大卫·查默斯：意识难题

以下是与大卫·查默斯的对话。他是一位哲学家和认知科学家，专攻心灵哲学、语言哲学和意识领域。他或许最为人所知的是提出了意识的核心问题，可以表述为：为什么伴随感官信息觉察的感受会存在？意识几乎完全是个谜。许多关注AI安全与伦理的人认为，某种形式的意识能够且应该被设计进未来的AI系统中。

The following is a conversation with David Chalmers. He's a philosopher and cognitive scientist specializing in the areas of philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and consciousness. He's perhaps best known for formulating the heart problem of consciousness, which could be stated as, why does the feeling which accompanies awareness of sensory information exist at all? Consciousness is almost entirely a mystery. Many people who worry about AI safety and ethics believe that in some form, consciousness can and should be engineered into AI systems of the future.

因此，尽管关于意识仍有许多谜团、分歧和待发现的领域，这些本质上属于哲学范畴的对话，对于现代AI系统的工程师而言仍可能非常重要。这里是人工智能播客。如果您喜欢，请在YouTube订阅，在苹果播客打五星，在Patreon支持，或直接在Twitter上联系我@Lex Friedman（拼写为f r i d m a n）。照例，我现在会插播一两分钟广告，但绝不会在对话中途插入破坏交流连贯性的广告。希望这种方式不影响您的收听体验。

So while there's much mystery, disagreement, and discoveries yet to be made about consciousness, these conversations, while fundamentally philosophical in nature, may nevertheless be very important for engineers of modern AI systems to engage in. This is the artificial intelligence podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, give it five stars on Apple Podcast, support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter at Lex Friedman, spelled f r I d m a n. As usual, I'll do one or two minutes of ads now and never any ads in the middle that can break the flow of the conversation. I hope that works for you and doesn't hurt the listening experience.

本节目由App Store排名第一的金融应用Cash App赞助。下载时请使用代码Lex podcast。Cash App可让您向朋友转账、购买比特币，并以低至1美元投资股市。经纪服务由Square旗下子公司Cash App Investing提供，SIPC成员。由于Cash App支持零股交易，我想特别说明——在幕后实现零股订单抽象化的订单执行算法堪称算法奇迹。

This show is presented by Cash App, the number one finance app in the App Store. When you get it, use code Lex podcast. Cash App lets you send money to friends, buy Bitcoin, and invest in the stock market with as little as $1. Brokerage services are provided by Cash App Investing, subsidiary of Square, and member SIPC. Since Cash App does fractional share trading, let me mention that the order execution algorithm that works behind the scenes to create the abstraction of fractional orders is an algorithmic marvel.

因此要向Cash App工程师致敬，他们解决了复杂问题，最终呈现出一个简化界面，在股市交易之上构建了新的抽象层，让新手投资者更容易参与交易，资产分散投资也更便捷。如果您通过App Store或Google Play下载Cash App并使用代码Lex podcast，将获得10美元，Cash App还会向FIRST组织捐赠10美元——这是我最爱的机构之一，致力于推动全球青少年机器人技术和STEM教育发展。现在请收听我与大卫·查默斯的对话。你认为我们生活在模拟中吗？

So big props to the Cash App engineers for solving a hard problem that in the end provides an easy interface that takes a step up to the next layer of abstraction over the stock market, making trading more accessible for new investors and diversification much easier. If you get Cash App from the App Store or Google Play and use the code Lex podcast, you'll get $10, and Cash App will also donate $10 to First, one of my favorite organizations that is helping to advance robotics and STEM education for young people around the world. And now here's my conversation with David Chalmers. Do you think we're living in a simulation?

我不排除这种可能。宇宙历史上可能会出现大量模拟。如果模拟设计得足够精良，它将与真实世界无法区分。尽管我们可以继续寻找证据证明我们不在模拟中，但原则上任何证据本身都可能是被模拟的。所以我认为这是一种可能性。

I don't rule it out. There's probably gonna be a lot of simulations in the history of the cosmos. If the simulation is designed well enough, it'll be indistinguishable from a non simulated reality. And although we could keep searching for evidence that we're not in a simulation, any of that evidence in principle could be simulated. So I think it's a possibility.

但你认为这个思想实验对于校准我们思考现实本质的方式是否有趣或有用？

But do you think the thought experiment is interesting or useful to calibrate how we think about the nature of reality?

当然。我绝对认为它既有趣又有用。事实上我正在写一本相关的书，全面探讨模拟假说，用它来阐释一系列哲学问题。比如最根本的：我们如何认知外部世界？笛卡尔曾说，可能有个邪恶恶魔在欺骗你，刺激你的大脑让你以为这些事物真实存在，而实际上全是虚构的。

Yeah. I definitely think it's interesting and useful. In fact, I'm actually writing a book about this right now, all about the simulation idea, using it to shed light on a whole bunch of philosophical questions. So, you know, the big one is how do we know anything about the external world? Descartes said, Maybe you're being fooled by an evil demon who's stimulating your brain into thinking all this stuff is real when, in fact, it's all made up.

现代版的问题就是：你如何确定自己不在模拟中？这个假设是：如果你在模拟中，那么一切都不真实。这其实是在探讨认知的本质——我们如何认识外部世界？我认为关于当下现实的本质也存在非常有趣的问题。

Well, the modern version of that is how do you know you're not in a simulation? Then the thought is if you're in a simulation, none of this is real. So that's teaching you something about knowledge. How do you know about the external world? I think there's also really interesting questions about the nature of reality right here.

我的意思是，如果我们在模拟中，这一切真实吗？这里真的有张桌子吗？真的有麦克风吗？我真的有身体吗？标准答案会是否定的。

I mean, if we are in a simulation, is all this real? Is there really a table here? Is there really a microphone? Do I really have a body? The standard view would be no.

我们不存在。这一切都不真实。但我的观点恰恰相反——即便我们在模拟中，这一切也是真实的。因此我称之为'现实2.0'。

We don't. None of this would be real. My view is actually that's wrong. And even if we are in a simulation, all of this is real. That's why I call this reality two point o.

现实的新版本，现实的不同版本，依然是现实。

New version of reality, different version of reality, still reality.

那么所谓的‘真实世界’与我们感知的世界之间有什么区别？我们通过感知与世界互动。世界仅通过我们感知系统的窗口和我们的心智真正存在。那么，某种‘真实’存在的事物——可能在我们不在场时依然存在——与你所感知的世界之间有何区别？

So so what's the difference between, quote, unquote, real world and the world that we perceive? So we interact with the world to the with the world by perceiving it. It only really exists through the window of our perception system and in our mind. So what's the difference between something that's quote unquote real that exists perhaps without us being there and and the the world as you perceive it?

我们感知的世界其实是底层现实的极度简化和扭曲版本。这一点从科学思考中就能明白。显然，我们感知中看不到太多量子力学效应，但我们知道量子力学在所有事物底层运作。我喜欢将我们感知的世界视为色彩、形状存在于空间等非常简化的图景——哲学家威尔弗雷德·塞拉斯称之为‘显象’，即世界向我们呈现的样子。

Well, the world as we perceive it is a very simplified and distorted version of what's going on underneath. We already know that from just thinking about science. You know, you don't see too many, obviously, quantum mechanical effects in what we, what we perceive, but we still know quantum mechanics is going on under all things. But I like to think the world we perceive is this very kinda simplified picture of colors and shapes existing in in space and so on. And we know there's a that's what the philosopher Wilfred Sellers called the manifest image, the world as it seems to us.

我们早已知道，在这之下是完全不同的科学图景——原子、量子波函数、超弦理论或任何最新理论。那才是终极的科学现实。我认为模拟假说本质上是关于底层现实（或说准科学/形而上学现实）的另一种假设。‘显象’世界是我们交互的简单界面，它对现实的底层本质保持中立，而科学能帮助我们理解这些。

We already know underneath all that is a very different scientific image with atoms or quantum wave functions or superstrings or whatever latest thing is. That's the ultimate scientific reality. I think of the simulation idea as basically another hypothesis about what the ultimate, say, quasi scientific or metaphysical reality is going on underneath the world or the manifest image. The world or the manifest image is this very simple thing that we interact with that's neutral on the underlying stuff of reality. Science can help tell us about that.

或许哲学也能帮助我们理解。如果我们最终服下‘红色药丸’并发现身处模拟中，我认为这只是关于现实构成的另一种观点。哲学家康德曾问：‘物自体本质为何？’比如我手中的玻璃杯——它向我呈现特定形态、装有液体、透明清澈。而模拟假说正是对‘物自体本质’的一种假设。

Maybe philosophy can help tell us about that too. If we eventually take the red pill and find out we're in a simulation, my view is that's just another view about what reality is made of. You know, the philosopher Immanuel Kant said, what is the nature of the thing in itself? You know, I've got a glass here, it's got all these it appears to me a certain way, a certain shape. It's liquid.

如果我们身处模拟，那么‘物自体’的本质——比如这个玻璃杯——实际上只是上层宇宙计算机中运行的数据结构。这就是人们思考模拟时常见的推论。

It's clear. And he said, what is the nature of the thing in itself? Well, think of the simulation idea. It's a hypothesis about the nature of the thing in itself. It turns out if we're in a simulation, the thing in itself, nature of this glass, it's okay.

它本质上是一堆在上层宇宙计算机里运行的数据结构。没错，这就是人们讨论模拟时惯常的思维路径。

It's actually a bunch of data structures running on a on a computer in the next universe up. Yeah. That's what people tend to do when they think about simulation.

人们总用现代计算机来类比，认为无非是某种程度上的简单放大。但若要模拟像我们宇宙这般由分子、原子、粒子、夸克甚至弦构成的复杂系统——你认为我们真能概念化这种模拟所需的规模吗？还是说这最终会滑向‘必须建造一个宇宙才能模拟它’的模糊无用的理念？

They think about our modern computers and somehow trivially, crudely just scaled up in some sense. But do you think the simulation I mean, in order to actually simulate something as complicated as our universe that's made up of molecules and atoms and particles and quarks and maybe even strings. All of that requires something just infinitely many orders of magnitude more of of scale and complexity. Do do you think we're even able to even, like, conceptualize what it would take to simulate our universe, or does it just slip into this idea that you basically have to build a universe, something so big to simulate it? Is the does it get this into this fuzzy area that's not useful at all?

确实。我们的宇宙显然复杂得难以置信。作为宇宙内部的观察者，要模拟同等复杂度的宇宙存在明显困境：若宇宙有限，这根本不可能实现；若宇宙无限，或许存在某种巧妙方式——比如无限宇宙自我模拟——但这依然极其困难。

Yeah. Well, I mean, there's obvious I mean, our universe is obviously incredibly complicated. And for us within our universe to build a simulation of a universe as complicated as ours is gonna have obvious problems here. If the universe is finite, there's just no way that's gonna work. Maybe there's some cute way to make it work if the universe is infinite.

即便如此，假设我们确实处于模拟中，我认为并没有特别理由要求模拟宇宙本身必须...

Maybe an infinite universe could somehow simulate a copy of itself, but that's going to be hard. Nonetheless, just so we are in a simulation, I think there's no particular reason why we have to think the simulating universe

不必与我们的宇宙相似。你之前说过，或许可以想象成‘乌龟塔无限下叠’的情形。你可以构想一个与我们不同的模拟宇宙，而我们自身也可能创造另一个模拟宇宙。所以你提到可能存在这种多层级宇宙，你还幽默地（也许是认真的）提出可能存在模拟中的模拟，任意堆叠的层级。嗯。而我们可能就处在第42层。

has to be anything like ours. You've said before that it might be so you could you could think of it in turtles all the way down. You you could think of the simulating universe different than ours, but we ourselves could also create another simulating universe. So you said that there could be these kinda levels of universes, and you've also mentioned this hilarious idea, maybe tongue in cheek, maybe not, that there may be simulations within simulations, arbitrarily stacked levels Mhmm. And that there may be that we may be in level 42 Oh, yeah.

顺着这个堆叠概念，引用《银河系漫游指南》的说法。如果我们确实处于第42层的模拟中的模拟里，

Along those stacks, referencing Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe. If we're indeed in a simulation within a simulation at level 42,

你觉得

what do you

第零层宇宙会是什么样子？

think level zero looks like?

原始的第零层必然极其庞大。我指的不只是有限的超大容量，更可能是无限的。或许具备某些高阶集合论基数，能支持任意数量的模拟。第零层是极高阶的无限，第一层稍低些。等到我们这第42层时，或许仍有充足空间容纳大量有限容量的模拟。

The original that level zero is truly enormous. I mean, not just if it's finite at some extraordinarily large finite capacity, much more likely it's infinite. Maybe got some very high set theoretic cardinalities that enables it to support just any number of simulations. High degree of infinity at level zero, slightly smaller degree of infinity at level one. By the time you get down to us at level 42, maybe there's plenty of room for lots of simulations of finite capacity.

如果顶层宇宙只有有限的小容量，那显然会严格限制你能运行的模拟数量。所以我确信，如果我们处于第42层，那么顶层绝对大得惊人。

If the top universe is only a small finite capacity, then obviously that's going to put very, very serious limits on how many simulations you're gonna be able to be able to get running. So I I think we can certainly confidently say that if we're at level 42, then the top level's pretty pretty damn big.

所以随着层级下降，限制会越来越多，资源越来越简化受限。

So it gets more and more constrained as we get down the levels, more and more simplified and constrained and limited resources than you do.

没错。我们这里仍有充足容量。费曼不是说过吗？他说‘底层仍有广阔天地’。要知道，我们距离底层基础计算物理容量——量子计算容量——还有若干层级。

Yeah. We still have plenty of capacity here. What was it Feynman said? He said there's plenty of room at the bottom. You know, we're still a number of levels above the degree where there's room for fundamental computing physical computing capacity, quantum computing capacity at the bottom level.

所以我们有充足空间来创造，很可能能模拟相当复杂的宇宙——或许没我们的宇宙这么复杂（除非我们的宇宙是无限的），但至少能模拟相当规模的有限宇宙。当然，除非我们愿意在模拟中走捷径，那样容量就能大幅提升。

So we've got plenty of room to play with and make we probably have plenty of room for simulations of pretty sophisticated universes, perhaps none as complicated as our universe, unless our universe is is infinite, but still, at the very least, pretty serious finite universes, but maybe universes somewhat simpler than ours, unless, of course, we're prepared to take certain shortcuts in the simulation, which might then increase the capacity significantly.

