丹尼·巴斯特与佩里·祖恩谈好奇大脑的神经科学与哲学

而这一部分的另一点是，你引入了时间这一维度，实际上我们人类对维度的理解也在持续演变。

And then the other piece of this, because you brought the dimension of time into this and really our own understanding as a species of dimensionality continues to evolve.

你可以将时间作为一种空间维度追溯到H.G.威尔斯的《时间机器》。

And you can trace time as a space like dimension back to what HG Wells and the time machine.

这其实并不算太久远。

Like, it's not that old.

因此，有一位进化生物学家安德鲁·P.史密斯写了一本书，名为《经验的维度》。

And so there's a book by evolutionary biologist Andrew P.

他在书中提出，如果我们想为进化赋予一种内在的目的性，那么其中一个特征就是它不断创造出新的认知能力，以感知新的维度。

Smith called The Dimensions of Experience that argues that one of the characteristics of evolution, if we want to give it a sort of endogenous telos, is that it is creating new cognitive faculties to perceive new dimensions.

因此，你这本书让我感到兴奋的一点是，它实际上暗示了人类未来将具备新的能力，以多方法论的方式将自身理解为四维的对象过程，我非常想听听你们两位对此的看法。

And so one of the things that excited me about your book, and I would love to hear both of you speak to this, is the way that it does actually hint forward into new human capacities to understand ourselves as four dimensional object processes in the multi methodological way.

我们之前和布莱恩·亚瑟讨论他的文章时也谈过这个话题，他谈到了经济学中的名词和动词。

We talked about this with Brian Arthur discussing his piece on economics and nouns and verbs.

是的。

Yeah.

我认为这本书让我们感到兴奋的一点是，它建议我们彻底摒弃那种认为人们要么好奇要么不好奇、天生好奇心多或少的先入之见，以及好奇心只表现为一种特定行为模式的观念。

I think that one of the things that we're so excited about in this book is the suggestion to really move away from this preconception that people are simply curious or not curious or naturally more or less curious, and that curiosity looks in one particular way or as one one set of behaviors.

我认为这种观念反复出现在我们所进入的课堂中，也体现在我们所处的专业学术圈或其他工作环境，甚至家庭关系中。

I think this marks over and over again the source of classrooms we enter, but also the, professional academic circles that we're in or other employment kind of settings, even family relations.

对吧？

Right?

但这样一来，我们就忽略了好奇心本身的超维度性，以及它不仅通过行为表现出来，还渗透在我们日常所处的物质结构和基础设施中的种种方式。

But we miss then this hyperdimensionality, I think, of curiosity itself and the many ways in which it not only expresses itself in behavior but becomes saturated in the material kind of structures and infrastructures through which we move on an everyday basis.

因此，正是这种从将好奇心视为单一维度的事物，转向认识到它有多重表现形式，构成了本书的核心驱动力。

So it's really that shifting away from curiosity is a simple sort of one dimensional thing to its multiple ways of appearing that drives much of this book.

我们最后确实会提到一个动物图鉴，我猜你们也会谈到这一点，其中我们提出了另外18种生物——不是风格或角色，而是以至少18种不同方式表现出好奇心的生物。

And we do finish, and and I assume that we'll get there, but we do finish with a bestiary in which we propose another 18 different creatures, not styles or characters really, but creatures who are curious in at least another 18 different ways.

对我们而言，这标志着我们以更广阔的视角来思考好奇心在其日常复杂性中的存在，是一次重要的提升。

And to us, that's a leveling up of this expansive approach to trying to think about curiosity in the complexity of its everyday existence.

是的。

Yeah.

也许为了形象化这一点，佩尔，我喜欢你刚才的说法。

And maybe to put an image to that, Per, I like the way that you just said it.

好奇心深深嵌入了物质性和社会结构之中。

The curiosity becomes embedded in the materiality and in in structures of society.

我还想到我们之前对话中提到的，我们可能同时拥有多种风格，这两个想法让我想起了塞萨尔·里帕的一段话，关于一种具有多种好奇心特质的特定物质。

And I'm also thinking, like, the earlier bit of our conversation where we may have multiple styles at once, these two ideas together remind me of the passage from Cesar Rippa of the a particular material that has multiple kinds of curiosity on it.

你能分享一下这个故事吗？

Can you share that story?

因为这是我最喜欢的段落之一。

Because it's one of my favorites.

当然。

Sure.

是的。

Yeah.

我们讨论过的一种生物是青蛙。

So one of the creatures we discussed is the frog.

我这是引用自14世纪的一位图像学家塞萨里帕，我想是这样。

And I'm drawing this from Cesaripa who was an iconographer in the thirteen hundreds, I believe.

图像学家指的是描绘事物形象的人。

And he depicts an iconographer means someone who depicts images of things.

在这种情况下，有一幅描绘美德与恶习的图像，而好奇心是其中之一。

And in this case, there's an image of the virtues and Curiosity is one of them virtues and vices.

他将好奇心描绘成一位头发直立、双翼巨大的女性。

And Curiosity he depicts as this woman with just hair standing absolutely straight on end and she has huge wings.

她像是一个女性天使，穿着一件宽大的长袍，长袍上实实在在地缀满了人耳大小的耳朵，还有真正的青蛙。

She's some kind of woman angel person and she's wearing this very large flowing robe and on the robe are literally ears, human sized ears attached to her robe somehow, and frogs also, real frogs on her robe.

这个奇特的形象旨在捕捉好奇心的古怪特质，它能够包容天空的一切精神，同时也体现其倾听、仔细倾听和广泛倾听的能力。

And this strange image is supposed to capture Curiosity's eccentricity, its capacity to kind of embrace all of the spirit of the sky, but also his capacity to listen and listen carefully and listen widely.

而青蛙则象征着，青蛙的视野能超越人类的周边视觉范围。

And then the frogs are to capture apparently, that frogs can see well past the periphery that humans can.

我们的眼睛位置太靠内、太靠近，无法像青蛙那样看到更广阔的周围环境。

Our eyes are too inset and too close together for us to see as far around us as a as a frog can.

他说，好奇心让我们能够比人类通常的能力看得更远、更具情境性。

And and he said, but curiosity lets us see further around and further contextually than any human capacities typically can.

所以，这只是好奇心历史中一个瞬间的爆发。

So that's just one kind of explosion of a moment in in Curiosity's history.

你知道，你特别提到青蛙很有趣，因为任何看过《侏罗纪公园》的人都知道，青蛙具有这种视觉处理能力，专注于边缘检测和运动感知。

You know, it's funny that you focus on the frog specifically because for anyone who's watched Jurassic Park, right, frogs have this visual processing that focuses on the edge detection and movement in motion.

它们对观察移动的物体非常敏感。

They're attuned to observing things that are moving.

因此，如果你足够缓慢，其实可以很容易地接近青蛙，尽管它们拥有类似360度的全景视野，但它们的关注点在于世界的动态变化。

And so you can actually sneak up on a frog relatively easily if you're slow enough because in spite of the fact that they have this sort of three sixty kind of panoptic view, they're focused in a way on the verbing of the world.

我想回到你写的关于米歇尔·福柯的那本书，你提到福柯偏好从不单独谈论权力或知识，而是始终谈论‘权力-知识’，连字符表明信息总是物质性的，而具身性总是理论性的。

And so I wanna loop back and link that to something in this book that you've written on Michel Foucault because you talk about how Foucault preferred, quote, never to speak of power or knowledge in isolation, but instead always of power knowledge, the hyphen signifying that information is always material and the embodied is always theoretical.

通过不同动物的身体来探讨这些不同风格的好奇心，我们实际上是在将表型视为世界的模型、一种假设、一种对环境本质的实践性推断。

In talking about these different styles of curiosity through the bodies of different animals, we are, again, talking about the phenotype as a model of the world, as a hypothesis, as an enacted inference about the nature of its environment.

