u nekoj budućoj ćeliji koja nije za mučenje počini stvari koje bi zabrinule ovde prisutne.
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, to nas brine. Par stvari treba reći o TMS-u. Jedna je da ne možete biti izloženi TMS-u bez vašeg znanja. Nije to tehnologija koja se može primeniti u tajnosti. Zapravo je jako teško postići te jako male promene. Promene koje sam vam pokazala su meni impresivne zbog onoga što iz njih saznajemo o funkcionisanju mozga. Ali one su male u poređenju sa moralnim sudovima koje zapravo donosimo.
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.
I mi kod ljudi nismo promenili moralne sudove koje donose kad odlučuju šta da rade, kada biraju pravac delovanja. Mi menjamo njihovu sposobnost da procenjuju delovanje drugih ljudi. O svom radu razmišljam ne kao o proučavanju okrivljenog u krivičnom postupku, već 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?
K.A.: Da li će vaš rad dovesti do nekih preporuka za obrazovanje, možda o vaspitanju generacija dece sposobnih da donose pravednije moralne sudove?
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 deo idealističkih nadanja. Ceo ovaj istraživački poduhvat, proučavanja pojedinih delova ljudskog mozga je u potpunosti nov. Sve do skora o mozgu smo znali stvari svojstvene i bilo kojem drugom životinjskom mozgu. Mogli smo da proučavamo na modelima životinja. Znali smo kako mozgovi vide, kontrolišu telo, kako čuju i kakva im je percepcija. A ceo poduhvat razumevanja kako mozak čini stvari jedinstveno ljudske, uči jezik, i apstraktne pojmove, razmišlja o mislima drugih ljudi, to je u potpunosti novo. I mi još uvek ne znamo koje su implikacije ovakvog razumevanja.
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.: Pa, samo još jedno pitanje. Postoji nešto što zovemo teškim problemom svesnosti, koji kopka mnoge ljude. Ideja da je moguće razumeti zašto mozak radi je možda prihvatljiva. Ali zašto je potrebno da iko ima osećanja? Zašto je neophodno da ova bića osećaju stvari da bi funkcionisala? Vi ste izuzetna mlada naučnica. Mislim, kakva je po Vama šansa da u nekom trenutku tokom vaše karijere, Vi ili neko drugi, dođete do promene paradigme u razumevanju ovog, naizgled, nemogućeg problema.
RS: I hope they do. And I think they probably won't.
R.S.: Nadam se da hoće. I mislim da je malo verovatno.
CA: Why?
C.A.: Zašto?
RS: It's not called the hard problem of consciousness for nothing. (Laughter)
R.S.: Ne zove se teški problem svesnosti bez razloga. (Smeh)
CA: That's a great answer. Rebecca Saxe, thank you very much. That was fantastic. (Applause)
C.A.: Odličan odgovor. Rebeka Saks, najlepše Vam hvala. Bilo je fantastično. (Aplauz)