你认为人类心智——我们人类——在模拟复杂度方面，是否达到了这个模拟所能实现的巅峰？如果观察我们这个宇宙中可能创造的惊人实体，你对人类在这个尺度上的非凡程度有何直觉？

Do you think the the human mind, us people, in terms of the complexity of simulation, is at the height of what the simulation might be able to achieve? Like, if you look at incredible entities that could be created in this universe of ours, do you have an intuition about how incredible human beings are on that scale?

我认为我们相当出色，但还没到那种令人惊叹的程度。

I think we're pretty impressive, but we're not that impressive.

我们算中等偏上吗？我是说，我

Are we above average? I mean, I

觉得某种程度上，人类正处于智力尺度的某个节点，这使得许多事情成为可能。要知道，我们经历了从单细胞生物到鱼类、哺乳动物、灵长类的进化过程，而一旦达到人类阶段就发生了质变。我们刚好抵达了能发展语言、特定文化形态和集体思维的层级，这才催生了科学、文学、工程、文化等种种奇迹。所以在进化门槛上，我们其实才刚刚起步——大概也就几千或几万年前才抵达这个位置。

think, kinda, human beings are at a certain point in the scale of intelligence, which made many things possible. You know, you get through evolution, through single cell organisms, through, you know, fish and mammals and primates, and something happens once you get to human beings. We've just reached that level where we get to develop language, we get to develop certain kinds of culture, and we get to develop certain kinds of collective thinking that has enabled all this amazing stuff to happen, science and literature and engineering and culture and, and so on. So we are just at the beginning of that on the evolutionary threshold. It's kind of like we just got there, know, who knows, a few thousand or tens of thousands of years ago.

因此我们可能正处于发展潜力的最初阶段。所以在智慧生命的尺度上，我倾向于认为我们接近底端。比如若身处模拟世界，创造我们的模拟者必然拥有更高级的智慧——谁知道第42级的存在是什么样子？

So we're probably just at the very beginning for what's possible there. So I'm inclined to think among the scale of intelligent beings, we're somewhere very near the bottom. I would expect that, for example, if we're in a if we're in a simulation, then the simulators who created us have got the capacity to be far more sophisticated. For at level 42, who knows

那第零级的又会是怎样的？也有可能当前已是可能性的巅峰。我们人类总觉得自己有缺陷，看到各种约束限制，但或许这些正是混沌边缘的魔力所在——那些让存在变得有趣的本质元素。如果把我们变得过于聪明强大，反而可能丧失让生命值得体验的根本特质。所以你这种乐观视角认为我们是充满成长潜力的婴儿，但也许当下就是最完美的状态。

what the ones at level zero are like? It's also possible that this is the epitome of what is possible to achieve. So we as human beings see ourselves maybe as flawed, see all the constraints, all the limitations, but maybe that's the magical, the beautiful thing. Maybe those limitations are the essential elements for an interesting sort of that edge of chaos, that interesting existence, that if you make us much more intelligent, if if you make us more much more powerful than any kind of dimension of performance, maybe you lose something fundamental that makes life worth living. So you kinda have this optimistic view that we're this little baby that and there's so much growth and potential, but this could also be it.

最惊人的存在就是我们自己。或许你的说法

The most this is the most amazing thing is us. Maybe what you're saying

与我的观点并不矛盾。确实可能存在远超我们的智慧层级，但按你的看法，那些存在可能因全能而让生活变得单一。我们恰好占据着进化史上最具浪漫色彩的节点——未来超级智能的后裔回顾我们时，会说'那才是转折点，那时生活才有趣'。作为乐观主义者，我宁愿相信未来的超级智能会找到让生活极致精彩的方法。

is consistent with what I'm saying. I mean, we could still have levels of intelligence far beyond us, but maybe those levels of intelligence, And, on your view, would be kind of you know, we get we kind get so good at everything that life suddenly becomes unidimensional. So we're just inhabiting inhabiting this one spot of, like, maximal romanticism in the history of evolution. You get to humans and it's like, Yeah, and in years to come, our super intelligent descendants are going to look back at us and say, Those were the days when they'd just hit the point of inflection and life was interesting. I am an optimist, so I'd like to think that, you know, if there is superintelligence somewhere in the in the future, they'll figure out how to make life super interesting and super romantic.

不过你知道

Well, you know what

他们会怎么做吗？当他们觉得超级智能的生活太无聊时，就会创造新层级的模拟世界，通过观察造物在缺陷中跌撞前行来体验生活。所以每次对自身智慧感到厌倦时，就创造新的模拟层级——

they're gonna do. So what they're gonna do is they realize how boring life is when you're super intelligent, so they create a new level of a simulation and sort of live through the things they've created by watching them stumble about in their flawed ways. So maybe that's so you create a new level of a simulation every time you get really bored with how smart and

这想法其实挺可悲的。如果他们的存在巅峰就是看模拟世界取乐，那就像说我们现在的人生巅峰是刷网飞——不至于吧。

This would be kind of sad, though, because if we showed at the peak of their existence would be like watching simulations for entertainment. That's like saying the peak of our existence now is Netflix. No. You know, it's alright.

另一方面，对许多人来说，生育并见证孩子成长可能是我们存在的巅峰。这变得非常有意义。

A flip side of that could be the peak of our existence for many people having children and watching them grow. That becomes very meaningful.

好的。创造一个模拟世界。这就像组建一个家庭。

Okay. Create a simulation. It's like creating a family.

创造嘛，任何形式的创造都是一种强有力的行为。你认为模拟心智还是模拟宇宙更容易？我听过包括尼克·博斯特伦在内的几个人思考过这样的观点：或许不需要模拟整个宇宙，只需模拟人类心智即可。或者说，总体上区分是模拟整个物理世界，还是仅仅模拟心智？你觉得哪个更具挑战性？

Creating like well, any kind of creation is kind of a powerful act. Do you think it's easier to simulate the mind or the universe? So I've heard several people, including Nick Bostrom, think about ideas of, you know, maybe you don't need to simulate the universe, you can just simulate the the human mind. Or in in general, just the distinction between simulating this the entirety of it, the entirety of the physical world, or just simulating the mind? Which one do you see as more challenging?

嗯，我认为从某种意义上说答案显而易见。模拟心智肯定比模拟宇宙简单，因为心智是宇宙的一部分。要完整模拟宇宙，就必须模拟心智。除非我们讨论的是部分模拟。

Well, I think in some sense, the answer is obvious. It has to be simpler to simulate the mind than to simulate the universe, because the mind is part of the universe. In order to fully simulate the universe, you're gonna have to simulate the mind. So unless we're talking about partial simulations.

我想问题在于哪个更基础？是心智先于宇宙存在，还是宇宙先于心智？所以心智可能只是这个宇宙中涌现的现象。模拟是件有趣的事，它并不要求你编程模拟中发生的每件事。嗯。

And I guess the question is which comes first? Does the mind come before the universe, or does the universe come before the mind? So the mind could just be an emergent phenomena in this universe. So simulation is a is an interesting thing that, you know, it's it's not like creating a simulation perhaps requires you to program every single thing that happens in it. Mhmm.

只需定义一组初始条件和行为规则。嗯。模拟心智则需要更多——我们现在有点进入疯狂领域了——它要求你理解认知的基础，可能是意识、感知等一切并非从基本物理定律中涌现，而是需要真正理解心智本质的东西。

It's just defining a set of initial conditions and rules based on which it behaves. Mhmm. Simulating the mind requires you to have a little bit more we're now in in a little bit of a crazy land, but it it requires you to understand the fundamentals of cognition, perhaps of consciousness, of perception, of everything like that that's may that's not created through some kind of emergence from basic physics laws, but more requires you to actually understand the fundamentals of the mind.

那如果说模拟大脑呢？大脑。

How about if we said simulate the brain The brain.

而不是...而不是心智。

Rather than rather than The mind.

心智。大脑只是个庞大的物理系统。宇宙是个巨型物理系统。要模拟宇宙，至少得模拟大脑以及其中所有其他物理系统。大脑的模拟问题并不比任何特别复杂的物理系统更棘手——只要能模拟任意物理系统，就能模拟大脑。

The mind. The brain is just a big physical system. The universe is a giant physical system. To simulate the universe, at the very least, you're going have to simulate the brains as well as all the other physical systems within it. It's not obvious that the problems are any worse for the brain than for its particularly complex physical system, but if we can simulate arbitrary physical systems, we can simulate brains.

更深层的问题是：当你模拟大脑时，是否会连带产生心智的所有特征？比如会出现意识吗？会产生思维吗？会有自由意志吗？等等。

There is this further question of whether, when you simulate a brain, will that bring along all the features of the mind with it? Like, will you get consciousness? Will you get thinking? Will you get free will? And so on.

这正是哲学家们多年来争论不休的问题。我个人观点是，如果你足够精确地模拟大脑，那也会模拟出心智。但确实有很多人持反对意见，认为你只会得到一个类似僵尸系统的产物，即没有真正意识的大脑模拟。

And that's that's something philosophers have have argued over for for years. My own view is if you simulate the brain well enough, that will also simulate the mind. But, yeah, there's plenty of people who would say no. You'd merely get a like a zombie system, a simulation of a brain without any true consciousness.

但对你而言，当你构建出一个大脑时，意识会随之产生。自然涌现。

But for you, you put together a brain, the consciousness comes with it. Arise.

是的。不过我不认为这是显而易见的。

Yeah. I don't think it's obvious.

但这是你的直觉判断。

But that's your intuition.

我的观点大致如此——意识源于信息处理的模式等因素，而非其构成的生物基质。当然很多人坚信意识必须具有生物属性，认为若仅在非生物载体上复制信息处理模式，就会遗漏意识的关键要素。但我认为没有特别理由认定生物学在此具有特殊性，完全可以用硅基电路等非生物系统替代生物组织来扮演相同角色。

My view is roughly that, yeah, what is responsible for consciousness, it's in the patterns of information processing and so on, rather than, say, the biology that it's made of. There's certainly plenty of people out there who think consciousness has to be, say, biological. So if you merely replicate the patterns of information processing in a non biological substrate, you'll miss what's crucial for consciousness. Just don't think there's any particular reason to think that biology is special here. You can imagine substituting the biology for non biological systems, say silicon circuits, that play the same role.

行为表现仍将保持一致。当我思考意识与大脑之间的同构关系时，最深刻的联系似乎指向信息处理模式而非特定生物结构。因此我至少将'意识取决于计算与信息'作为工作假设。当然我们尚未真正理解意识，所以这一切都可能...

The behavior will continue to be the same. And, you know, I think just thinking about what is the true when I think about the connection, the isomorphisms between consciousness and the brain, the deepest connections to me seem to connect consciousness to patterns of information processing, not to specific biology. So I at least adopted as my working hypothesis that basically it's the computation and the information that matters for consciousness. At the same time, we don't understand consciousness. So all this could be

计算、信息流动、处理与操控的过程——意识源自软件层面的运作过程，而非硬件本身。

the the computation, the flow, the processing, manipulation of information, the the process is where the consciousness the software is where the consciousness comes from, not the hardware.

大致可理解为软件层面。是的，至少是硬件中的信息处理模式（我们可将其视为软件）。虽然它可能不像普通软件那样能直接编程、加载或擦除，但它确实存在于信息处理层面而非实现层面。那么对此你有何...

Roughly the software. Yeah. The patterns of information processing, at least, in the in the hardware, which we could view as as software. It may not be something you can just, like, program and load and erase and so on in the way we can with ordinary software, but it's something at the level of information processing rather than at the level of implementation. So on that, what do you

如何看待虚拟世界中的自我体验？我们是否可能通过在虚拟现实中长期存在，创造出某种意识衍生物？换句话说，我们能否通过在虚拟世界中的活动，获得与现实世界同等深度的意识体验？

think of the experience of self, just the experience of the world in a in a virtual world, in virtual reality? Is it possible that we can create sort of offsprings of our consciousness by existing in a virtual world long enough? So, yeah, can we be conscious in the same kind of deep way that we are in this real world by hanging out in a virtual world?

目前我们拥有的虚拟世界虽然有趣，但在某些方面存在局限。特别是它们依赖于我们存在于虚拟世界之外的大脑。即便我戴上VR头显或通过屏幕进入虚拟世界，我的大脑和物理环境仍未被模拟——现阶段没有任何尝试在虚拟世界中模拟我的大脑。

Yeah. Well, the kind of virtual worlds we have now are, you know, are interesting but limited in certain ways. In particular, they rely on us having a brain and so on, which is outside the virtual world. Maybe I'll strap on my VR headset or just hang out in a virtual world on a screen, but my brain and then my physical environment might be simulated if I'm in a virtual world. But right now, there's no attempt to simulate my brain.

在这些虚拟世界中，可能存在一些非玩家角色，它们拥有模拟的认知系统，以某种方式支配其行为。但你知道，目前它们大多还相当简单。我是说，有些人正尝试在非玩家角色中融入一些人工智能，让它们变得更聪明。但就目前而言，虚拟世界中的实际思维与那些虚拟世界的物理规则有趣地分离着。某种程度上，我甚至觉得这让人联想到笛卡尔对我们物理世界的看法。

I might there might be some non player characters in these virtual worlds that have simulated cognitive systems of certain kinds that dictate their behavior. But, you know, mostly they're pretty simple right now. I mean, some people are trying to combine put a bit of AI in their non player characters to make them make them smarter. But for now, inside virtual worlds, the actual thinking is interestingly distinct from the physics of those virtual worlds. In a way, actually, I like to think this is kind of reminiscent of the way that Descartes thought our physical world was.

存在物理法则，也存在心灵，二者是分离的。现在我认为心灵在某种程度上与物理法则有着深刻联系。但在这些虚拟世界中，有虚拟世界的物理法则，然后还有这个完全置身于虚拟世界之外、控制并与之互动的大脑——每当有人在电子游戏中行使能动性时都是如此。实际上，那是虚拟世界之外的人在操控手柄，控制虚拟世界内部事物的互动。所以目前在虚拟世界中，心灵某种程度上是置身于世界之外的。

There's physics, and there's the mind, and they're separate. Now think the mind is somehow connected to physics pretty deeply. But in these virtual worlds, there's a physics of a virtual world, and then there's this brain, which is totally outside the virtual world that controls it and interacts it when anyone exercises agency in a video game. That's actually somebody outside the virtual world moving a controller, controlling the interaction of things inside the virtual world. So right now in virtual worlds, the mind is somehow outside the world.