我认为这一点被太多人忽视了，特别是——好吧，我要加入圣塔菲研究所的传统，批评一下经济学家了。

And I think that this is something that is lost on so many people, and in particular, not I mean, I just like I'm gonna join the SFI tradition of dogging on economists.

但这一点正是关于经济无限增长的讨论所忽视的，正如我们与凯莱布·沙尔夫和其他嘉宾在节目中讨论过的，信息处理始终且永远伴随着热力学成本。

But, like, this is this is something that the conversations about the endless growth of the economy seem to neglect the fact that, as we've discussed with Caleb Scharf and others on the show, information processing always and forever has a thermodynamic component.

大卫·沃尔珀特谈到了计算的热力学。

David Wolpert talks about the thermodynamics of computation.

因此，思考是有代价的。

And so there are costs involved in thought.

好奇心也有代价，这些代价会以社会中的权力关系体现出来。

There are costs involved in curiosity, and these express themselves in power relations in society.

我非常欣赏你在书中提出的这一点：正如我们前面提到的，被允许去好奇是一种特权，并非每个人都能享有这种特权。

And I really appreciated how you make this point in the book that curiosity, again, as we mentioned earlier, to be allowed to be curious is a privilege, and not everyone gets that privilege.

我很想听听你对我现在抛给你的这个线团怎么展开讨论。

And I'd love to hear you just play around with that ball of yarn that I I'm throwing at you now.

米歇尔·福柯更站在你这一边，费瑞。

Michelle Foucault is more on your side, Fairy.

对吧？

Right?

没错。

That's true.

正是。

Squarely.

但认知。

But cognition.

对。

Yeah.

而且

And the

特定形式的认知及其与特权和权力的关系。

and the costs of particular forms of cognition and this question of privilege and power.

你知道，我认为对我们两人来说，强调探究的景观和心智景观是不平等的，这一点自有人类记录以来就一直如此，真的很重要。

You know, I do think it's it's really important for both of us to emphasize that landscapes and mindscapes of of inquiry are unequally drawn and have been for as long as we have human record.

因此，这一点需要持续得到关注。

So that needs to consistently be addressed.

由于知识生产、获取和传播的不平等结构，许多历史、故事、实践和情感领域实际上已经对我们丧失，或至少被埋藏了起来。

And there are whole realms of history and story and practice and feeling that have been, in fact, lost to us or at the very least buried because of those unequal structures of of knowledge production and knowledge acquisition and knowledge circulation.

但这并不意味着边缘化和受压迫的群体就没有能力保持好奇。

But that doesn't mean for us that marginalized peoples and oppressed peoples haven't been able to be curious.

我们非常致力于思考：好奇心在底层是什么样子的，就像它在高处一样？

We're really really committed to trying to think what does curiosity also look like kind of underfoot as as much as it does overhead perhaps?

因此，对于那些有权决定历史叙述方式的人而言，好奇心是什么样子的？而在那些抵抗性生活的微小社群中，它又是什么样子的？

So from from the folks who get to tell history in particular ways, what does curiosity look like there, but also what does it look like in small enclaves of resistant life?

例如，在我们关于教育的章节中，提到了自由学校——这是民权运动时期的一项努力，旨在重新思考学习的意义，以及如何以高度情境化和切合当时种族隔离现实的方式进行学习。

And so we talk, for example, in our chapter on education about the freedom schools, which were an endeavor during the civil rights movement to rethink what it means to learn and to learn in a way that is incredibly contextualized and relevant to addressing racial segregation of the time.

这是一种好奇心的实践，也是一种好奇心的教育法，我认为它在教育史上是独一无二的。

And that is a practice of curiosity and a pedagogy of curiosity that I take to be absolutely unique in the history of education.

因此，我喜欢从两个角度来思考：好奇心在哪里发挥作用，以及它呈现出什么样子。

So I like to think about it from both angles, where the curiosity works and what it looks like.

或许为了更聚焦于你的视角，丹尼，我很想听听你对好奇心作为一种代谢过程的看法，以及这种代谢如何在不同形态的好奇心——爱管闲事者、猎人、舞者——中独特地表现出来。

And maybe to focus this a little bit more in your direction, Danny, I'd love to hear your thoughts on a curiosity as a metabolic process and the way that that metabolism expresses itself distinctly in these different modes of curiosity, the busybody, the hunter, the dancer.

是的。

Yeah.

这是一个非常有趣的问题。

That's a really interesting question.

我的意思是，我们在书中确实讨论过，通过与周围世界互动来构建对世界的网络模型，而好奇心正是让我们能够构建这些知识网络的关键。

I mean, we do in the book, we do talk about engaging with the world around us to build a network model of the world, and that's what curiosity is allowing us to do is to build these knowledge networks.

当我们这样做时，大脑会面临一个有趣的权衡，需要持续进行协调：即在构建准确的世界模型与最小化心理资源消耗之间取得平衡。

When we do that, the mind sort of has this interesting trade off that it has to consistently arbitrate, and that is between building an accurate model of the world and minimizing the use of mental resources.

如果你完全最小化心理资源的使用，那么你构建的世界模型就会完全不准确。

So if you completely minimize the use of mental resources, then you build a completely inaccurate model of the world.

而如果你构建一个完全准确的世界模型，就必须消耗大量的心理资源。

Whereas if you build a perfectly accurate model of the world, you have to use a large number of mental resources.

因此，在我们的研究中，大多数人会在这两个极端之间找到一个平衡点，以尽可能准确地构建世界模型，同时最小化心理资源的消耗。

So what most people do in our studies is sit kind of in between those two endpoints such that we get as accurate as possible a model of the world while minimizing our mental resources.

因此，从好奇心的角度来看，这表明我们可能会采用不同风格的好奇心，有的侧重于模型的准确性，有的则侧重于构建模型所消耗的心理资源。

So when you think about that in the context of curiosity, it just suggests that we may engage with different styles of curiosity that are foregrounding or backgrounding the accuracy of models or the mental resources used to build the models.

这种差异在我们之间可能存在，也会随着一天中的时间或其他生活中的情境因素在我们自身内部发生变化。

And that that can vary among us, and it can also vary within us according to the time of day or other contextual factors, that are going on in our lives.

我的意思是，从更宏观的角度来看，你作为人类个体、作为双胞胎的差异，恰恰反映了我们在社会中以不同认知模式分化的过程，就像夜猫子和早起者那样。

I mean, it strikes me to get kind of meta about this, that the fact that your own differentiation as human individuals, as twins, is a kind of microcosm of the way that we speciate in different cognitive modes as people in society living together, owls and larks.

对吧？

Right?

拥有不同昼夜节律的人，采用各种不同方式的人，我们或有意或无意地正在执行一种更广泛的集体好奇心，这就像杰弗里·韦斯特所说的，循环系统是一种填满空间的网络。

People with different circadian rhythms, people with different approaches of of all all different kinds, and that we're kind of performing wittingly or unwittingly a broader collective curiosity that is doing like Jeffrey West talks about circulatory systems as space filling networks.

因此，我们正在分散到一个更高维度的探索方式空间中。

And so we're scattering into a higher dimensional space of ways of exploring higher dimensional space.

这让我想到，我们需要社会结构来重视这种分散性。

What that point makes me think of is that we need structures in society that value that scattering.

也就是说，要重视个体以不同方式进入他们周围知识空间的扩散。

So that value the spreading out of individuals into different ways of engaging in the knowledge space around them.

只有充分调动这种分化潜力，我们才能共同构建出单靠个人无法实现的东西。

And that really only in engaging all of that potential for speciation will we be able to build something collectively that we couldn't as individuals.

与此相关的是，你提到了语义网络，而我当时在凌晨两点读到这部分时，感觉完全豁然开朗了。

Kind of in keeping with that, you talk about semantic networks, and this is where the read I was reading this at, like, 2AM, and it went completely vertical for me.