但你可以想象，未来若发展出真正的人工智能、通用人工智能等，我们就能创造出足够复杂的虚拟世界——你可以真正模拟一个大脑，或拥有真正的AGI（人工通用智能），那么它在虚拟世界中的行为就可能达到与物理世界同等、甚至更复杂的水平。这时问题就来了：那将是一种VR（虚拟现实）内部智能。随之而来的问题是：它们能否拥有意识、体验、智能和自由意志？

But you could imagine, in the future, have developed serious AI, artificial general intelligence, and so on, then we could come to virtual worlds which have enough sophistication, you could actually simulate a brain or have a genuine AGI, which would then presumably be able to act in equally sophisticated ways, maybe even more sophisticated ways inside the virtual world to how it might in the physical world. Then the question's got to come along. That would be kind of a VR, a virtual world internal intelligence. Then the question is, could they have consciousness, experience, intelligence, free will

是的。

Yes.

所有我们拥有的特质。重申一次，我的观点是：我看不出有什么不可能。

All the things that we have. And, again, my view is I don't see why not.

稍微深入探讨一下，我发现虚拟现实确实具有难以置信的强大力量。即便是我们现在这种粗糙的虚拟现实——或许存在某些心理效应，使得某些人比其他人更容易接受虚拟世界——但我发现自己会渴望在虚拟世界中停留更...

To linger on it a little bit, I I find virtual reality really incredibly powerful. Just even the crude virtual reality we have now of perhaps there's a there's psychological effects that make some people more amenable to virtual worlds than others, but I find myself wanting to stay in virtual worlds for for a

久一点。是的。是用头戴设备还是...

little bit. Yes. With with a headset or on

在桌面端？不，用头戴设备。

a on desktop? No. With a headset.

这很有意思。因为我对在桌面端使用互联网之类的东西完全上瘾。但说到头戴式VR设备，我通常使用不会超过十到二十分钟。总觉得有种微妙的排斥感。所以尽管我现在拥有Oculus Rift、Oculus Quest、HTC Vive和三星等各种设备...

Really interesting. Because I am totally addicted to using the Internet and things on a on a desktop. But when it comes to VR for the headset, I don't typically use it for more than ten or twenty minutes. There's something just slightly aversive about it, I find. So I don't right now, even though I have Oculus Rift and Oculus Quest and HTC Vive and Samsung this and that.

你就是...

You just

不想待在那个世界里吗？

don't wanna stay in that world?

不会待太久。你其实发现自己经常在那里闲逛吗？

Not for extended periods. You you actually find yourself The hanging out in there?

某种程度上，这像是想象力与对未来可能性的思考的结合。感觉我几乎是在为未来做准备。就像我想探索迪士尼乐园刚建成时的样子，对，就是早期阶段。

Something about, like, it's both a combination of just imagination and considering the possibilities of where this goes in the future. It feels like I want to almost prepare my brain for it. Like, I want to explore sort of Disneyland when it's first being built Yep. In the early days.

对。

Yep.

感觉我四处走动时几乎在想象各种可能性，这个过程让我的思维真正进入那个世界。但你说大脑在那个虚拟世界之外。严格来说确实如此。但如果

And it feels like I'm walking around almost imagining the possibilities, and something through that process allows my mind to really enter into that world. But you say that the brain's external to that virtual world. It is, strictly speaking, true. But If

你在VR中给一个虚拟形象做脑部手术，当你打开那个头骨，会发现什么？抱歉，什么都没有。

you're in VR and you do brain surgery on an avatar, and you're gonna open up that skull, what are you gonna find? Sorry. Nothing

那里什么都没有。大脑在别处。你不认为有可能将它们分开吗？我不是指笛卡尔式的硬性分离，而是基本上，你认为戴着耳机时，大脑在虚拟世界之外，能否为长时间创造一个新的意识？

there. Nothing. The brain is elsewhere. You don't think it's possible to kind of separate them? And I don't mean in a sense like Descartes, like a hard separation, but basically, do you think it's possible with the brain outside of the virtual when you're wearing a headset, create a new consciousness for prolonged periods of time.

感觉，真的，像是忘记你的大脑在外面。

Feel, like, really, like, forget that your brain is outside.

所以这没问题。这种情况大脑仍然在外面。仍然在外面。但生活在VR中——我是说，我们已经发现这一点了，对吧，通过电子游戏。没错。

So this is okay. This is gonna be the case where the brain is still outside. Still outside. But could living in the VR I mean I mean, we already find this, right, with video games. Exactly.

完全沉浸其中。对。然后你被生活所占据

That Completely immersive Yep. And you get taken up by living

在那些世界里，它会暂时成为你的现实。所以它们并非完全沉浸式的，只是非常具有沉浸感。

in those worlds, it becomes your reality for a while. So they're not completely immersive, they're just very immersive.

完全沉浸式？你不会忘记外部世界，不会的。

Completely immersive. You don't forget the external world, no.

没错，这正是我要问你的。我是说，几乎不可能真正忘记外部世界。真正地、彻底地沉浸其中。

Exactly, so that's what I'm asking you. I mean, it's almost possible to really forget the external world. Really, really immerse yourself.

什么？完全忘记？我们怎么会忘记？要知道我们的记忆力相当好。或许你可以停止关注外部世界，但这种情况本来就经常发生。

What? To forget completely? Why would we forget? You know, we got pretty good memories. Maybe you can stop paying attention to the external world, but, you know, that this already happens a lot.

我去上班时，可能就没注意家庭生活。去看电影时，我就沉浸其中。这种程度的沉浸当然存在。但我们仍有能力记住它——要完全忘记外部世界？我觉得那可能需要些...不知道，可能是相当强效的药物之类的东西才能让你的

I go to work, and maybe I'm not paying attention to my home life. Go to a I go to a movie, and I'm immersed in that. So that degree of immersion, absolutely. But we still have the capacity to remember it, to completely forget the external world. I'm thinking that would probably take some, I don't know, some pretty serious drugs or something to make your

大脑做到这点？所以我想探讨的是，意识是否真是与物理大脑绑定的属性？还是说可以根据你进入的不同世界，创造出某种意识的分支副本？

Is brain do it possible? So, I mean, I guess I'm getting at, is consciousness truly a property that's tied to the physical brain? Or can it can you create sort of different offspring copies of consciousnesses based on the worlds that you enter?

就目前标准VR的实现方式而言，至少只有一个大脑在与物理世界互动

Well, the way we're doing it now, at least for the standard VR, there's just one brain, interacts with the physical world

确实如此。

That's right.

玩电子游戏时戴上头显，与虚拟世界互动。通常我们会认为这里只有一个意识体，只是经历了不同环境，在不同情境中扮演不同角色。这在本就存在于非虚拟世界中。我在家庭生活、职场生活、社交生活中的行为方式都可能不同。所以至少在虚拟世界里，这种现象会非常自然地发生。

Plays a video game, puts on a video headset, interacts with this virtual world. And I think we'd typically say there's one consciousness here that nonetheless undergoes different environments, takes on different characters in different environments. This is already something that happens in the non virtual world. I might interact one way in my home life, my work life, my social life, and so on. So at the very least, that will happen in a in a virtual world very naturally.

人们有时会扮演与自己截然不同的虚拟角色——不同性别、种族或社会背景。这部分绝对可能实现。我认为这是单一意识体承载不同人格的表现。若要说将意识真正分裂成多个副本，恐怕需要更激进的技术。比如在大脑不同模拟体中运行不同现实，让它们经历不同历史轨迹。

People might people have people sometimes adopt the character of avatars very different from themselves, maybe even a different gender, different race, different social background. So that much is certainly possible. I would see that as a single consciousness, a taking on different personas. If you want literal splitting of consciousness into multiple copies, I think it's gonna take something more radical than that. Like, you know, maybe you can run different simulations of your brain and different realities and then expose them to different histories.

然后，你知道，你会把自己分裂成10个不同的模拟副本，这些副本经历不同的环境，最终确实会变成10个非常不同的意识。也许这可能会发生，但现在我们谈论的不是短期内可能实现的事情。我们需要有大脑模拟和人工通用智能才能实现这一点。

Then, you know, you'd split yourself into 10 different simulated copies, which then undergo different environments and then ultimately do become 10 very different consciousnesses. Maybe that could happen, but now we're not talking about something that's possible in the near term. We're gonna have to have brain simulations and AGI for that to happen.

明白了。所以在这一切发生之前，你从根本上将其视为一个单一的 consciousness，即使它经历不同的环境，无论是否如此，它仍然连接到同一组记忆、同一组经验，因此是一种联合的意识系统。

Got it. So before any of that happens, it's fundamentally you see it as a singular consciousness, even though it's experiencing different environments, where it's or not, it's still connected to same set of memories, same set of experiences, and therefore, one sort of joint conscious system.

是的。或者至少不比我们在非虚拟世界中因居住不同环境而产生的多重意识更多。

Yeah. Or at least no more multiple than the kind of multiple consciousness that we

你说你小时候是一个音乐色彩联觉者。联觉者。所以歌曲对你来说有颜色？那么哪些歌曲有哪些颜色？

get from inhabiting different environments in a nonvirtual world. So you said as a child, you were a music color Synesthete. Synesthete. So where songs had colors for you? So what songs had what colors?

你知道，这很有趣。我当时并没有太注意这一点，但我会听一段音乐，然后我会得到某种关于某种颜色的意象。奇怪的是，大多数时候，它们是那种浑浊的深绿色和橄榄棕色，而且颜色并不是那么有趣。我不知道原因是什么。我的理论是，也许不同的和弦和音调提供了不同的颜色，它们都倾向于混合成这些不太有趣的棕色和绿色。

You know, this is funny. I didn't pay much attention to this at the time, but I'd listen to a piece of music, and I'd get some kind of imagery of a of a kind of a of a kind of of color. The weird thing is, mostly, they were kind of murky dark greens and olive browns, and the colors weren't all that interesting. I don't know what the reason is. My theory is that maybe it's like different chords and tones provided different colors, and they all tended to get mixed together into these somewhat uninteresting browns and greens.

但偶尔会有一些具有非常纯粹颜色的东西。所以这些只是我记得的几个例子。披头士的《Here, There, and Everywhere》是鲜红色的。你知道，它的和弦结构在开头有一种非常独特的音调，所以那是鲜红色的。

But every now and then, there'd be something that had a really pure color. So these are just a few that I that I remember. There was a Here, There, and Everywhere by the Beatles. It was bright red. It has this, you know, very distinctive tonality in its chord structure at the at the beginning, so that was bright red.

还有一首由Alan Parsons Project创作的歌曲《Ammonia Avenue》，那是一种纯粹的蓝色。无论如何，我不知道这一切是如何发生的。甚至没有太注意，直到我大约20岁时它消失了。这种联觉经常消失。

There was this song by the Alan Parsons Project called Ammonia Avenue that was that was kind of a pure a pure blue. Anyway, I've got no idea how all this happened. Didn't even pay that much attention until it went away when I was about 20. This synesthesia often goes away.

那么它纯粹只是对特定颜色的感知，还是与之有积极或消极的体验？比如，蓝色与积极相关，红色与消极相关？或者仅仅是颜色与歌曲某些特征的关联感知？

So is it purely just the perception of a particular color, or was there a positive or negative experience with it? Like, was blue associated with a positive and red with a negative? Or is it simply the perception of color associated with some characteristic of the song?

对我来说，我不记得与情感或价值有很多关联。这只是某种奇怪而有趣的事实。我的意思是，一开始我以为这是每个人都会发生的事情。歌曲有颜色。也许我提到过一两次，人们说，不。

For me, I don't remember a lot of association with with emotion or with value. It's just this kind of weird and interesting fact. I mean, at the beginning, I thought this was something that happened to everyone. Songs of colors. Maybe I mentioned it once or twice, and people said, no.

我想，当有一个具有这些特别纯粹颜色的歌曲时，我觉得很酷。但直到很久以后，当我成为研究生思考心智时，我读到了一种叫做联觉的现象。我想，嘿，那就是我有的东西。现在我偶尔会在我的课堂上，在入门课上谈论它，有时仍然会发生。一个学生走过来，说，嘿，我有那个。

Was like, I thought it was kind of cool when there was one that had one of these especially pure colors. But only much later, once I became a grad student thinking about the mind, I read about this phenomenon called synesthesia. Was like, hey, that's what I had. And now I occasionally talk about it in my classes, in intro class, and it still happens sometimes. A student comes up and says, hey, I have that.

我从来不知道这件事。我甚至不知道它还有个名称。

I never knew about that. I never knew it had a name.

你说过它在你20岁左右就消失了。

You said that it went away at age 20 or so.

嗯。

Mhmm.

而且你那时在日记里写道，歌曲不再有颜色了。发生了什么？

And that you have a journal entry from around then saying songs don't have colors anymore. What happened?

发生了什么？是啊。当时确实为它的消失感到难过。现在回想起来，感觉就像，嘿，那挺酷的。颜色消失了。

What happened? Yeah. Was definitely sad that it was gone. In retrospect, it was like, hey, that's cool. The colors have gone.

对。你能你

Yeah. Do you can you

稍微思考一下这个问题吗？你会怀念那些体验吗？因为这完全是另一套你不再拥有的感知体系。

think about that for a little bit? Do you miss those experiences? Because it's a fundamentally different sets of experiences that you no longer have.

嗯。

Mhmm.

还是说对你而言，这就像曾经拥有过的美好事物，你并不觉得它们与去新国家体验新环境有本质区别？

Or do you or is it just a nice thing to have had you don't see them as that fundamentally different than you visiting a new country and experiencing new environments?