是的。

Yeah.

这就像是一场悠闲的散步，突然之间，你却要双手攀爬一条陡峭的山坡。

It's like, this this is like a leisurely walk, and suddenly, you're, like, climbing with your hands up a steep slope.

但我非常希望你能谈谈这项研究：利用网络科学通过量化分析词语及其相互关系，来理解概念之间的联系，并将其与理查德·道金斯的《攀登不可能之山》一书联系起来，他在书中谈到了‘所有可能贝壳的展厅’。

But I would love to hear you talk a little bit about this research into using network science to understand the relationships between concepts through the quantitative analysis of words and their relations in explicit linkage to Richard Dawkins and the book Climbing Mount Improbable, where he talks about the hall of all possible shells.

这就是一个贝壳的样子。

This is what a shell is.

这代表了贝壳生长的三个维度。

These are the three dimensions in which a shell can grow.

我们脑海中有一个想象中的贝壳大全，囊括了所有可能存在的贝壳。

We have an imaginary bestiary of all of the shells that could be.

但圣塔菲研究所的一个重要观点是理解发育偏差及其在进化中的作用，以及物理尺度和其他特性对进化的限制——这些限制使得我们不可能拥有所有可能的贝壳，也永远不可能拥有。

But one of the big things about SFI is understanding developmental bias and its role in evolution and the constraints placed on evolution by a physical scaling and other properties such that we don't have all of the possible shells and we never will.

这正是莎拉·沃克关于组装空间研究的特征：生命之所以为生命，就在于它能产生比其实际能够实现的更多的可能性。

That's characteristic of Sarah Walker's work on assembly space, that one of the things that makes life life is that it generates more possibility than it can ever actually embody.

因此，我对这种关于词语的研究很好奇，它向我们揭示了的不仅是斯图尔特·考夫曼所说的‘邻近可能’，还有那些我们虽能直觉感知却可能永远无法获得实现途径的不可达可能性。

And so, yeah, just curious about this work on words and what it suggests to us about not only the Stuart Kaufman adjacent possible, but also the inaccessible possible concepts that we can sort of intuit but for which there may never be an affordance.

这些可能性可能永远没有实用价值。

There may never be utility.

我喜欢将语义网络与物种形成联系起来思考。

I love to think about semantic networks in connection to speciation in a sense.

我通过恩斯特·亨克尔的工作来理解它们，他构建了那些美妙的径向区域图像。

And I think about them through the work of Ernst Henkel and these beautiful images that he constructed of radial area.

如果你回看其中一些图像，会发现它们大多具有高度结构化的特点：一个部分连接着另一个，再连接下一个，形成类似三角网格的结构。

If you look back at some of those images, you can see that many of them are highly structured in the sense that there is a piece that's connected to another that's connected to another in sort of a triangular grid.

这些图像非常优美。

And they are they're beautiful.

它们是有秩序的。

They're ordered.

它们看起来完美无缺。

They look perfect.

还有一些物种具有更多环状结构，中间存在巨大的空隙，我甚至不知道这些空隙对这种动物来说有什么作用。

Then there are also species that have much more loop like structure with huge gaps in them, and I don't even know what the gaps are for for that particular animal.

而介于两者之间的各种情况也都存在。

And then there's sort of everything in between.

我喜欢这些图像，因为它们让我觉得与不同领域知识的结构密切相关。

What I like about those images is that they strike me as very relevant to the structure of knowledge in different areas.

在数学中，当我们基于证明结构发展数学时，我们对数学各个子领域的理解可能呈现出更明显的三角网格结构。

So in mathematics, we may as we grow mathematics based on proof structures, we may have a much more triangular grid to our understanding of the sub pieces of mathematics.

相比之下，如果我们转向另一个研究领域，可能会发现更多环状结构，因为存在大量历史依赖性——正如你提到的发展过程，这会将我们引向某个特定方向，而让中间的整个空间完全空置。

Whereas in contrast, if we move to another area of inquiry, we may have more loopy structures because there is so much history dependence, going back to your point about development, that would lead us in one particular direction and leave a whole space in the middle completely empty.

我们确实深入思考过，并且在这方面做过一些研究，探讨知识如何建立在先前知识之上，以及这对我们理解那些空白空间意味着什么。

So we do think deeply and, in fact, have done some research in this space of how knowledge is built upon prior knowledge and what that means for the empty spaces.

因此，佩里和我特别致力于研究引用网络。

So Perry and I particularly have been working in understanding citation networks.

因此，无论是科学论文还是人文学科论文，任何学术论文都会引用先前的研究，以证明、支持或 contextualize 当前论文中的观点。

So this is where a scientific paper or a humanities paper, any scholarly paper will cite prior work to justify or support or contextualize the comments that are made in the current paper.

而我们发现，通过研究多个不同领域的引用模式，存在对女性、有色人种学者以及边缘化群体的明显偏见。

And what we find is that by studying these citation patterns in many different fields now, that there's a large bias against women and scholars of color and marginalized groups.

这向我们表明，这些知识领域正在以空白的形式成长，而这些空白正是边缘化个体思想的缺失。

And so what that suggests to us is that these knowledge spaces are growing with gaps in them, gaps in them of the ideas of marginalized individuals.

因此，这暗示我们正在构建一种未能充分填充整个知识空间的模式——如果将知识的‘物种’视为数学、社会学等我们选择接受或不接受的学科结构，那么这些结构中存在着巨大的空白，这些空白不仅由历史、某些资金来源的动机或社会价值观解释，也与学者自身的身份有关。

And so that suggests that we are constructing patterns of knowledge that are not filling out the whole space that we could and that the sort of species of knowledge if if the species are, you know, mathematics and sociology and whatever disciplinary structures we want to buy into or not buy into, there are large gaps in them that are explained not only by history, not only by the motivation of certain funding sources or the values of society, but also on the identities of the scholars involved.

是的。

Yeah.

这让我意识到，我们还有大量工作要做，去思考如何填补这些可能包含宝贵信息的空间——即使我们最终选择不用它们，因为实用性并非一切。

So that suggests to me that there's a lot more work to do to consider how to fill in those spaces that may actually contain wonderful information we could use or not use since utility is not everything.

为了进一步拓展这个观点，我想提到《编织甜草》这本书，这是原住民植物学家罗宾·沃尔·金默尔的一本广为人知的著作。她在参考文献中不仅会引用原住民故事讲述者，因为这些故事并非由某一个人独创，而是源于口述传统，有整个社群共同守护着这些故事。

And just to blow that open a little bit more, I would also say if you think of Braiding Sweetgrass, which is a it's a book well known book by Robin Wall Kimmerer, who's an indigenous botanist, one of the things that she does in her references is not only to credit indigenous storytellers, right, because it's not as if there's one person who came up with a story, but rather this is a oral history tradition or an oral tradition and that there's a whole community of people who care for this story.

对吧？

Right?

那么，你该如何引用这种内容呢？

So how do you cite that?

但她以一种方式做了引用，指出这是对一群分享并传承这些故事的人的致谢。

But she does it in a way reference this, say this is a a credit to a community of folks who have shared and and kept alive these stories.

此外，她还致谢了甜草，例如，或者她所研究的其他植物。

And also, she credits sweet grass, for example, or other plants that she's studying.

同样地，我前几天刚读了一本新书，叫《地下流》，是关于河流正义的。

And in the same way, you know, I was just reading the other day a new book out called Underflows, which is about river justice.

但在书中，作者克莱尔·沃尔利·哈扎德说，‘水和我将在接下来的页面中展示……’

But in it, the author, Clear Wolfley Hazard, says, as water and I will show in the following pages, blah blah blah.

因此，他把自己和水设定为共同合作，向我们揭示河流正义的真相，尤其是地下流及其对水流来源与去向的影响。

So he sets himself up as he and water are collaborating together to show us something about the truth of river justice and the well, it's particularly underflows and their effects on where where it goes and comes from.