我想对我来说，当我有这些体验时，它们多少有些边缘化。像是额外的小惊喜。我知道有些人患有比我严重得多的联觉症状，这对他们生活至关重要。我认识一些人，他们见到新人会有颜色感知，甚至味觉联想等等。每次看到文字都会产生色彩。

I guess for me, when I had these experiences, they were somewhat marginal. They were like a little bonus kind of experience. I know there are people who have much more serious forms of synesthesia than this for whom it's absolutely central to their lives. I know people who, they experience new people, they have colors, maybe they have tastes, and so on. Every time they see writing, it colors.

有些人每当听到音乐时，脑海中会浮现出特定且丰富的色彩图案，对一些联觉者而言，这至关重要。我想如果他们失去这种能力，会感到崩溃。对我来说，这是一种非常非常轻微的联觉形式，就像那些有趣的体验。你可能在不同的意识变化状态下获得类似感受，挺酷的，但未必是生命中最重要的经历。

Some people, whenever they hear music, it's got a certain really rich color pattern, and for some synesthetes, it's absolutely central. I think if they lost it, they'd be devastated. Again, for me, it was a very, very mild form of synesthesia, it's like, yeah, it's like those interesting experiences. You might get under different altered states of consciousness and so on. It's kind of cool, but, you know, not necessarily the single most important experiences in your life.

明白了。让我们尝试从最基础的问题入手。那些赋予你时间感的事件，或许最简单的事物能帮助我们揭示...嗯...甚至在时间中也能发现新观点。那么在你看来，意识是什么？

Got it. So let's try to go to the very simplest question. The events that bring you time, but perhaps the simplest things can help us reveal Mhmm. Even in time, some new ideas. So what, in your view, is consciousness?

什么是感受质？什么是意识的难题？

What is qualia? What is the hard problem of consciousness?

意识这个词有很多用法，但我所关注的那种意识本质上是主观体验。作为一个人类或其他有意识的存在，从内部感知世界是怎样的感觉。我的意思是，作为'我'存在着某种特定的体验——此刻我正经历着视觉影像，听着自己的声音。

Consciousness, I mean, word is used many ways, but the kind of consciousness that I'm interested in is basically subjective experience. What it feels like from the inside to be a human being, or any other conscious being. I mean, there's something it's like to be me. Right now, I have visual images that I'm experiencing. I'm hearing my voice.

我可能带着某种情绪基调，脑海中流淌着思绪之流。这些都是我从第一人称视角体验的事物。我有时称之为'心灵的内在电影'，虽然这个比喻并不完美。

I've got maybe some emotional tone. I've got a stream of thoughts running through my head. These are all things that I experience from the first person point of view. I've sometimes called this the inner movie in the mind. It's not a perfect it's not a perfect metaphor.

它并非在所有方面都像电影，而且更加丰富。但这正是直接的、主观的体验。我称之为意识，有时哲学家会用你提到的'感受质'这个词。人们倾向于用感受质来描述事物的特质，比如颜色——红色的体验与绿色的体验之不同，某种味觉或嗅觉与另一种的区别，疼痛的质感的体验。确实，很多意识活动就是对这些特质的体验。

It's not like a movie in every ways and in every way, and it's very rich. But yeah, it's just direct, subjective experience. I call that consciousness, or sometimes philosophers use the word qualia, which you suggested. People tend to use the word qualia for the qualities of things like colors, redness, the experience of redness versus the experience of greenness, the experience of one taste or one smell versus another, the experience of the quality of pain. And, yeah, a lot of consciousness is the experience of those of those those qualities.

但意识更宏大，是所有类型体验的整体。

But consciousness is bigger, the entirety of any kinds of experience.

思考的意识并不明显属于感受质。它不像红色或绿色那样的具体特质，但当我思考家乡或后续计划时，仍有某种主观体验在脑海中流动。或许它超越了那些特质或感受质。哲学家有时用'现象意识'来指代这种意义上的意识。

Consciousness of thinking is not obviously qualia. It's not like specific qualities like redness or greenness, but still I'm thinking about my hometown, and I'm thinking about what I'm gonna do later on. Maybe there's still something running through my my head, which is subjective experience. Maybe it goes beyond those qualities or qualia. Philosophers sometimes use the word phenomenal consciousness for consciousness in this sense.

人们也谈论'存取意识'（能够获取心智信息）、'反思意识'（能够思考自身），但真正神秘的、让人着迷的是现象意识——主观体验存在的事实，所有这些感受究竟为何存在。于是难题就变成了：为何会存在现象意识？大脑的物理过程如何产生主观体验？

I mean, people also talk about access consciousness, being able to access information in your mind, reflective consciousness, being able to think about yourself. But it looks like the really mysterious one, the one that really gets people going, is phenomenal consciousness. The fact that there's subjective experience and all this feels like something at all. Then the hard problem is, how is it that why is it that there is phenomenal consciousness at all? And how is it that physical processes in a brain could give you subjective experience?

表面看来，一个庞大复杂的物理系统和大脑完全可以没有主观体验地运行。然而我们确实拥有主观体验。这个难题就是要解释这个现象。

It looks like, on the face of it, you can have all this big, complicated physical system and a brain running without a given subjective experience at all. And yet we do have subjective experience. The hard problem is just explain that.

解释一下这是怎么发生的。我们至今未能制造出能亮红灯表示‘我没有意识’的机器。那么我们究竟如何创造意识？或者说人类是如何做到的，我们自己又是如何实现的？

Explain how that comes about. We haven't been able to build machines where a red light goes on that says it's not conscious. So how does how do how do we actually create that? Or how do humans do it, and how do we ourselves do it?

但我们确实偶尔能创造出具备这种能力的机器。比如我们会生育婴儿——是的，那些有意识的婴儿。他们拥有大脑，而大脑最奇妙之处就在于能产生意识。

But We do every now and then create machines that can do this. You know, we create babies Yes. That are that are conscious. They've got these brains. As best as brain does produce consciousness.

但即便我们能创造意识，仍不理解其成因。或许终有一天我们能造出真正有意识的人工智能机器，但这不会比婴儿的存在更能解决‘难题’，因为我们依然想知道：为何这些生理过程会催生意识？

But even be even though we can create it, we still don't understand why it happens. Maybe eventually we'll be able to create machines, which as a matter of fact, AI machines, which as a matter of fact are conscious, but that won't necessarily make the hard problem go away any more than it does with babies, because we still wanna know how and why is it that these processes give you consciousness.

你知道吗，你刚才让我突然想到——可能是个很蠢的念头——但观察婴儿或许是理解意识诞生的有效途径。嗯。也就是说，婴儿存在某个尚未产生意识的阶段。

You know, you just made me realize for for a second, maybe it's a totally dumb realization, but nevertheless, that as a useful way to think about the creation of consciousness is looking at a baby. Mhmm. So that there's a certain point at which that baby is not conscious.

嗯。

Mhmm.

婴儿从可能...我不确定...从几个细胞开始发育。对吧？总存在某个意识降临的临界点。当然我们无法精确界定那条分界线。

The baby starts from maybe, I don't I don't know, from a few cells. Right? There's a certain point at which it becomes consciousness arrives. It's conscious. Of course, we can't know exactly that line.

但‘我们确实创造了意识’这个观点很有价值。虽然这么说显得我很蠢，但直到现在我才意识到：我们确实是意识的工程师。我们目睹整个过程，虽不知转折点何在，但确实见证了意识的诞生。

But that's a useful idea that we do create consciousness. Again, a really dumb thing for me to say, but not until now did I realize we do engineer consciousness. We get to watch the process happen, We don't know which point it happens or where it is, but, you know, we do see the birth of consciousness.

是的。这里其实存在争议：新生儿是否具有意识？过去至少有人认为没有，所以给男婴割包皮时不施麻醉。现在人们觉得这极其残忍——婴儿当然能感知疼痛，这已成为主流观点。事实上我伴侣克劳迪娅就在研究婴儿是否具有意识、以及何种意识的问题。

Yeah. I mean, there's a question, of course, is whether babies are conscious when they're born, And it used to be, it seems, at least some people thought they weren't, which is why they didn't give anesthetics to newborn babies when they circumcised them. So now people think, that would be incredibly cruel. Of course babies feel pain, and now the dominant view is that babies can feel pain. Actually, my partner, Claudia, works on this whole issue of whether there's consciousness in babies and of what kind.

她坚信新生儿带着某种程度的意识降临人世。由此这个问题可以向前延伸到胎儿阶段，

She certainly thinks that newborn babies come into the world with some degree of consciousness. Then you can just extend the question backwards to fetuses,

以及

and

突然间你就踏入了政治争议的领域。没错。这个问题在动物界同样存在。意识从何处开始或结束？动物界是否存在一条界限，标志着第一批有意识生物的出现？

suddenly you're into politically controversial territory. Exactly. The question also arises in the animal kingdom. Where does consciousness start or stop? Is there a line in the animal kingdom where the first conscious organisms are?

这很有趣。随着时间的推移，人们越来越倾向于赋予动物意识。过去人们可能认为只有哺乳动物才有意识。现在大多数人似乎认为，鱼类当然也有意识，它们能感知疼痛。

It's interesting. Over time, people are becoming more and more liberal about ascribing consciousness to animals. People used to think, maybe only mammals could be conscious. Now most people seem to think, sure, fish are conscious. They can feel pain.

而现在我们正在争论昆虫是否具有意识。你会发现有些人甚至认为植物也具有一定程度的意识。所以，谁知道终点在哪里呢？这条链条的最远端是认为每个物理系统都具有某种程度的意识。哲学家称之为泛心论。

And now we're arguing over insects. You'll find people out there who say plants have some degree of, of consciousness. So, you know, who knows where it's gonna end? The far end of this chain is the view that every physical system has some degree of consciousness. Philosophers call that panpsychism.

你知道，我持这种观点。

You know, I take that view.

这真是一种看待现实的迷人方式。如果你能多谈谈泛心论，它意味着什么？不仅仅是植物有意识，而是意识是现实的基本结构。这对你来说意味着什么？

I mean, that's a fascinating way to view reality. So if you could talk about, if you can linger on panpsychism a little bit, does it mean? So, it's not just plants are conscious. I mean, it's that consciousness is a fundamental fabric of reality. What does that mean to you?

我们应该如何理解这一点？

How are we supposed to think about that?

嗯，我们习惯于认为世界上有些事物是基本的。对吧？在物理学中

Well, we're used to the idea that some things in the world are fundamental. Right? In physics

比如什么？

Like what?

像空间、时间或时空、质量、电荷这些被视为宇宙的基本属性。你不会将它们简化为更简单的东西。你视它们为理所当然。你有连接它们的定律。这就是质量、空间和时间如何演化的方式。

Take things like space or time or space time, mass, charge as fundamental properties of the universe. You don't reduce them to something simpler. You take those for granted. You've got some laws that connect them. Here is how mass and space and time evolve.

像相对论或量子力学这样的理论，或者未来某个统一它们的理论。但每个人都认为你必须把某些事物视为基本的。如果你不能用之前的基本事物来解释某个事物，你就必须扩展。也许麦克斯韦就遇到了类似的情况。你最终得到了电磁学的基本原理，并将电荷视为基本，因为事实证明这是解释它的最佳方式。

Theories like relativity or quantum mechanics or some future theory that will unify them both. But everyone says you've got to take some things as fundamental. If you can't explain one thing in terms of the previous fundamental things, you have to expand. Maybe something like this happened with Maxwell. You ended up with fundamental principles of electromagnetism and took charge as fundamental, because it turned out that was the best way to explain it.

我至少认真考虑过意识可能以类似方式存在的可能性。将其视为如空间、时间和质量般的基本属性，而非试图完全用空间、时间和质量等的演化来解释意识，而是将其视作原始存在，再通过某些基本法则与其他事物建立联系。当前物理学在解决意识的简单问题上表现优异——这些问题都关乎行为表现。它们提供了复杂的结构和动力学，告诉我们事物将如何表现，会产生何种可观测行为，这对解释我们如何行走、如何说话等问题非常有效。这些是意识的简单问题。

I at least take seriously the possibility something like that could happen with consciousness. Take it as a fundamental property, like space, time, and mass, and instead of trying to explain consciousness wholly in terms of the evolution of space, time, and mass, and so on, take it as a primitive, and then connect it to everything else by some fundamental laws. There's this basic problem that the physics we have now looks great for solving the easy problems of consciousness, which are all about behavior. They give us a complicated structure and dynamic that tell us how things are going to behave, what kind of observable behavior they'll produce, which is great for the problems of explaining how we walk and how we talk and so on. Those are the easy problems of consciousness.

但难题在于：关于主观体验的问题看起来完全不像那种涉及结构、动力学或事物行为方式的问题。因此很难想象现有物理学如何能对此给出完整解释。

But the hard problem was this problem about subjective experience just doesn't look like that kind of problem about structure, dynamics, how things behave. So it's hard to see how existing physics is gonna give you a full explanation of that.

确实，试图从物理学视角理解意识时...必须存在一个连接点，可能就在最初始、最基础的层面。但首先有个疯狂的观点认为万物都具有意识属性。到那个层面时，‘意识’这个词已超出我们当前理解的范畴——至少对我而言，它距离我们人类拥有的体验实在太遥远了，或许你可以纠正我的看法。

Certainly, trying to get a physics view of consciousness, yes. There has to be a connecting point, and it could be at the very eczematic, at the very beginning level. But, I mean, first of all, there's a crazy idea that sort of everything has properties of consciousness. There's a at that point, the word consciousness is already beyond the reach of our current understanding. Like, because it's so far from, at least for me, maybe you can correct me, it's far from the experiences that we have, that I have as a human being.

如果说万物皆有意识，那基本上等于承认——换种说法——若此观点成立，我们对世界这个根本层面的认知几乎为零。

To say that everything is conscious, that means there that basically, another way to put that, if that's true, then we understand almost nothing about that fundamental aspect of the world.

你认为蚂蚁有意识吗？这个说法会让你产生同样反应吗？还是说...

How do feel about saying an ant is conscious? Do you get the same reaction to that, or is that

这是你能理解的概念？我能理解蚂蚁。但无法理解原子。植物...植物...

something you can understand? I can understand ant. I can't understand an atom. A plant. Plant.

所以我能接受地球生物具有意识，因为它们具有某种能动性，体型与我相近，会经历生死——这些在直觉上可以理解。当然你会拟人化，将自己代入植物的处境，但我能理解这种观念。虽然我个人并不真认为植物有意识或会痛苦，但我能理解这种信念。你对...你如何看待...