仅仅这一点，就远远超出了我们所致谢的人以及我们所讨论的人群范畴——我们是否能思考知识生产与非人类生命乃至非生命之间惊人的亲密关系？

So just that, just to expand way beyond who we're crediting as people and what sort of people groups we're talking about, but can we think about knowledge production and its incredible intimacies with nonhuman life and even nonlife.

我不认为我们会把水视为有生命的，但这种复杂性究竟是什么？

I don't think we would consider water living necessarily, but what is that kind of complexity?

知识也在那里以及随之而生，这意味着什么？

What does it mean that knowledge is built there too and therewith?

确实如此。

Indeed.

是的。

Yeah.

我正要深入阅读凯伦·巴克的《生命的声响》，这本书探讨了生物声学以及我们此前完全不了解的生物之间的各种关系，因为目前文明主导的感知方式是视觉模式。

I'm about to dive into Karen Bakker's The Sounds of Life about bioacoustics and all of these relationships between organisms that we were unaware of simply because at this moment, the dominant sensory modality being expressed through civilization as a visual modality.

并不是要忽视那些死去的白人男性。

And not to oversight dead white guys.

我忍不住。

I can't help it.

丹尼，你让我对这件事彻底改变了看法。

Danny, you've you've ruined me on this.

我现在再也无法视而不见了。

I I can't unsee this now.

但不，没关系。

But, no, it's fine.

谢谢。

Thank you.

但马歇尔·麦克卢汉，对吧？他谈论的是不同媒介如何塑造这种现象，以及现代世界在很大程度上是印刷媒介的产物。

But Marshall McLuhan, right, talking about the way that different media shape this and the fact that, you know, the modern world is largely the product of a print based medium.

当我读到这本书中你谈到书籍本身作为一连串线性文字以及叙事压缩的问题时，这一点变得格外清晰。

And this was was brought into glaring focus for me in reading the section of this book where you talk about the book itself as a linear sequence of words and the question of narrative compression.

你说：我该如何构建这一系列信息，像一串珠子一样串联起思想，以最大化学习效果？

And you say, How do I create this information sequence, a set of beads on a string of thought in a way that maximizes learning?

这是一个非常有价值的问题。

Which is such a valuable question.

然而，它仍运作在一个范式之中，正如你在下一页的图中所说，一个人不可能在同一时刻说出一百个词。

And yet, it's operating within a a paradigm where, as you say in a figure on the the next page, a person cannot speak a 100 words in the same moment.

但俗话说，一图胜千言。

But as the cliche goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

所以，这个播客，我认为本身就是一个有趣的两栖存在，因为SFI未来几年非常希望探索的是，如何打开大门，接纳不同的沟通方式来传递这些内容。

And so the question you know, this podcast, I think, is an interesting sort of amphibian in its own regard because one of the things that I we're very eager to explore at SFI, I think, in in the the years to come is how to open the gates to different ways of communicating this stuff.

你看，比如德克·布罗克曼和妮基·卡斯的复杂可探索系统，这些互动游戏，或者斯图尔特·坎迪用卡牌游戏引导人们培养推测性未来学家能力的作品。

I mean, you look at, like, Dirk Brockman and Nikki Case and their complexity explorables, these interactive games, or you look at Stewart Candy's work with card games as a way of inviting people into developing their their skills as speculative futurists.

因此我很好奇，因为在这本书的相当一部分内容里——正如你刚才提到的——你谈到了教学法，以及你如何看待其他感官模式如何促进好奇心的形成和这些内容的传播？

And so I'm curious because you do spend a good chunk of this book, again, as you mentioned a moment ago, talking about, you know, pedagogy, the ways that you see other sensory modes as contributing to the process of curiosity and the process of communication of that stuff?

因为最后一点，当你谈到好奇心在三维空间中的断裂、脱离平面时，我想到的是，许多学者都将互联网描述为一个坐在桌前、从一个网站跳到另一个网站的地方。

Because just the last piece on this, one of the things that it struck me when you're talking about curiosity even in three d as ruptures, leaving a plane, is the way that Myriad scholars have talked about the internet itself as being a place where sitting at your desk, you're moving from one website to another website.

你在这张网络中不断跳跃。

You're jumping along this network.

因此，我认为，像我们这样的对话，直到数字媒介为我们塑造了一种网络认识论之前，根本不可能以同样的方式存在。

And so there's a sense in which I think conversations like this one were not even really possible in the same way until a kind of network epistemology was impressed on us through the digital medium.

你提到我们不仅仅从文字中学习。

Your point that we learn not just from words.

因此，文字的结构、叙事的优化与高效传达，只是沟通更广泛目标中的一个子目标。

So the structure of words and sort of the maximization of a narrative or the optimization of a narrative, making it efficient in communication is only a sub goal of what communication is more generally.

也许回到佩里之前说的，水的外观和运动方式本身就是一种知识，也是产生知识的主体，任何关于知识构建、我们对知识的好奇心以及我们如何发展知识的理解，都必须考虑到这些因素。

Maybe going back to what Perry was saying earlier, you know, the way that water looks and the way it moves are kinds of knowledge and knowledge producing agents that need to be taken into account in any understanding of knowledge building and of our curiosity about knowledge and how we grow it.

因此，我认为将语义网络研究中的许多理念扩展开来，纳入其他信息模态和不同的认知方式，是极其重要的。

So I think that expanding a lot of the ideas present in the study of semantic networks, but more broadly to incorporate other modalities of information, but also other ways of knowing is extremely important.

这让我想到书中关于教学法那一章里的某些故事，它们聚焦于人类——尤其是神经多样性人群——如何以不同的方式看待知识。

That actually makes me think a little bit about some of the stories in the chapter on pedagogy, which focus on how humans, particularly with neurodiversity, can see knowledge in a different way.

比如，把知识看作星星，或者把知识看作海豚。

So for example, seeing them as stars or seeing knowledge as as sort of dolphins.

一旦我们进一步理解这种多样性，知识创造者在我们心中的特征——而不仅仅是模态和认知方式——就可能变得非常重要。

There may be really important expansions of not just modality and ways of knowing, but also characteristics of knowledge makers in one's mind that become important once we understand begin to understand that diversity further.

不。

No.

我认为这正是我想谈到神经多样性那一部分的地方，人们用完全不同的逻辑和方法将两件事联系起来。

I think that's where I was also going to go to think about that section on neurodiversity and the and the ways in which people put two and two together in really different ways by really different logics and methods.

我还要说，是的，尽管丹尼提到我们确实是一词接一词地表达。

I would also say that, yeah, while Danny does talk about that we do, obviously, we string one word after the other.

可惜的是，我们的编辑不允许我们在书中把两个词叠在一起。

Our editors would not let us put two words on top of each other, unfortunately, in the book.

我们大概试过。

We probably tried.

是的。

Yeah.

但文字的力量在于它是一种共鸣系统。

But there's something so powerful about the written word in that it is a system of resonances.

我认为这尤其适用于我们的书，但也适用于许多许多其他书籍——当你在某一刻听到或读到一个词时，你同时也在听到和读到你之前读过或预期的其他章节。

And I think this is especially true of our book, but I think it's true of many, many, many books that you hear in the moment that you hear or read one word, you're also hearing and reading other sections of the book that you've already been through or anticipate.

这种和谐或不和谐，有时正是我们与像我们这样的作者共同构建知识网络的一部分。

And that that sometimes harmony, sometimes cacophony is part of what it means to be building a knowledge network with authors like us.

对。

Yeah.

也许我可以就此再发挥一下。

And maybe just to riff on that a little bit.