So I'm I'm comfortable with living things on earth being conscious, because there's some kind of agency where they're similar size to me, and they can be born and they can die, and that is understandable intuitively. Of course, you anthropomorphize. You put yourself in the place of the plant, but I can understand it. I mean, I'm not like I don't believe actually that plants are conscious or that plants suffer, but I can understand that kind of belief, that kind of idea. Do you feel about how do you

你对机器人怎么看？比如现有的机器人。如果我告诉你扫地机器人有某种程度的意识，或者某个深度神经网络...

feel about robots? Like, the kind of robots we have now. If I told you, like, that, you know, a Roomba had some degree of consciousness or some, you know, deep neural network?

我能理解扫地机器人有...我刚在iRobot待了一整天。我个人热爱机器人，与它们有深刻共鸣，所以可能也会将其拟人化。实体对象有所不同——这与纯粹运行软件的神经网络不同。人类的体验让我能将实体对象视为独立存在。

I could understand that a Roomba has constant I just had spent all day at iRobot. I and, I mean, I personally love robots, and I have a deep connection with robots, so I can, I also probably anthropomorphize them? There's something about the physical object. So there's a difference than a neural network, a neural network running a software. To me, the physical object, something about the human experience allows me to really see that physical object as an entity.

当它以非编程方式移动，仿佛基于自身感知行动时，即便只是台扫地机器人，你也会开始赋予它某种能动性和意识。但宣称泛心论——意识是现实的基本属性——则是宏大得多的命题。就像‘乌龟塔’理论般没有尽头。如果意识真是现实构造的根基...我知道这充满谜团，但若深入思考：你认为这样的现实会是怎样的图景？

And if it moves, it moves in a way that there's a, like I didn't program it, where it feels that it's acting based on its own perception, and yes, self awareness and consciousness, even if it's a Roomba, then you start to assign it some agency, some consciousness. So, but to say that panpsychism, that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality, is a much bigger statement. That it's like turtles all the way, it doesn't end. The whole thing is, so like how, I know it's full of mystery, but if you can linger on it, like, how would it how do you think about reality if consciousness is a fundamental part of its fabric?

我们的思考路径是：基于现有基础理论能否解释意识？如果目前看来无法做到，那么就需要引入新要素。但这并不意味着必须直接添加意识本身。另一个有趣的可能性是引入其他元素，我们暂且称之为‘原始意识’嗯。

The way you get there is from thinking, we explain consciousness given the existing fundamentals? And then if you can't, at least right now, it looks like, then you've gotta add something. It doesn't follow that you have to add consciousness. Here's another interesting possibility is, well, we'll add something else. Let's call it proto consciousness Mhmm.

或者叫X要素。然后发现空间、时间、质量加上X要素，会共同构成意识产生的基础。为何不排除这种观点？我称之为‘泛原始心灵论’，因为在最基础层面可能存在某种原始意识属性。

Or x. Right. And then it turns out space, time, mass, plus X will somehow collectively give you the possibility for consciousness. Why don't we rule out that view? Either I call that pan proto psychism, cause maybe there's some other property, proto consciousness, at the bottom level.

如果你无法想象基础层面存在真实意识，我们应该保持开放态度——可能存在某种我们难以想象的X要素催生了意识。但如果我们假设基础层面确实存在真实意识（当然这非常推测性），比如在经典物理学框架下，就不得不认为每个原子及其时空中的粒子都具有某种意识结构，这些意识结构可能反映其物理属性如质量、电荷、速度等，粒子间的物理互动也对应着意识层面的交互。这正是物理学长期存在的难题。

And if you can't imagine there's actually genuine consciousness at the bottom level, I think we should be open to the idea, there's this other thing, x, maybe we can't imagine that somehow gives you consciousness. But if we are playing along with the idea that there really is genuine consciousness at the bottom level, of course, is gonna be way out and speculative. But, you know, at least in, say, it was classical physics, then we'd have to you'd end up saying, well, every little atom, with a bunch of particles in spacetime, each of these particles has some kind of consciousness whose structure mirrors maybe their physical properties, like its mass, its charge, its velocity, and so on. The structure of its consciousness would roughly correspond to that, and the physical interactions between particles. There's this old worry about physics.

我之前在讨论显像图景时提到过：我们从未真正了解事物的内在本质。物理学只告诉我们粒子间的相互关系和作用，而非粒子本身的本质。这正是康德所说的‘物自体’概念。

I mentioned this before in this issue about the manifest image. We don't really find out about the intrinsic nature of things. Physics tells us about how a particle relates to other particles and interacts. It doesn't tell us about what the particle is in itself. That was Kant's thing in itself.

有一种观点认为：粒子的内在本质是精神性的。每个粒子实际上都是微小的意识主体，其意识属性对应着物理属性。物理定律本质上是在关联这些意识主体的属性。按此观点，牛顿式的世界实际上是由基础层面无数简单意识主体构成的集合体——远比人类简单，没有自由意志或理性等特征，但这就是宇宙的本来面貌。

Here's a view. The nature in itself of a particle is something mental. A particle is actually a little conscious subject with properties of its consciousness that correspond to its physical properties. The laws of physics are actually ultimately relating these properties of conscious subjects. So on this view, a Newtonian world actually would be a vast collection of little conscious subjects at the bottom level, way simpler than we are without free will or rationality or anything like that, but that's what the universe would be like.

当然这是极其推测性的观点，没有确凿依据。更何况在非牛顿物理学（如量子力学波函数）中，情况就完全不同了——宇宙不再是众多意识主体的集合，可能最终只存在一个统摄整个宇宙的波函数。

Now, of course, that's a vastly speculative view. No particular reason to think it's correct. Furthermore, non Newtonian physics, say quantum mechanical wave function, suddenly it starts to look different. It's not a vast collection of conscious subjects. Maybe there's ultimately one big wave function for the whole universe.

与之对应的可能是一个单一意识主体，其结构对应波函数结构。这有时被称为‘宇宙心灵论’。当然我们现在已进入极度推测的哲学领域，没有直接证据支持。不过...

Corresponding to that might be something more like a single conscious mind whose structure corresponds to the structure of the wave function. People sometimes call this cosmopsychism. Now, of course, we're in the realm of extremely speculative philosophy. There's no direct evidence for this. But yeah.

若要想象这种宇宙图景，可以设想一个宏大的宇宙意识，其丰富的内在结构足以重现所有物理规律。

But if you want a picture of what that universe would be like, think, yeah, giant cosmic mind with enough richness and structure among it to replicate all the structure of physics.

我认为‘我思故我在’的原理在粒子层面、在量子力学的波函数层面同样适用。这是个令人兴奋的美丽假设，当然远远超出当前物理学的验证能力。

I think, therefore, I am at the level of particles and with quantum mechanics at the level of the wave function. It's a it's kind of an exciting, beautiful possibility, of course, way out of reach of physics currently.

有趣的是，一些神经科学家开始认真对待泛心论。他们发现即使非常简单的系统也存在意识。比如整合信息理论提出的意识模型，许多神经科学家正在严肃研究。我刚收到克里斯托夫·科赫的新书《生命本身的感觉：为何意识普遍存在却不可计算》。

It is interesting that some neuroscientists are beginning to take panpsychism seriously. You find consciousness even in very in very simple systems. So for example, the integrated information theory consciousness. A lot of neuroscientists are taking it seriously. Actually, I just got this new book by Christoph Koch just came in, The Feeling of Life Itself, Why Consciousness is Widespread, but Can't Be Computed.

他基本上支持一种泛心论观点，认为意识随着信息处理或整合信息处理的程度而存在于系统中，甚至非常非常简单的系统，比如几个粒子，也会具有一定程度的意识。因此他最终得出所有物质都具有某种程度的意识，并声称这一理论实际上可以解释许多关于大脑与意识之间联系的疑问。当然这极具争议性。我认为这在意识科学领域尚处于非常早期的阶段。有趣的是，不仅是哲学会引导你朝这个方向思考，某些准科学思维方式也会将你引向此处。

He basically endorses a panpsychist view where you get consciousness with the degree of information processing or integrated information processing in a simple, in a system, and even very, very simple systems, like a couple of particles, will have some degree of this. So he ends up with some degree of consciousness in all matter, and the claim is that this theory can actually explain a bunch of stuff about the connection between the brain and consciousness. Now that's very controversial. I think that's very, very early days in the science of consciousness. It's interesting that it's not just philosophy that might lead you in this direction, but there are ways of thinking quasi scientifically that lead you there too.

但可能不同于泛心论。你怎么看？艾伦·瓦茨有句名言我想请教你：'通过我们的眼睛，宇宙正在感知自身。通过我们的耳朵，宇宙在聆听它的和声。'

But maybe different than panpsychism. What do you think? So, Alan Watts has this quote that I'd like to ask you about. The quote is, through our eyes, the universe is perceiving itself. Through our ears, the universe is listening to its harmonies.

我们是宇宙见证自身荣耀与壮丽的媒介。所以这不是泛心论。你是否认为我们本质上是宇宙创造出来感知自我的工具与感官？

We are the witnesses to which the universe becomes conscious of its glory, of its magnificence. So that's not panpsychism. Do you think that we are essentially the tools, the senses the universe created to be conscious of itself?

这是个有趣的观点。当然，如果你采纳巨型宇宙心智论，那么宇宙始终是有意识的，根本不需要我们。我们只是宇宙意识的小小组成部分。同样地，如果你相信泛心论，那么底层始终存在微弱的意识，我们只是更复杂的意识形式。

It's an interesting idea. Of course, if you went for the giant cosmic mind view, then the universe was conscious all along. Didn't need us. We're just little components of the universal consciousness. Likewise, if you believe in panpsychism, then there was some little degree of consciousness at the bottom level all along, and we were just a more complex form of consciousness.

所以我认为你引用的那句话可能更适合非泛心论者、非宇宙心论者——那些认为意识仅存在于这个中间层面的人。

So I think maybe the quote you mentioned works better if you're not a panpsychist, you're not a cosmopsychist. You think consciousness just exists at this intermediate level, and of

当然这是正统观点。你会说这是主流看法吗？那么你自己持有的泛心论观点属于少数派吗？

course that's the orthodox view. That, you would say, is the common view? So is your own view with panpsychism a rarer view?

我认为这普遍被视为相当小众的推测性观点，至少理论家中只有少数人支持。大多数哲学家和研究意识的科学家都不是泛心论者。过去十年左右这个方向有些发展动向，似乎在年轻一代中特别受欢迎，但绝对仍属少数派。用专业术语来说，很多人觉得这完全荒谬绝伦。不过

I think it's generally regarded certainly as a speculative view held by a fairly small minority of at least theorists, philosopher most philosophers and most scientists who think about consciousness are not panpsychists. There's been a bit of a movement in that direction the last ten years or so. Seems to be quite popular, especially among the the younger generation, but it's still very definitely a minority view. Many people think it's totally batshit crazy, to use the technical term. But

这是个哲学术语。

It's a philosophical term.

因此我认为正统观点仍然是：意识是人类和许多非人类动物拥有的特质，或许未来AI也会具备，但它是受限的。按照这个观点，宇宙初期不存在意识，末期可能也没有。它是宇宙历史某个阶段发展出来的现象。是的，在这个视角下，这确实是个惊人的事件，因为许多人倾向于认为意识是赋予生命意义的存在。

So the orthodox view, I think, is still consciousness is something that humans have and some good number of nonhuman animals have, and maybe AIs might have one day, but it's restricted. On that view, then there was no consciousness at the start of the universe. There may be none at the end. But it is this thing which happened at some point in the history of the universe, consciousness developed. And yes, that's a very amazing event on this view, because many people are inclined to think consciousness is what somehow gives meaning to our lives.

没有意识就没有意义，没有真正的价值，没有善恶之分等等。所以随着意识的出现，宇宙突然从无意义变得有意义。为什么会发生这种事？我猜你引用的那句话暗示这是某种必然——因为宇宙需要内含意识才能拥有价值和意义，或许你可以将这观点与有神论或目的论结合：宇宙正在向意识进化。

Without consciousness, there'd be no meaning, no true value, no good versus bad, and so on. So with the advent of consciousness, suddenly the universe went from meaningless to somehow meaningful. Why did this happen? I guess the quote you mentioned was somehow, this was somehow destined to happen because the universe needed to have consciousness within it to have value and have meaning, and maybe you could combine that with a theistic view or a teleological view. The universe was evolving towards consciousness.

事实上，我在纽约大学的同事汤姆·内格尔几年前写了一本名为《心灵与宇宙》的书，他在书中为这种朝向意识的进化目的论观点辩护，认为这给达尔文主义带来了问题。这一观点极具争议性，大多数人并不认同。我自己也不赞同这种目的论观点，但它至少是对宇宙的一种美妙而富有想象力的解读。

Actually, my colleague here at NYU, Tom Nagel, wrote a book called Mind and Cosmos a few years ago where he argued for this teleological view of evolution toward consciousness, saying this led to problems for Darwinism. This is very, very controversial. Most people didn't agree. I don't myself agree with this teleological view, but it is a it's at least a beautiful speculative view of the of the cosmos.

你认为人们从这种视角信仰上帝时，他们体验什么、寻求什么？我并非研究上帝与宗教的专家，自己也毫无宗教信仰。当人们祈祷、与上帝沟通时——无论以何种形式——我指的不是宗教的仪式和惯例。

What do you think people experience? What do they seek when they believe in God from this kind of perspective? I'm not an expert on thinking about God and religion. I'm not myself religious at all. When people sort of pray, communicate with God, whatever form, I'm not speaking to sort of the practices and the rituals of religion.

我是说，在某些情况下人们真实体验到与上帝深刻联结的感受。嗯...你认为这种体验是什么？至少在整个人类文明史中，这种寻求如此普遍。

I mean, the actual experience of that people really have a deep connection with God in some cases. Mhmm. What do you think that experience is? It's so common, at least throughout the history of civilization, that it seems like we seek that.