所以，丹妮丝·莱利是斯坦福大学的一位哲学家和诗人，她探讨了这样一种观点：当你阅读甚至写作时，所感受到的这些共鸣，不仅会唤起你正在阅读的叙事中其他部分，还会联想到其他作者、其他时代，甚至是你根本不认识的人。

So Denise Riley is a philosopher and poet at Stanford, and she writes about this notion that those resonances that you hear when you are reading or even when you're writing can hark to not just other spots in that narrative that you're reading, but also to work from other authors or from other time periods or even to people you don't even know.

你并不知道你之前在哪里听过类似的话，但它深藏在你的内心深处。

You don't know where you've heard that before or something similar, but it's somewhere deep inside of your mind.

她提出了这一观点，并论证了两点。

And she calls on this notion, argue two things.

第一，语言就是情感。

One, that language is affect.

它不仅仅是信息，部分原因就在于这些共鸣所构建的情感。

It's not just information, and it's partly because of the affect that is constructed by these resonances.

但此外，我们所写的任何内容，我们试图传达的任何东西，或许甚至我们所说的每一句话，都带着我们之前他人声音的回响。

But then also anything that we write or anything that we try to communicate, perhaps anything that we speak, has the sounds of other people before us.

那么，我们真的还是作者吗？

And, therefore, are we really ever the authors?

我们真的还是说话者吗？

Are we really ever the speakers?

还是说，我们始终在使用他人的语言，以一种超越任何个体、无法被固化为单一人类的方式进行交流？

Or are we always and ever using the words of others and communicating in a way that sort of happens above any of us and not something that can be solidified into a single human?

当然。

Absolutely.

这让我想起Akumo Lefei关于非人类转向和对设计思维的批判所谈过的观点，尤其是关于‘作者’这个概念。

I mean, that just draws my mind to comments I've heard made by by Akumo Lefei about the nonhuman turn and the critique of design thinking, this notion of the the author.

这在当下尤其重要，因为我们正目睹当代知识产权的主流范式被彻底重塑，而人工智能中的大型学习模型正在使其经历一场类似退火的过程。

And this is actually really important right now because we're watching the paradigm the the contemporary status quo of intellectual property getting completely raked over, and it's going through a kind of annealing process right now due to the large learning models in AI.

例如，Stability AI及其依赖的产品如何抓取了Leon 5B数据库——这个包含数十亿个网站的数据库本应是开放的公共爬取资源，但人们未必意识到，他们受版权保护的艺术作品已被上传至Pinterest。

And for instance, the way that stability AI and the various products that depend on it scraped the Leon 5B database, which was billions and billions of websites that were supposedly open for a common crawl, but people were not necessarily aware that their copyrighted artwork had been uploaded to Pinterest.

因此，我们现在处于一个岌岌可危的境地：你在这里所表达的关于‘谁在说话’的担忧，如今已变得格外清晰，彻底挑战了人们长期以来对何为创意与知识公共领域的固有假设。

So we're in this precarious position now where precisely the concerns that you're expressing here about who is doing the speaking have come into focus in a way that really challenges the assumptions that so many people have inherited about what is and is not part of an a creative and intellectual commons.

从神经科学的角度来看，我们已经偏离了正轨。

I mean, we're off the path as far as neuroscience is concerned here.

但与此同时，若非神经科学向我们揭示了自我的模块性以及它如何通过关系得以构建，我们也不会处于当前的社会境地。

But at the same time, I don't think we would be in this place socially were it not for the ways that neuroscience has revealed to us the modularity of the self and the way that it is enacted through relationships.

你提到了原住民的亲属关系。

You speak of indigenous kinship relationships.

在这里，我们已经稍微讨论过这一点了。

Here, we've already talked about that a little bit.

所以，是的，我很想知道，科学是否能为处理这些极其敏感的社会问题提供严谨的方式，如果有的话。

So, yeah, I'm I'm curious how you see the science informing rigorous ways of handling these immensely delicate social issues, if at all.

我的意思是，我确实会思考一下好奇心的科学如何影响人工智能的工作方式？

I mean, I do think a little bit about how the science of curiosity can impact the way that artificial intelligences work?

特别是，也许回到最开始的那个简单想法，即你可能有一个被编程为寻找特定类型信息或有效觅食的人工系统。

In particular, maybe just going back to the very simple idea at the beginning, which is where you may have a a artificial system that has been programmed to search for particular kinds of information or to to forage effectively.

也就是说，知道某个特定空间的存在，绘制出该空间的地图，然后在该空间内进行觅食。

So to know that there's a particular space, to map out the space, and then to forage in that space.

我认为这一切仍然非常关注于现有内容以及寻找内容，这一点我们已经讨论过了。

I think all of that is still very much focused on the content that is present and finding content, which we've already discussed.

内容的分布本身就带有偏见。

The placement of content has biases in it already.

如果能够构建一种人工智能系统，它优先强调在不同想法之间建立新的连接方式，那么我们就具备了填补知识空白的能力，同时也能超越对内容本身的关注——这些内容我们可能理解，也可能不理解，可能有用，也可能无用，可能尚未被我们获知或接触，转而致力于在人工智能系统中培养多样化的连接方式。

Instead of if there is an artificial system that can be constructed that foregrounds making new shapes of connection between ideas, then I think we have the capacity to fill in empty spots of knowledge and also move beyond a focus on the content, which we may or may not understand, may or may not have utility, may or may not be accessible or known to us yet, and instead focus on committing to a diversity of connective styles in the artificial systems.

我认为这有可能真正重塑这些系统能够实现的功能。

I think that that has potential to really reshape what these systems can do.

它如何影响社会不公，我不知道。

How that can affect societal injustice, I don't know.

那是另一个问题。

That's a separate question.

这让我回到了这本书的核心，即如果将好奇心重新定义为一种连接的能力，它的一个作用就是将好奇心的范畴远远扩展到人类之外。

This brings me back to sort of the core of the book, which is that curiosity, if it is redefined as this capacity for connection, one of the things it does is that it expands curiosity well beyond the human.

它让我们能够更清晰地讨论人工智能系统中的好奇心，同时也讨论动物、昆虫中的好奇心，甚至行星层面或太阳系层面的好奇心会是什么样子。

And it allows us to start talking much more coherently actually about what curiosity looks like in AI systems, but also what curiosity looks like in animals and what curiosity looks like in insects and what curiosity might look like on a planet level or on a solar system level.

好奇心可以成为一种我并不想让它变成‘无物’的东西，但我确实认为它开启了一种思考方式：将好奇心视为一种超越人类、也低于人类的运动与构建方式。

Curiosity can become I don't want it to become then nothing, but I do think that it opens up a capacity to think curiosity as a way of moving and building that is more than and less than human.

我认为，在我们人类自以为优越的地位正面临真正质疑的当下，这一点至关重要。

And that is, I think, crucial in a moment where our own superiority, presumed superiority as human beings, is under in real question, I think.

托马斯·霍布斯是这些早期现代哲学家之一，他认为人类至少由三样东西区别开来。

Thomas Hobbes is one of these early modern philosophers who who says humans are distinguished by at least three things.

第一，我们有好奇心，动物没有。

One, we have curiosity, animals don't.

第二，我们有语言，动物没有。

Two, we have language, animals don't.

第三，我们有希望，而动物没有。

And three, we have hope, and animals don't.

我觉得这一点尤其具有讽刺意味。

I find that one particularly ironic.

但现在，关于动物没有语言或任何交流方式的这种看法正在大量瓦解。

But but there's a lot of breakdown now in this perception that animals don't have any language or don't have any ways of communicating, for example.

但我认为，关于动物没有好奇心的这种预设也在逐渐崩塌。

But I think there's also a a growing breakdown in this presumption that that animals don't have curiosity.

如果我们打破好奇心与人类思维之间隐含的联系，我们或许能更真实地理解好奇心。

I think we can be truer to curiosity if we do break its in implicit connection to the human mind.

我之前说过这会是一次线性的讲解，结果完全不是。

Again, I said this was gonna be a linear walk and it's super not.

没关系。

That's fine.