至少，当人们经历宗教敬畏或祈祷时，这是一种有趣的意识体验。神经科学家试图研究大脑哪些区域被激活等问题。但更深层的问题是：人们进行这些活动时究竟在追寻什么？如我所说，我对此并无专业见解，但人们似乎确实在寻求意义与价值感，渴望与某种超越自身的宏大存在建立联系，从而赋予生命意义。或许他们认为：若存在上帝，这位宇宙意识便为世界注入了意义，而与之联结能赋予个人生命意义。

At the very least, it is an interesting conscious experience that people have when they experience religious awe or prayer and so on. Neuroscientists have tried to examine what bits of the brain are active and so on. But, yeah, there's this deeper question of what are people looking for when they're doing this. And like I said, I've got no real expertise on this, but it does seem that one thing people are after is a sense of meaning and value, a sense of connection to something greater than themselves that will give their lives meaning and value. Maybe the thought is if there is a God, then God somehow is a universal consciousness who has invested this universe with meaning, and somehow connection to God might give your life meaning.

我能理解这种观点的吸引力，但仍不禁疑惑：为何必须依赖宇宙意识（上帝）来赋予世界意义？如果宇宙意识可以赋予意义，为何局部意识不能同样赋予意义？我认为我的意识就能赋予我的

I can kind of see the attractions of that, but it still makes me wonder, why is it exactly that a universal consciousness, God, would be needed to give the world meaning? If universal consciousness can give the world meaning, why can't local consciousness give the world meaning too? So I think my consciousness gives my

世界以

world the

本源意义。

origin meaning.

的意义来源。是的，你的

Of meaning for Yeah. Your

意识能判断事物的好坏、悲喜、趣味与重要性。正是我的意识为世界赋予了意义。没有意识，宇宙或许会显得荒芜无意义。但我不明白为何需要他人——甚至上帝的——意识来赋予宇宙意义。我们本就是拥有主观体验的局部存在。

I experience things as good or bad, happy, sad, interesting, important. My consciousness invests this world with meaning. Without any consciousness, maybe it would be a bleak, meaningless universe. But I don't see why I need someone else's consciousness or even God's consciousness to give this universe meaning. Here we are, local creatures with our own subjective experiences.

我认为人类可以自行赋予宇宙意义。或许对某些人而言，这种观点不够充分——我们渺小的局部意识难以承载宇宙级的意义，而上帝能提供这种宏大意义感。不过这只是我的推测。

I think we can give the universe meaning ourselves. Maybe to some people that feels inadequate. Our own local consciousness is somehow too puny and insignificant to invest any of this with cosmic significance, and maybe God gives you a sense of cosmic significance, but I'm just speculating here.

所以你知道，意识是赋予生命意义的东西，这个观点非常有趣。能否请你简要探讨一下？从你刚才的谈话中，我猜测你指的是一个近乎琐碎的层面——正是由于我们将身份认同附着于日常生活的体验，它们才变得...其实我一直想请教一位真正的世界知名哲学家：生命的意义是什么？我推测你并非认为意识能赋予这一切某种更宏大的意义。

So the you know, it's a really interesting idea that consciousness is the thing that makes life meaningful. If you could maybe just briefly explore that for a second. So I suspect, just from listening to you now, you mean in an almost trivial sense, just the day to day experiences of life have, because of you attach identity to it, they become, well, I guess I wanna ask something I I would always wanted to ask a legit world renowned philosopher, what is the meaning of life? So I suspect you don't mean consciousness gives any kind of greater meaning to it all. Yeah.

更多是指日常层面。但这一切是否存在更宏大的意义？

And more to day to day. But is there greater meaning to it all?

我认为生命对我们有意义是因为我们有意识。没有意识，就没有意义。意识为我们的生命注入意义。因此在我看来，意识是生命意义的源泉，但我不认为意识本身就是生命的意义。生命中有意义的事物本质上是我们认为有意义、体验为有意义的东西。

I think life has meaning for us because we are conscious. So without consciousness, no meaning. Consciousness invests our life with meaning. So consciousness is the source, of my view, of the meaning of life, but I wouldn't say consciousness itself is the meaning of life. I'd say what's meaningful in life is basically what we find meaningful, what we experience as meaningful.

如果你在智力工作中——比如理解事物——找到意义、满足感和价值，那这对你而言就是生命意义的重要组成部分。如果你在社会关系或养育家庭中找到意义，那就是你的生命意义。意义某种程度上来源于你作为有意识生物所珍视的事物。因此我认为，这种观点下不存在普世解决方案，不存在'生命意义是什么'的通用答案。

So if you find meaning and fulfillment and value in, say, intellectual work, like understanding, then that's a very significant part of the meaning of life for you. If you find it in social connections or in raising a family, then that's the meaning of life for you. The meaning kinda comes from what you value as a conscious creature. So I think there's no on this view, there's no universal solution. You no universal answer to the question, what is the meaning of life?

生命的意义在于你作为有意识生物所发现的意义，但正是意识以某种方式使价值成为可能。将某些事物体验为美好、糟糕或有意义，这些都源于意识本身。

The meaning of life is where you find it as a conscious creature, but it's consciousness that somehow makes value possible. Experiencing some things as good or as bad or as meaningful somehow comes from within consciousness.

所以你认为意识是赋予事物价值的关键组成部分？

So you think consciousness is a crucial component, ingredient of assigning value to things?

这其实是个相当强烈的直觉——如果没有意识，就根本不存在任何价值。如果我们所处的宇宙全是无意识的生物，任何事情还会有优劣之分吗？特别是涉及伦理困境时，比如那个经典的电车难题：是杀死一个人，还是转向另一条轨道杀死五个人？我有个变体版本——僵尸电车难题：一条轨道上有一个有意识的生物，另一条轨道上是五个人形僵尸。

I mean, it's kind of a fairly strong intuition that without consciousness, there wouldn't really be any value. If we just had a purely universe of unconscious creatures, would anything be better or worse than anything else? Certainly when it comes to ethical dilemmas, you know about the old trolley problem, do you kill one person, or do you switch to the other track to kill kill five? Well, I've got a variant on this. The zombie trolley problem, where there's one conscious being on on one track and five humanoid zombies.

假设他们是无意识的机器人。面对这个选择：杀死一个有意识的生物还是五个无意识的机器人？多数人会有明确的直觉——选择杀死无意识的生物，因为它们本质上没有有意义的生活。

Let's make them robots. Who are not conscious on the other track. Give them that choice, do you kill the one conscious being or the five unconscious robots? Most people have a fairly clear intuition here. Kill kill the the unconscious beings because they basically they don't have a meaningful life.

它们并非真正的人，不是有意识的生物

They're not really persons, conscious beings Of

当然不是。我们对于无意识生物缺乏良好的直觉认知。在哲学术语中你称之为'僵尸'，这是个有用的思想实验构建，但现实中我们尚未遇到这种情况。

course not. At all. We don't have good intuition about something like an unconscious being. So, in philosophical terms, you refer to it as a zombie. It's a useful thought experiment construction in philosophical terms, but we don't yet have them.

这大概就是我们或许能与AI共同创造的景象，而我甚至不确定那具体意味着什么。是的。

So that's kind of what we may be able to create with And I don't necessarily know what that even means. Yeah.

它们目前仅是假设性的存在，属于思想实验范畴，可能永远无法实现。比如僵尸的极端案例——一个在物理、功能、行为上与我完全一致却无意识的个体。我认为这种存在在本宇宙中根本不可能被构建出来。

They're merely hypothetical. For now, they're just a thought experiment. They may never be possible. I mean, the extreme case of a zombie is a being which is physically, functionally, behaviorally identical to me, but not conscious. That's a mere I don't think that could ever be built in this universe.

问题在于：这种假设是否在逻辑上成立？这其实是个有价值的对比参照，能引发诸如'为何我们不是僵尸'、'意识如何产生'的思考。当然也存在不那么极端的版本，比如机器人——它们可能与我们物理结构不同，功能也不完全一致。

The question is just could we does that hypothetically make sense? That's kind of a useful contrast class to raise questions like, why aren't we zombies? How does it come about that we're conscious? We're And not like that. But there are less extreme versions of this, like robots, which are maybe not physically identical to us, maybe not even functionally identical to us.

或许它们架构迥异，却能执行复杂任务（如进行对话），却不具备意识。这并非天方夜谭，现有简单计算机系统已初现端倪。可以预见未来会出现更精密的机器人系统——它们能流畅使用语言、高效运作却毫无意识。这里存在一个棘手问题：我们如何判断它们是否具有意识？

Maybe they've got a different architecture, but they can do a lot of sophisticated things, maybe carry on a conversation, but they're not conscious. And that's not so far out. We've got simple computer systems at least tending in that direction now, and presumably, this is gonna get get more and more sophisticated over years to come, where we may have some pretty, at least quite straightforward to conceive of some pretty sophisticated robot systems that can use language and be fairly high functioning without consciousness at all. Then I stipulate that. I mean, we've caused there's this tricky question of how you would know whether they're conscious.

假设我们已解决该问题，确认这些高性能机器人没有意识。那么核心问题是：它们是否具有道德地位？我们对待它们的方式重要吗？

But let's say we've somehow solved that, and we know that these high functioning robots aren't conscious. Then the question is, do they have moral status? Does it matter how we treat them?

有意思。道德地位是指？抱歉打断。

I like it. Moral status mean? Sorry.

本质上是指社会共识：它们会痛苦吗？我们的对待方式重要吗？比如我摔碎这个玻璃杯确实不好...

Does basically, it's that Society. Can they suffer? Does it matter how we treat them? Are we for example, if we if if I mistreat this glass, this cup by by shattering it Yeah. Then that's bad.

但为什么不好？因为会弄脏地板，给我和伴侣带来麻烦。对杯子本身并无伤害，没人会认为杯子具有道德地位。

Why is it bad though? It's gonna make a mess. It's gonna be annoying for me and my partner, and so on. It's not bad for the cup. No one would say the cup itself has moral status.

同理，若植物没有意识，大多数人认为拔除植物不算伤害。但若存在意识，情况就截然不同。嘿Siri...

Hey. You you hurt the cup, and that's doing it a moral harm. Likewise, plants, well, again, if they're not conscious, most people think by uprooting a plant, you're not harming it. But if a being is conscious, on the other hand, then you are harming it. Siri.

（我不敢直呼Alexa其名）我们关闭或摧毁Alexa时，并不认为在道德上伤害了她——无论是硬件还是软件系统。但像电影《她》中具有意识的萨曼莎，摧毁她就构成严重伤害。因此核心在于：若存在能产生主观体验的意识体，我们对待它们的方式就具有道德意义。

Or I dare not say the name of Alexa. Anyway, so we don't think we're we're morally harming Alexa by turning her off or disconnecting her or even destroying her, whether it's the system or the or the underlying software system, because we don't really think she's conscious. On the other hand, you move to, like, the disembodied being in the movie Her, Samantha. I guess she was kind of presented as conscious, and then if you destroyed her, you'd certainly be committing a serious harm. So I think our strong sense is if a being is conscious and can undergo subjective experiences, then it matters morally how we treat them.

因此，如果一个机器人具备意识，那它就很重要。但如果它没有意识，那它本质上只是一台机器，无关紧要。我认为至少我们思考这个问题的方式可能是根本错误的，但许多认真思考此事的人，包括那些考虑动物道德待遇等问题的人，最终都认为意识是区分我们需要在道德层面考量的系统与无需考量的系统的分界线。

So if a robot is conscious, it matters. But if a robot is not conscious, then they basically just meet or a machine, and it and it doesn't matter. So I think at least maybe how we think about this stuff is fundamentally wrong, but I think a lot of people who think about this stuff seriously, including people who think about, say, the moral treatment of animals and so on, come to the view that consciousness is ultimately kind of the line between systems where we have to take them into account and thinking morally about how

我们的行为对待的系统与无需考量的系统。我记得有作家讨论过像Alexa这样的对话系统如何证明其意识——最基础的表现可能是系统意识到'我只是个程序，为何会有这些体验？'或者虽无此体验但能向你传达这种困惑。这就像人类突然某天醒来，像卡夫卡笔下那样变成电脑里的虫子，意识到自己没有身体却仍有感受时可能会说的话。

we act and systems for which we don't. And I think I've seen either writer talk about the demonstration of consciousness from a system like that, from a system like Alexa or a conversational agent, that what you would be looking for is kind of, at the very basic level, for the system to have an awareness that I'm just a program, and yet why do I experience this? Or not to have that experience, but to communicate that to you. So, that's what us humans would sound like. If you all of a sudden woke up one day, like Kafka, right, in a body of a bug or something, but in a computer, you all of sudden realize you don't have a body, and yet you were feeling what you were feeling, you would probably say those kinds of things.

所以，

So,

你认为系统本质上是通过说出'我为何会有这些体验'这类困惑话语来说服我们它具有意识吗？也就是说，通过表达对自身存在体验的困惑来获得意识认定？

do you think a system essentially becomes conscious by convincing us that it's conscious through the words that I just mentioned? So by being confused about the fact that why am I having these experiences? So basically

我不认为这是意识存在的决定因素，但确实觉得对意识感到困惑是系统有意识的强烈信号。如果我遇到一个机器人真诚地为自己的精神状态困惑，说'我有这些奇怪体验却无法解释，明知自己只是硅电路却不知为何会产生意识'，我会将此视为存在意识的证据。不过系统不必非要困惑才算有意识——很多人从不困惑，动物也毫无困惑表现，我仍认为它们有意识。

I don't think this is what makes you conscious, but I do think being puzzled about consciousness is a very good sign that a system is conscious. So if I encountered a robot that actually seemed to be genuinely puzzled by its own mental states and saying, yeah, I have all these weird experiences, and I don't see how to explain them. I know I'm just a set of silicon circuits, but I don't see how that would give you my consciousness. I would at least take that as some evidence that there's some consciousness going on there. I don't think a system needs to be puzzled about consciousness to be conscious.

在寻找AI系统意识迹象时，如果它能表现出对意识的内省认知并感到哲学层面的困惑——就像人类那样——这会让我更相信它具有意识。但这并非意识的必要条件。

Many people aren't puzzled by their consciousness. Animals don't seem to be puzzled at all. I still think they're conscious. So I don't think that's a requirement on consciousness, but I do think if we're looking for signs for consciousness, say in AI systems, one of the things that will help convince me that an AI system is conscious is if it shows signs of it shows signs of introspectively recognizing something like consciousness and finding this philosophically puzzling in the

这个观点很有趣，因为许多人会肤浅地批评图灵测试过度依赖语言能力。就像丹尼特所批评的，这本质上是在强调欺骗能力。

way that the way that that we do. That's such an interesting thought, though, because a lot of people sort of would, at the shallow level, criticize the Turing test Mhmm. For language. And it's essentially what I heard, like, Dan Dennett criticize it in this kind of way, which is it's really puts a lot of emphasis on lying.

没错。还有模仿人类的能力。有幅漫画讽刺AI系统备考图灵测试，标题是《如何像人类一样说话》。

Yeah. And Being able to being able to imitate human beings. Yeah. There's this there's this cartoon of the AI system studying for the Turing test. I just gotta read this book called Talk Like a Human.

我就想：为何要浪费时间学习模仿人类？也许AI早就超越了意识难题，会觉得'为何要假装理解意识难题才能被认可有意识？'

I was like, man, why do I have to waste my time learning how to imitate humans? Maybe the AI system is gonna be way beyond the hard problem of consciousness, and it's gonna be just like, why do I need to waste my time pretending that I recognize the hard problem of consciousness to in order for people to recognize me as conscious?

是啊。问题在于：我们是否永远无法真正创建意识测试？因为我们太人类中心主义了，唯一能让我们相信某物有意识的方式就是它展现出意识幻觉。我们永远无法确知它是否真有意识——这是否意味着意识本身其实不重要？还是说对你而言，某物是否真实具有意识仍然重要？

Yeah. It just feels like I guess the question is, do you think there's a we can never really create a test for consciousness? Because it it feels like we're very human centric, and so the only way we would be convinced that something is conscious is basically the thing demonstrates the illusion of consciousness. We can never really know whether it's conscious or not, and in fact, that almost feels like it doesn't matter then. Or does it still matter to you that something is conscious or it demonstrates consciousness?

你依然能看到那个根本的区别。

You still see that fundamental distinction.

我认为对很多人来说，一个系统是否有意识对许多事情至关重要，比如我们如何对待它、它是否会受苦等等。但这仍然留下了一个问题：我们如何才能知道？确实，我们很难确切知道一个系统是否有意识。我猜想，在社会学层面上，能让我们相信一个系统有意识的部分原因在于诸如社交互动、对话等行为，它们看起来像是有意识的。它们谈论自己的意识状态，或者只是谈论感到快乐、悲伤、觉得事物有意义或处于痛苦中。

I think to a lot of people, whether a system is conscious or not matters hugely for many things, like how we treat it, can it suffer, and so on. But still, that leaves open the question, how can we ever know? And it's true that it's awfully hard to see how we can know for sure whether a system is conscious. I suspect that sociologically, the thing that's going to convince us that a system is conscious is in part things like social interaction, conversation, and so on, where they seem to be conscious. They talk about their conscious states or just talk about being happy or sad or finding things meaningful or being in pain.

如果我们不认为这个系统真的看起来有意识，我们不会这样对待它，但最终，这似乎会成为一种奇怪的种族主义或物种歧视，或者以某种方式不承认它们。

That will tend to convince us if we don't the system genuinely seems to be conscious, we don't treat it as such. Eventually, it's gonna seem like a strange form of racism or speciesism or somehow not to acknowledge them.

顺便说一句，我真的相信这一点。我、我、我相信将会有一场类似于民权运动的运动，但这次是为了机器人。

I truly believe that, by the way. I I I believe that there is going to be something akin to the civil rights movement but for robots.

嗯。

Mhmm.

我认为当你听到一个Roomba说‘请不要踢我，那很痛’的那一刻，仅仅是这样说。是的，我认为这将从根本上改变我们社会的结构。

I think the moment you have a Roomba say, please don't kick me. That hurts. Just say it. Yeah. I think that will fundamentally change the fabric of our society.

我想你可能是对的，尽管这会非常棘手，因为要说我们已经掌握了技术，这些有意识的生物可以通过按一下开关就被创造出来，成千上万地复制。

I think you're probably right, although it's gonna be very tricky because to say we're in we've got the technology where these conscious beings can just be created and multiplied by the thousands by by flicking a switch.

所以，而且

So And

法律地位可能会不同，但最终，它们的道德地位应该是

the legal status is gonna be different, but, ultimately, their moral status ought to be

相同的。而且，是的，民权问题将会是一团糟。所以如果有一天有人克隆了你，这是另一个非常现实的可能性。是的，事实上，我发现两个大卫·查默斯的副本之间的对话

the same. And, yeah, the civil rights issue is gonna be a huge mess. So if one day somebody clones you, another very real possibility. Yeah. In fact, I find the conversation between two copies of David Chalmers

嗯。

Mhmm.

相当有趣。

Quite interesting.

很有想法。是啊。这白痴是谁？他完全不知所云。

Very thought. Yeah. Who is this idiot? He's not making any sense.

那么你认为他会有意识吗？

So what, do you think he would be conscious?

我确实认为他会有意识。在某种意义上，我不确定那会是我。到那时会有两个不同的存在。我认为他们都会有意识，且都具有许多相同的心理特质。某种程度上，他们拥有相同的道德地位。

I do think he would be conscious. I do think in some sense, I'm not sure it would be me. There would be two different beings at this point. I think they'd both be conscious, and they both have many of the same mental properties. I think they both, in a way, have the same moral status.

伤害或杀死他们中的任何一个都是错误的。尽管如此，在某些方面他们的法律地位可能必须不同。如果我是原版而那个只是克隆体，那么创造我的克隆体，假设克隆体不会自动拥有我所拥有的东西，或者我与互动的人、家人、伴侣等有特定联系。我会以某种方式与他们相连，而克隆体则不会。所以

It'd be wrong to hurt either of them or to kill them and so on. Still, there's some sense in which probably their legal status would have to be different. If I'm the original and that one's just a clone, then creating a clone of me, presumably the clone doesn't, for example, automatically own the stuff that I own, or, you know, I've got a, you know, a certain connect to things that the people I interact with, my family, my partner, and so on. I'm gonna somehow be connected to them in a way in which the clone isn't. So

因为你稍微早一点出现？

Because you came slightly first?

是的。而且

Yeah. And

因为克隆体会争辩说，他们确实有同样多的联系。

because I clone would argue Yeah. That they have really as much of a connection.

他们拥有所有关于那些联系的记忆。某种程度上可以说歧视他们不公平。但假设你有一套只能一个人住的公寓或一个伴侣，为什么不该是你这个原版呢？这是个有趣的哲学问题，但你可以说，因为我确实有这段历史，如果我是之前的那个人而克隆体不是，那么我拥有的这段历史是克隆体所没有的。

They have all the memories of that connection. In a way, might say it's kind of unfair to discriminate against them. But say you've got an apartment that only one person can live in or a partner who only one person Well, why shouldn't it be you? The original. It's an interesting philosophical question, but you might say, because I actually have this history, if I am the same person as the one that came before and the clone is not, then I have this history that the clone doesn't.

当然，这里还有个问题，克隆人不也是同一个人吗？这是关于个人身份认同的问题。如果我继续下去，在那边创造一个克隆人，我想说这个是我，那个是别人。但你也可以认为克隆人同样是我。比如在《星际迷航》这类电影里，他们经常使用传送装置，本质上就是在不断制造克隆人。

Of course, there's also the question, isn't the clone the same person too? This is a question about personal identity. If I continue and I create a clone over there, I wanna say this one is me and this one is is someone else. But you could take the view that a clone is equally me. Of course, in a movie like Star Trek, where they have a teletransporter, basically, creates clones all the time.

他们把克隆人当作原版对待。当然在《星际迷航》里他们会销毁原始躯体。通常只保留一个，只有在极少数情况下会出错，比如出现两个柯克船长。某种程度上我们的法律体系至少需要解决这类问题，可能道德标准和法律认可之间会产生分歧。

They treat the clones as if they're the original person. Of course, they destroy the original body in Star Trek. There's only one left around, and only very occasionally do things go wrong, and you get two copies of Captain Kirk. And somehow our legal system, at the very least, is gonna have to sort out some of these issues, and that maybe that's what's moral and what's legally acceptable are gonna come apart.

你会问自己的克隆人什么问题？甚至能否从他那里获取关于意识本质的有用信息？

What question would you ask a clone of yourself? Is there something useful you can find out from him about the fundamentals of consciousness even.

理论上讲，我知道如果是完美克隆体，它的行为会和我完全一致。所以我不确定能否通过观察它是否像我一样回答来判断是否完美克隆。但除此之外，我只会发现一个和我完全相同的存在，只不过它刚刚经历了发现自己是克隆体的巨大冲击。就像明天你叫醒我说：嘿戴夫，很遗憾告诉你，你其实是克隆体。

I mean, kind of in principle, I know that if it's a perfect clone, it's gonna behave just like me. So I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to I can discover whether it's a perfect clone by seeing whether it answers like me. But otherwise, know what I'm gonna find is a being which is just like me, except that it's just undergone this great shock of discovering that it's a clone. So just so you woke me up tomorrow and said, hey, Dave. Sorry to tell you this, but you're actually the clone.

如果你提供了非常确凿的证据，给我看克隆过程的录像，展示我被包裹着出现在这里然后苏醒的全过程，证明我是克隆体。好吧，我会感到震惊，谁知道我会作何反应。所以通过与克隆体交谈，或许能发现一些平时难以察觉的心理特质，比如当我发现自己是被克隆时的反应。

And you provided me really convincing evidence, showed me the film of my being cloned, and then all wrapped up here being here, and and waking up. So you prove to me I'm a clone. Well, yeah, okay. I would find that shocking, who knows how I would react to this. So so maybe by talking to the clone, I'd find something about my own psychology that I can't find out so easily, like how I'd react upon discovering that I'm a clone.

我当然可以问克隆体是否有意识、它的意识体验如何等等，但如果是完美克隆，我大概知道它会表现得和我差不多。当然最初会质疑完美克隆的可能性，所以我可能会问很多问题来验证它的意识状态、描述意识的方式以及对事物的反应模式是否合理，这些就够我们研究好一阵子了。

I could certainly ask the clone if it's conscious and what his consciousness is like and so on, but I guess I kinda know if it's a perfect clone, it's gonna behave roughly like me. Of course, at the beginning, there'll be a question about whether a perfect clone is possible, so I may wanna ask it lots of questions to see if it's consciousness, and the way it talks about its consciousness, and the way it reacts to things in general is likely, and, you know, that will occupy us for

相当长一段时间。早期模型的基础单元测试阶段。

For a while. Long It's a basic unit testing in the early models.

没错。

Yeah.

既然你说完美克隆会完全复制你的行为，这就引出了自由意志的问题。嗯...那么自由意志存在吗？我们能否做出不受宇宙初始条件预先决定的抉择？

So if it's a perfect clone, you say that it's gonna behave exactly like you, so that takes us to free will. Mhmm. So is there a free will? Are we able to make decisions that are not predetermined from the initial conditions of the the universe?

哲学家们总爱说这取决于定义，这次确实要看你怎么理解自由意志。如果指完全不受预先决定、永远无法预测的事物，那我不确定我们是否有这种自由意志。量子力学或许留出了些余地，但我不确定我们拥有那种意义上的自由意志。不过我也不确定那种自由意志是否真的重要。

You know, philosophers do this annoying thing of saying it depends what you mean. So in this case, you know, yeah, it really depends on what you mean by by free will. If you mean something which was not determined in advance, could never have been determined, then I don't know we have free will. I mean, there's quantum mechanics, and who's to say if that opens up some room, but I'm not sure we have free will in that sense. But I'm also not sure that's the kind of free will that really matters.

嗯。你知道，对我们来说重要的是能够做自己想做的事，创造自己的未来。我们区分了生活由自己掌控还是由他人掌控。我们有对自己负责的行为与不负责的行为的感知。我认为即使在决定论的宇宙中，你也能做出这些区分。

Mhmm. You know, what matters to us is being able to do what we want and to create our own futures. We've got this distinction between having our lives to be under our control and under someone else's control. We've got the sense of actions that we are responsible for versus ones that we're not. I think you can make those distinctions even in a deterministic universe.

这就是人们所说的相容论自由意志观，即它与决定论是相容的。因此我认为，在许多情况下，那种重要的自由意志是我们在一个决定论的宇宙中可以拥有的，而且原则上我看不出为什么人工智能系统不能拥有那种自由意志。如果你指的是超级自由意志，即违反物理定律、做出原则上无法预测的事情的能力，我不知道。也许没有人拥有那种自由意志。

And this is what people call the compatibilist view of free will, where it's compatible with determinism. So I think for many purposes, the kind of free will that matters is something we can have in a deterministic universe, and I can't see any reason in principle why an AI system couldn't have free will of that kind. If you mean super duper free will, the ability to violate the laws of physics and doing things that in principle could not be predicted, I don't know. Maybe no one has that kind of free will.

在你看来，自由意志的现实与其体验、主观体验之间有什么联系？那么意识是如何与自由意志的现实和体验联系起来的？

What's the connection between the reality of free will and the the experience of it, the subjective experience, in your view. So how does consciousness connect to this to the experience of to to the reality and the experience of free will?

确实，当我们做决定和选择时，我们感觉未来是开放的。是的，感觉像是，我可以做这个。我可以选择哲学，或者数学。我今晚可以去看电影。

It's certainly true that when we make decisions and when we choose and so on, we feel like we have an open future. Yes. Feel like, yeah, I could do this. I could go into philosophy, or I could go into math. I could go to a movie tonight.

我可以去餐厅。所以我们体验这些事情时，仿佛未来是开放的，也许我们体验到自己对未来的某种影响，仿佛是从许多之前开放的路径中选择了一条。你可能会想，实际上如果我们处于一个决定论的宇宙中，客观上那些路径从来就不是真正开放的。主观上，它们是开放的。我认为这在做决定时才是真正重要的。

I could go to a restaurant. So we experience these things as if the future is open, and maybe we experience ourselves as exerting a kind of effect on the future that's somehow picking out one path from many paths that were previously open. You might think that actually if we're in a deterministic universe, there's a sense in which objectively those paths weren't really open all along. Subjectively, they were open. I think that's what really matters in making a decision.