我想回头再谈谈媒体中的网络研究，实际上，克里斯托弗·林恩在这里重新登场，讨论了语言网络家族、名词转换，以及经典文学作品，同时也涉及音乐网络和音符转换。

I wanna double back to work on studying networks in media, and this is where, actually, Christopher Lynn reenters the picture here talking about studying families of language networks, noun transitions, and classic works of literature, but also in musical networks and note transitions.

因此，我想进一步探讨这个问题：我们如何看待不同媒介中网络的形成，以及我们对这些不同媒介所采取的相应研究方法。

And so just to double down on this question about how we see networks forming across media of all different kinds and the associated approaches that we take to these different media.

我想听听你的看法，毕竟我觉得我们欠观众点什么——他们已经听了超过一小时的节目，却还没听到‘熵’这个词七次。

I'd like to hear you talk a little bit about just because I feel like we owe something to people who have made it through over an hour of the show without hearing the word entropy, like, seven times.

我特别想听听你对文本形成的网络与音乐形成的网络之间的差异有何观察，以及你如何理解它们在人类思维中可能承担的不同功能。

I'd love to hear you talk about the differences that you observed between what you saw in the networks formed by texts and the networks formed by music and how you understand those as potentially serving different functions in human thought.

顺便提一下，我想到《纽约书评》最近发表了一篇关于科马克·麦卡锡最新作品的文章，文中深入探讨了他与圣塔菲研究所的经历，以及他对数学家和科学家的刻画。

And with the disclosure that I'm thinking about the New York Review of Books just wrote a piece on Cormac McCarthy's latest works, deeply informed by his time at SFI and portray mathematicians and scientists.

但他本人并不是其中之一。

He himself is not one.

这篇评论提出了一个问题：作为非科学家，你是如何令人信服地描写科学家作为角色的？并进一步探讨了‘词’与‘数’之间的差异，以及数字和词语在科学中被如何看待——科学中普遍存在一种数学柏拉图主义，认为数字比词语更接近真理。

And this review asked this question about how as a nonscientist you write convincingly about scientists as characters and got into this question about the difference between the word and the number and the way that numbers and words are regarded as there's a sort of a mathematical Platonism that is pervasive in the sciences, that numbers are true in a way that words are not.

这一点似乎在你对语言和音乐网络的研究中有所体现。

And that seems to be somehow reflected in the work that you've done on on language and music networks.

我对这些都很感兴趣。

Curious about all that.

是的。

Yes.

所以，让我们回到我们之前讨论的一个话题：人类如何构建对世界的模型，我们使用一种所谓的‘自由能原理’，即试图在最大化模型准确性的同时最小化其计算复杂性，而大多数人会选择一个折中的平衡点，既不完全做到极致，也不完全放弃。

So going back maybe to an earlier part of our conversation where we were discussing how humans build models of the world and that we use this sort of free energy principle where we are attempting to maximize the accuracy of our model but also minimize its computational complexity and that most humans will choose an arbitration point, so some spot in the middle where we don't do either perfectly.

因此，我们既没有彻底节省心理资源，也没有构建出一个完全准确的世界模型。

So we don't completely minimize our mental resources, but we also don't build a perfectly accurate model of the world.

这意味着，由于我们选择了中间点，人类的感知在某种程度上总是不准确的。

What that means, but by the fact that we choose a middle point, is that our human perceptions are always inaccurate to some degree.

它们总是有缺陷的，而且这些缺陷以非常有趣的方式呈现，虽然在这期播客里我们可能没有时间深入探讨，但我们在书中确实讨论过。

They're always imperfect, and they're imperfect in really interesting ways, which we probably don't have time to get into in this podcast, but we do talk about in the book.

但正因为这些不完美，我们可以进一步追问：我们周围的世界有多复杂？

But because they're imperfect in these particular ways, we can then ask how complex is the world around us?

比如威廉·布莱克或简·奥斯汀的作品有多复杂，或者勃拉姆斯或皇后乐队的音乐有多复杂。

How complex is the work of William Blake, for example, or Jane Austen, or how complex is music from Brahms or from Queen, for example.

如果你提出这个问题，当你意识到自己拥有一个不完美的人类感知时，你就必须这样回答：这些外部事物具有内在的熵和内在的复杂性。

And if you ask that question, the way that you have to answer it when you realize that you have an imperfect human perception is that those things outside of us have an internal entropy, an internal complexity.

但除此之外，还有一部分信息是：世界结构与我们通过这个不完美视角所想象的结构有多大的差异。

But then there's an additional kind part of information, which is how distinct is the structure in the world to what we would imagine it to be through this imperfect lens that we have.

而世界与我们用不完美工具所预测的结果差异越大，我们就需要投入更多的能量或努力去理解这种复杂性。

And the more distinct the world is from what we would predict it to be with our imperfect instrument, that means that we have to expend more energy or effort in trying to understand the complexity.

因此，如果某事物与我们的预期相背离，它在我们看来就显得更复杂。

So it looks more complex to us if it is diverging from our expectations.

所以，你可以把周围世界的复杂性看作由两部分组成：一是它自身的内在熵，二是它与我们不完美工具（即大脑）所预期结果之间的偏差。

So you can think about the complexity in the world around you as being composed of both its own internal entropy and the divergence from our expectations given our imperfect instrument, which is our brain.

如果我们把这个区分应用到语言和音乐上，就会看到非常有趣的差异。

So then if we take that distinction to language and music, we see really interesting differences.

因此，在语言中，大型书面作品往往具有较高的熵，但与我们的预期保持一致。

So in language, large written works tend to have a high degree of entropy but to align with our expectations.

因此，名词之间的过渡平均而言符合我们的预期结构。

So the transitions between nouns have a structure that align with our expectations on average.

相比之下，如果你观察古典音乐和更当代的音乐，我们会发现它们的内在熵较低。

In contrast, if you look at both classical music and more contemporary music, we find that they have less entropy, intrinsic entropy.

因此，它们在内在复杂性上较低，但却显著偏离了我们的预期。

So they're kind of less complex intrinsically, but they diverge from our expectations markedly.

我们认为这非常有趣，因为音乐与语言的目标或功能可能存在差异：语言通常用于交流，特别是我们在这项研究中分析的某些作品，旨在有效传达信息。

We think that that's really interesting because the goal or function of music versus language can be distinct in the sense that language is often used to communicate and to to communicate effectively, particularly in some of the pieces that we studied in this work.

而音乐则用于人际连接。

Whereas music is used to connect interpersonally.

它被用于娱乐。

It's used for entertainment.

它常常被有意识地用来制造惊喜。

It's often used purposefully to surprise.

因此，从这个意义上说，与我们的预期产生这种偏离是非常重要且有趣的。

And so in that sense, having this divergence from our expectations is really important and interesting.

现在我需要承认，我刚才做了一些过于笼统的概括，我们相信，你完全可以找到一些非常出人意料且熵值很低的书面作品。

Now I do want to acknowledge that I've made some sweeping generalizations just now and that you could certainly, we think, find written work that is very surprising and has low entropy.

所以，低熵、高偏离我们的预期。

So low entropy, high divergence from our expectations.

你也可以找到某些音乐风格，它们具有很高的熵值，但偏离我们的预期却很小。

You can also find certain styles of music that have very high entropy and low, divergence from our expectations.

因此，你当然可以找到这些例子，但我们的有趣发现是，如果你从这两个庞大的类别中进行大规模随机抽样，最终会发现语言的复杂性更高，音乐的复杂性更低，而音乐中出人意料的程度、与预期的偏离程度也比语言更高。

So you could find instances of these, but what we found was interesting is that if you take kind of a large random sample from those two very big bins, you end up finding that there's more complexity in language, less complexity in music, and more surprise, more divergence from our expectations in music than in language.

我想知道，它们是否与商业成功呈反相关。

I wonder if they're kind of anticorrelated with commercial success.

我们曾邀请德米特里·托莫什科做客节目，而德米特里创作的音乐非常出色、非凡、怪异。

We had Dmitry Tomoszko on the show, and and Dmitry writes this wonderful, extraordinary, bizarre music.

但我听过一些人说，这些属于需要培养的品味，需要时间去建立对预期的理解，比如你该对像塞隆尼斯·蒙克这样的音乐家有什么样的期待。

But I've heard people talk about there are these acquired tastes, that it takes time to develop the inference, like what you are supposed to expect from a you know, thelonious monk or whatever.

因此，这里存在一个推理差距。

And so there's an inferential gap.

这有一个学习曲线。

There's a learning curve.

通过对Spotify和EchoNest等平台的音乐大数据分析显示，流行音乐在过去几十年里变得越来越简单，这类似于生物进化中的现象：一种新事物出现时最初是杂乱而复杂的，随后随着时间推移逐渐简化。

And big data analysis of music through, like, Spotify and EchoNest shows that pop music is becoming precipitously simpler over the last several decades, that it's doing something like what we see evolution doing in biological organisms where, like, a new thing emerges and it starts out kind of messy and complicated, and then it windows itself down over time.

让我们至少讨论一下这个关于具身性的问题，因为有一章名为‘好奇心漫步’，精彩地阐述了思考与运动之间的关系。

Let's make sure that we get to at least this question, you know, about, again, embodiment because there's this beautiful chapter, Curiosity Takes a Walk, on the way that thinking is movement.

这不仅仅是概念空间中的移动。

It's not just movement through conceptual space.

这也是物理空间中的移动。

It's movement through physical space.

你详细阐述了四种不同的散步方式，以及它们如何与不同类型的思考和对世界的体验相关联，我很想听听你对此的见解。

And you expound on four different kinds of walks and the way that they are correlated with different kinds of thinking and of of being in the world, and I'd love to hear you talk about that.

是的。

Yeah.

在我们写作这本书的过程中，这无疑是其中的瑰宝之一。

This is really one of the gems of the book in our experience of writing it.

我们知道，各个领域中关于好奇心的文献彼此之间有着共鸣。

So we knew that literatures on curiosity in our various fields had resonances with one another.

我们原本就知道要深入探讨这些共鸣并进行一些探索，但真正让我们惊喜的是，在我们的研究领域中意外发现了关于散步以及散步作为思考方式的深层联系，这是共同写作这本书时隐藏的真正乐趣之一。

We knew we would dive into that and do some play, but really stumbling on the resonances in our fields around walking and walking as a form of thinking was one of the real delights, the hidden delights of writing this book together.

是的。

Yeah.

这一章梳理了四种不同类型的散步，旨在说明人们有多种方式去应对实际的物理环境，而这些方式通常也会引发或促进大脑中相应的思维模式。

The chapter does map out four different styles of, I guess, styles of walking really to show that there are different ways of negotiating terrains, actual physical terrains that also typically follow or encourage a resonant pattern of thinking in our minds.

例如，苏格拉底就是我们所知的一个极其好奇、善于思考、不断提问的人。

So for example, Socrates is one of these people who we know is someone who's super curious and thinks a lot and asks lots of questions.

他总是四处游荡。

He wanders all the time.

他被铭记为一位非凡的漫游者。

He's remembered as being an incredible wanderer.

他在思想和言辞中也做着同样的事。

And he does the same thing in his thoughts and in his words.

他不断地让我们本质上迷失方向。

He's constantly asking us essentially to get lost.

因此，他以让对话者陷入‘aporrhea’状态而闻名，这仅仅意味着无路可走。

So he's remembered for bringing his interlocutors to the state of aporrhea, which simply means there's no way out.

没有留下任何可渗透的时刻。

There's no porous moment left.

我被困住了。

I'm stuck.

这就是他的目标。

That's his goal.

同样地，他漫无目的地游荡，仿佛也在失去自己在物理空间中的方位感。

And then the same way he wanders, again, as if to lose his sense of where he is in physical space too.

而他希望我们重新唤起的，正是这种好奇心，因为他认为当时的雅典人已经陷入一种固执的信念中，以为自己知道他们在说什么、在做什么、以及将去向何方。

And that's the kind of curiosity that he wants us to reinvite because he thinks that there's a way in which Athens at the time has gotten just stuck in believing it knows what it's talking about, what it's doing, and where it's going.

他说这些都是空谈，我们需要放慢脚步，让人们开始更批判性地思考。

And he says it's that's all hot air, and we need to slow everybody down and get people to start thinking more critically.

对我们今天的人来说，想象这种社会批判并不困难。

And it's not a hard thing to imagine for us today, that kind of, social critique as well.

但当然，这种共鸣在丹尼的领域中也同样得到了充分确立：在思想网络中行走。

But the resonance, of course, is that walking on a network of ideas is very well establishable as well in Danny's field.

丹尼？

Danny?

只是说，对网络的行走研究早已从数学角度展开，并且持续了很长时间。

Just that there are walks on networks are studied from the mathematical point of view and have been for a very long time.

事实上，这与图论的早期发展有着密切联系：是否有人能走过柯尼斯堡的七座桥，且每座桥只经过一次？

And, in fact, there's a very early connection with the development of graph theory in can someone walk through Konigsberg and cross each of the seven bridges once.

因此，行走这一物理概念与思维的类比，让我们能够以不同的方式思考在这种多重关系情境下的好奇心。

So there is a interesting physical conceptual analog of walking that allows us to think differently about curiosity in this multiple relations setting.

而且，你在这篇文章中还区分了……我发现这极其有用。

And then also, you make a distinction in this in this piece between and I found this just immensely useful.

人类学家蒂姆·英戈尔德对‘居住者知识’与‘常驻者知识’的区分。

Anthropologist Tim Ingold's distinction between occupant knowledge and habitant knowledge.

因为正如你在这里某处所说，哦，我太喜欢这句话了。

Because as you say somewhere in here oh, I love this.

我想把这句话纹在我的手臂上。

This I wanna tattoo this on my arm.

你说，匆忙奔波并参与随机的冲突，是有效打破缺乏依据的认知停滞的最好方式。

You say, scurrying about and engaging in random skirmishes is the best way to cohesively disrupt ill justified epistemic repose.

我当时就想，哦，这就是为什么我总是个麻烦人物。

And I was like, oh, this is why I'm such a problem.

无论我在哪里工作，我都会不断追问：我们到底忽略了什么？

Wherever I work, I'm constantly asking what, you know, what what is it we don't see?

因此，我不得不提出这个问题——不夸张地说——尽管将世界之谜转化为定量模型的努力无疑是崇高而鼓舞人心的，但这种做法本身也是一种对神秘的占据，它遗漏了某些东西。

And so I have to ask this question about, not to put too fine a point on it, but the admittedly noble and inspiring effort to render the mystery of our world in the form of quantitative models is also, in its own way, a kind of occupation of mystery, and it misses something.

而这一点正是我常听到人们批评科学本身的原因：他们不理解人文学科的价值。

And this is something that I hear people constantly critiquing science itself for is not understanding the value of the humanities.

对吧？

Right?

不理解定性研究的价值。

Not understanding the value of the qualitative.

所以，无论如何，我想把这场对话落脚在这里。

And so at any rate, that's where I would love to land this conversation.

我觉得很好，可以聊聊我们是如何跨越各自领域走到一起的，以及我们各自领域中那些过于简化的看法——关于我们各自在做什么。

Well, I think it'd be great to talk about just how we came to speak together between and across our fields and the what we like to think of as the, the overly simplistic ways in which our fields think about what we're each doing.

那么科学到底在做什么，哲学又在做什么？丹尼，你可以谈谈科学家，但哲学家，你知道，我们本应极其细致地拆解事物，弄清一个论证的组成部分，并重新组合它，以揭示真理、知识、洞见或智慧。

So what science actually does and what philosophy actually does, Danny, you can talk about scientists, but philosophers, you know, we're supposed to be really carefully pulling things apart and figuring out what are the components of an argument and how can we rearrange it such that we illuminate something like truth or knowledge or insight or wisdom.

我们会尽可能客观、谨慎地这样做。

And we do this as objectively and as carefully as we can.

这就是人们对哲学家所扮演角色的想象。

That's the image of what a philosopher is doing.

但事实上，这要混乱得多。

But really, it's way messier than that.

而我们所做的许多事情比那还要大胆。

And much of what we're doing is wilder than that.

我认为科学也是如此。

And I think the same might be true of science.

让我们能够跨越这些对彼此工作性质的先入之见进行交流的，正是文学。

And what allowed us to talk to each other and to talk across these kind of preconceptions of what it is that we do is really literature.

文学是促成我们开展这项工作的关键或桥梁。

Literature was the crux or the bridge that allowed us to do that work.

丹尼，你想插几句吗？

Dani, do wanna jump in here?

是的。

Yeah.

我只是想说，我完全同意，文学是我们彼此交流思想的一种方式，而无需依赖对方还不理解的领域术语。

Just to say that I completely agree that literature was a way for us to communicate to one another about ideas without depending upon the jargons of our fields that the other person wouldn't yet understand.

这并不是说我们没有致力于学习彼此领域的术语，以便用不同的语言理解对方，但文学无疑是一个重要的交汇点。

That's not to say that we didn't commit ourselves to learning more about the jargon of our respective fields so that we could understand in different languages as well, but literature was definitely a touch point.

而且我们希望，对于这本书的读者来说，这也成为一个接触点，让这些思想以更广泛易懂的方式进入他们的视野。

And that we're hoping that it's a touch point for readers of the book as well, that this is a way into these ideas that is more broadly accessible.

你能从文学中找到许多这些思想，这一点我认为凸显了我们各个学科中的思维方式，其实可能并没有我们想象的那么不同。

And the fact that that you can find many of these ideas in literature, I think, underscores the fact that many of the the ways that we think in disciplines aren't actually maybe as different as we think that they are.

是的，像我这样的科学家喜欢简单的数学模型。

And that, yes, scientists like me love simple mathematical models.

我喜欢，我的意思是，这正是我从事这份工作的原因。

I love I mean, that's why I'm doing what I'm doing.

但我也发现，我阅读人文学科的作品越多，读的文学作品越多，就越能意识到人们即使不使用数学，也在用同样的心理运算方式，只是他们的思维在以相同的方式运转。

But I also think that the more I read in the humanities, the more literature I read, the more I can see that people are using the same mental little computations without math, but but they're moving their minds in the same ways.

我实际上很想更深入地理解这一点。

And I actually think that's something I would like to understand more.

松鼠的匆忙奔窜，那只长着巨大圆眼睛的青蛙。

All the scurrying of the squirrels, the frog with the, like, huge googly eyes.

在这些不同的行走方式中，身体的运动与思维的运动方式，在各个学科之间其实高度一致。

There are ways that the body is moving through these four different walks that the mind is moving that is really consistent across fields.

我认为，我们对这些相似之处给予的肯定还不够。

And we don't give enough credit to those similarities, I think.

但如果我们重视这些相似之处，不仅能够打破学科之间的壁垒，还能获得目前被孤立在各自小领域中的更好整合性洞见。

And but if we did, we would not only break down the barriers between fields more, but we would also be able to gather better integrative insights that are currently sort of siloed away in our own little spots.

太棒了。

Wonderful.

丹尼，我知道你还有事要忙。

Danny, I know you've got a scoot.

我想衷心感谢你们两位花时间写出了这本精彩的书，也感谢你们抽出时间与我交谈。

So I would love to thank you both for the time that it took to write this delicious book and the time that you took to talk to me.

而且你们主动联系我，这真是太好了。

And the fact that y'all reached out to me, that was awesome.

我甚至都不用特意发个‘发球’过去。

I didn't even have to, you know, send the Volley ing shot.

谢谢你们。

So thank you.

然后，佩里，如果你愿意留下来回答一个附加问题，我还想再问一个。

And then, Perry, if you're willing to stick around for a bonus question, I do have one more thing I'd love to ask.

当然。

Sure.

当然。

Sure.

好的。

Okay.

非常感谢你邀请我。

Thank you so much for having me.

是的。

Yeah.

当然了。

Absolutely.

所以我想我的最后一个问题是，我本来很想在和你们对话之前先听听肖恩·卡罗尔和你们俩的对话，以便尽量避免重复，但我没时间。

So I guess my last question is, I really wanted to listen to Sean Carroll's conversation with the two of you before I had this one so that I could make sure to cover as little overlapping terrain as possible, and I did not have that time.

所以

So

不过你已经做过了。

You have done that, though.

你已经做到了。

You have done it.

这和另一个完全不同。

This is much different than the than the other.

那太好了。

So that's that's great.

所以，我想我最后一个问题就是：在你和他对话时，或者在我们这次对话中，有没有什么特别精彩、有趣、值得追问但还没提到的内容？

So I guess, really, just the last question I have for you would be, is there anything that didn't come up in your conversation with him or in this conversation that you find especially juicy and interesting and worth asking?

然后，也许我们可以就此结束，作为送给即将离开的听众的一份礼物。

And then maybe we can just leave it here as an offering to people on the way out the door.

你知道吗，我对标点符号着了迷。

You know, I've become obsessed with punctuation marks.

我读过关于它们的书。

I read books about them.

我读过几十年来各种关于语法的书，以比较人们理解和使用标点符号的方式，这听起来似乎完全不相关。

I read grammar books about them over a variety of decades to sort of compare how it is that people have understood and used punctuation marks, which sounds entirely not relevant here.

但我认为这是相关的，因为我觉得标点符号能让我们标记出一个好奇头脑的转折。

But I think it is because I think punctuation marks allow us to mark the turns of a mind, of a curious mind.

如果我们能思考，一个好奇的头脑在句号中停顿意味着什么，或者使用连字符时，不仅连接下一个想法或把事物融合在一起，还能让它们保持一点距离。

And if we could think about what it means for a curious mind to pause in the sense of a period or to use that hyphen in a way that not just bridges the next idea or pulls things together but also holds them slightly apart.

我认为，各种标点符号以多种方式邀请我们思考的，不仅是好奇的不同风格，还有构建思想的方式，这些方式远比各自学科或领域的成见更有趣。

I think there's there's all kinds of ways in which a variety of punctuation marks invite us to think not just styles of curiosity but also ways of building thought that are, again, far more interesting than the conceits of respective disciplines or or fields.

所以，这就是我最近一直沉浸其中的精彩时刻。

So that's my juicy moment that I've sort of been stuck in lately.

那我们可以用一个‘肠感叹号’来结束。

So we can end with an enterobang.

是的。

Yes.

我太想这样了。

I would love that.

这真是太棒了。

This has been so wonderful.

再次感谢你。

Thank you again.

非常感谢你。

Thank you so much.

是的。

Yeah.

谢谢你。

Thank you.

这简直太棒了。

It's been absolutely absolutely amazing.

我喜欢我们进入了平时不会涉足的领域。

I love that we've gone in places where we don't usually go.

谢谢你的聆听。

Thank you for listening.

复杂性由圣塔菲研究所制作，这是一家位于新墨西哥州高沙漠地区的非营利性复杂系统科学中心。

Complexity is produced by the Santa Fe Institute, a nonprofit hub for complex systems science located in the High Desert Of New Mexico.

如需获取更多信息，包括文字稿、研究链接和教育资源，或支持我们的科学与传播工作，请访问 santafe.edu/podcast。

For more information, including transcripts, research links, and educational resources, or to support our science and communication efforts, visit santafe.edu/podcast.