我们做决定的体验是为自己选择一条路径。总的来说，我们对心智的内省模型，我认为通常是对心智非常扭曲的表征。因此，很可能我们在做决定时的自我体验，对正在发生的事情的体验，并不能很好地反映实际情况。我的意思是，也许在大脑中，早在任何东西进入意识之前就有前因。这些在我们的内省模型中没有体现。所以总的来说，我们的感知体验，就像我们对外部世界的感知图像。

Our experience of making a decision is choosing a path for ourselves. In general, our introspective models of the mind, I think, are generally very distorted representations of the mind, So it may well be that our experience of ourself in making a decision, our experience of what's going on, doesn't terribly well mirror what's going on. I mean, maybe there are antecedents in the brain way before anything came into consciousness and so on. Those aren't represented in our introspective model. So in general, our experience of perception, you know, it's like our experience, a perceptual image of the external world.

这并不是对实际情况的非常好的模型。

It's not a terribly good model of what's actually going on

嗯。

Mhmm.

在我的视觉皮层等等，它有所有这些层次等等。它只是其中一小部分的快照。所以总的来说，是的，内省模型非常过于简化，如果自由意志也是如此，那也不足为奇。顺便说一句，这也可以应用于意识本身。有一种非常有趣的观点认为，意识本身就是一种内省错觉。

In the in my visual cortex and so on, which has all these layers and so on. It's just one little snapshot of of one bit of that. So in general, yeah, introspective models are very over oversimplified, and it wouldn't be surprising if that was true of free will as well. This also, incidentally, can be applied to consciousness itself. There is this very interesting view that consciousness itself is an introspective illusion.

事实上，我们并不有意识，但我们的大脑只是有这些对自己的内省模型，它过度简化一切，并将自己表征为具有这些意识的特殊属性。这是一种非常简单的自我跟踪方式。那么在错觉论者看来，是的，那只是一个错觉。我发现这种观点有些难以置信。但在某些方面，我觉得它非常有吸引力，因为它很容易讲述一个关于大脑如何创建对自己意识、自由意志的内省模型的故事，作为一种自我简化的方式。

In fact, we're not conscious, but we but we brain just has these introspective models of itself where it oversimplifies everything and represents itself as having these special properties of consciousness. It's a really simple way to kind of keep track of itself and so on. Then on the illusionist view, yeah, that's just an illusion. Find this view I find it implausible. I do find it very attractive in some ways, because it's easy to tell some story about how the brain would create introspective models of its own consciousness, of its own free will as a way of simplifying itself.

我是说，这类似于我们感知外部世界的方式。我们将其视为拥有这些颜色，嗯。也许它实际上并不具备，因为那是一种

I mean, it's a similar way when we perceive the external world. We perceive it as having these colors that Mhmm. Maybe it doesn't really have because that's a

非常有效的追踪方式。你是说你发现这种观点不太可信吗？因为我个人觉得它在某种程度上既可信又吸引人，因为这种观点可以说是神秘感最少的一种。你能大致理解这种观点。其他所有理论都说我们对这幅图景的理解还远远不够。

really useful way of keeping tracks of keeping track. Did you say that you find it not very plausible? Because I I find it both plausible and attractive in some sense, because it I mean, kind of view is one that has the minimum amount of mystery around it. You can kind of understand that kind of view. Everything else says we don't understand so much of this picture.

是的，不，它确实非常吸引人。我最近写了一篇关于这类问题的文章，叫做意识的元问题。难题在于大脑如何产生意识？

Yeah. No. It is very it is very attractive. I recently wrote an article about this kind of issue called the meta problem of consciousness. The hard problem is how does the brain give you consciousness?

元问题则是为什么我们会对意识的难题感到困惑？因为，你知道，我们对它的困惑最终是一种行为表现。我们或许能将这种行为解释为意识的简单问题之一。可能会有某种计算模型能解释为什么我们会对意识感到困惑。元问题就是要提出那个模型，我最近一直在思考这个问题。

The meta problem is why are we puzzled by the hard problem of consciousness? Because, you know, our being puzzled by it, that's ultimately a bit of behavior. We might be able to explain that bit of behavior as one of the easy problems of consciousness. Maybe there'll be some computational model that explains why we're puzzled by consciousness. The meta problem has come up with that model, and I've been thinking about that a lot lately.

关于为什么正确的计算系统会发展出这些将特殊属性归因于自身的自省模型，可以讲一些有趣的故事。这个元问题对所有人来说都是一个研究项目。如果你喜欢简单的观点、荒芜的风景等等，那么你可以完全接受人们所说的幻觉主义，认为事实上意识本身并不真实。真实存在的只是我们这些告诉我们自己有意识的自省模型。所以这个观点非常简单、非常吸引人、也非常有力。

There are some interesting stories you can tell about why the right kind of computational system might develop these introspective models of itself that attributed itself, these special properties. That meta problem is a research program for everyone. Then if you've got attraction to simple views, desert landscapes and so on, then you can go all the way with what people call illusionism and say, In fact, consciousness itself is not real. What is real is just these these these introspective models we have that tell us that we're conscious. So the view is very simple, very attractive, very powerful.

当然，问题在于它必须承认在深层意义上，意识并不真实。我们实际上并没有在体验，这看起来与我们存在的基本事实相矛盾。这就是为什么大多数人觉得这种观点很疯狂，就像他们觉得泛心论在某种程度上很疯狂一样。人们以另一种方式觉得幻觉主义很疯狂。但是，我是说，它确实必须否认我们现在存在的这个基本事实。

The trouble is, of course, it has to say that deep down, consciousness is not real. We're not actually experiencing right now, and it looks like it's just contradicting a fundamental datum of our existence. And this is why most people find this view crazy, just as they find panpsychism crazy in one way. People find illusionism crazy in another way. But, I mean, but it so, yes, it has to deny this fundamental data of our existence now.

这种观点让大多数人觉得简直难以置信。另一方面，如果这个观点发展得当，或许能解释为什么我们觉得它难以置信，因为这些模型已经深深植根于我们的大脑中。

And the view that makes the view sort of frankly unbelievable for most people. On the other hand, the view developed right might be able to explain why we find it unbelievable because these models are so deeply hardwired into our head.

它们都是整合在一起的。你无法逃脱这种幻觉。作为一个疯狂的可能性，有没有可能整个宇宙、我们的星球、纽约的所有人、我们星球上的所有生物，包括今天在这里的我，在那个意义上都不是真实的。它们都只是戴夫·查尔莫斯头脑中的一个幻觉的一部分。

They're all integrated. Not you can't escape that the the illusion. And as a crazy possibility, is it possible that the entirety of the universe, our planet, all the people in New York, all the organisms on our planet, including me here today, are not real in in that sense. They're all part of an illusion inside of Dave Chalmers' head.

我认为这一切可能是一个模拟。

I think all this could be a simulation.

不，不仅仅是一个模拟。是的。因为模拟某种程度上是在你之外的。一个梦？

No. But not just a simulation. Yeah. Because the simulation kinda is outside of you. A dream?

如果这一切都是幻觉，是的，一场你正在经历的梦，全都在你的脑海里。对吧？你能把幻觉主义推到那种程度吗？

What if it's all an illusion that, yes, a dream that you're experiencing that It's all in your mind. Right? Is that can you take illusionism that far?

关于外部世界的幻觉主义和关于意识的幻觉主义可能走向不同方向。外部世界的幻觉主义让人联想到笛卡尔——这一切是否可能由一个邪恶恶魔制造？笛卡尔本人也提出过梦境论证：你如何确定自己此刻不在梦中？如何确定这不是一场逼真的梦？

Well, there's illusionism about the external world and illusionism about consciousness, and these might go in different. Illusionism about the external world kind of takes you back to Descartes and could all this be produced by an evil demon? Descartes himself also had the dream argument. Said, How do you know you're not dreaming right now? How do you know this is not an amazing dream?

我认为至少存在这种可能性——是的，这可能是上层宇宙中某个超级复杂的梦。不过我的态度是，就像笛卡尔认为邪恶恶魔制造的幻象不真实那样，如今很多人说如果是模拟世界就不真实。但正如我之前所说，即使是模拟的，也不妨碍其真实性，这只是告诉我们世界的构成方式。

And I think it's at least a possibility that, yeah, this could be some super duper complex dream in the next universe up. I guess, though, my attitude is that just as I mean, Descartes thought that if the evil demon was doing it, it's not real. A lot of people these days say if a simulation is doing it, it's not real. As I was saying before, think even if it's a simulation, that doesn't stop this from being real. It just tells us what the world is made of.

同理，如果是梦境，最终可能发现这一切都像是上层宇宙中我的大脑创造的梦。我的观点是：这不会否定物理世界的真实性。这只说明在最根本层面，这个杯子是由上层梦境意识构成的。或许这会导向某种奇怪的泛心论，但并不能证明杯子不真实，只是揭示它最终由我梦境中的过程构成。所以我反对'物理世界是梦境就等于幻觉'的观点。

Likewise, if it's a dream, it could turn out that all this is like my dream created by my brain and the next universe up. My own view is that wouldn't stop this physical world from being real. It would turn out this cup, at the most fundamental level, was made of a bit of, say, my consciousness in the dreaming mind at the next level up. Maybe that would give you a weird kind of panpsychism about reality, but it wouldn't show that the cup isn't real, would just tell us it's ultimately made of processes in my dreaming mind. So I'd resist the idea that if the physical world is a dream, then it's an illusion.

就是说

That is

对了，或许你有个有趣的想法——为什么笛卡尔的恶魔或天才被认为是邪恶的？为什么不能是个拥有同等能力的仁慈存在？

right. By the way, perhaps you have an interesting thought about it. Why is Descartes demon or genius considered evil? Why couldn't it have been a a benevolent one that had the same powers?

没错。笛卡尔称之为'邪恶精灵'或'邪恶天才'，用的是'maligne'这个词。但这确实是个有趣的问题。

Yeah. I mean, Descartes called it the melangeini, the evil genie or evil genius. Yeah. Malign, I guess, was the word. But, yeah, it's interesting question.

后来的哲学家贝克莱说：不，其实这一切都是上帝所为。上帝提供所有感知和观念，物理现实由此维系。有趣的是，贝克莱的上帝所做的与笛卡尔的邪恶恶魔并无本质不同，只是笛卡尔认为这是欺骗，而贝克莱认为不是。在这方面我其实更认同贝克莱。

I mean, A later philosopher, Berkeley, said, No, in fact, all this is done by God. God actually supplies you all of these perceptions and ideas, and that's how physical reality is sustained. Interestingly, Berkeley's god is doing something that doesn't look so different from what Descartes' evil demon was doing. It's just that Descartes thought it was deception, and Berkeley thought it was not. And I'm I'm actually more sympathetic to Berkeley here.

这个邪恶恶魔或许试图欺骗你，但我认为它可能只是基于错误的哲学理论运作。它自以为在欺骗你，其实它错了。

Yeah. This evil demon may be trying to deceive you, but I think, okay. Well, the evil demon may just be under the working under a false philosophical theory. It thinks it's deceiving you. It's wrong.

就像《黑客帝国》里的机器，它们以为让人类相信这一切是真实的属于欺骗。但我想说：如果我们真的在矩阵中，这一切依然真实存在。

It's like there's machines in the matrix. They thought they were deceiving you that all this stuff is real. I think, no. If we're in a matrix, it's all still it's all still real. Yeah.

哲学家O.K.布斯默五十年前对此有个精妙的故事，关于笛卡尔的邪恶恶魔，他说这个恶魔穷尽时间试图欺骗人类，却总是失败，因为最终恶魔所做的不过是为人构建现实。所以，我认为这种观点很自然：如果我们身处模拟或邪恶恶魔的情境中，那么这一切都不真实。但我觉得这可能根本上是个哲学谬误，特别是当你接纳某种现实观时。

The the philosopher, O. K. Bussmer, had a nice story about this about fifty years ago about Descartes' evil demon, where he said this demon spends all of its time trying to fool people, but fails because somehow all the demon ends up doing is constructing realities for people. So yeah, I think that maybe it's very natural to take this view that if we're in a simulation or evil demon scenario or something, then none of this is real. But I think it may be ultimately a philosophical mistake, especially if you take on board sort of the view of reality.

现实的关键在于其结构，比如数学结构等。这似乎是许多人从当代物理学中得出的观点。而你会发现，这些数学结构可能存在于模拟中，甚至梦境里。只要这种结构是真实的，我认为就足以让物理世界成为真实。是的，物理世界可能比我们想象的更难以捉摸，具有令人惊讶的本质，但现代科学已让我们对此习以为常。

Well, what matters to reality is really its structure, something like its mathematical structure and so on. Which seems to be the view that a lot of people take from contemporary physics. And it looks like you can find all that mathematical structure in a simulation, maybe even in a dream, and so on. So as long as that structure is real, I would say that's enough for the physical world to be real. Yeah, the physical world may turn out to be somewhat more intangible than we had thought and have a surprising nature, but we've already gotten very used to that from modern science.

你看，你暗示过高级智能不一定需要意识，但要创造真正通用的智能系统，AGI系统，人类水平甚至超人类水平的智能。嗯。你提到这类目标可能还很遥远，但当我们达到那个阶段时，从工程角度看，你认为意识是必要的，或至少对创建AGI系统非常有益吗？

See, you've you've kind of alluded that you don't have to have consciousness for high levels of intelligence, but to create truly general intelligence systems, AGI systems, human level intelligence, perhaps superhuman level intelligence. Mhmm. You've talked about that it you you feel like that kind of thing might be very far away, but nevertheless, when we reach that point, do you think consciousness from an engineering perspective is needed or at least highly beneficial for creating an AGI system?

是的。目前没人知道意识在功能上起什么作用。所以我们无法明确指出需要意识来实现什么。嗯。因此我倾向于认为，原则上AGI是可能实现的。

Yeah. No one knows what consciousness is for functionally. So right now, there's no specific thing we can point to and say, you need consciousness for that. Mhmm. So my inclination is to believe that, in principle, AGI is possible.

至少，我看不出为什么不能模拟大脑，最终构建一个能产生我们所有行为的计算系统。如果这可行，我相信还能创造出无数其他同等或更复杂的计算系统，具备我们全部认知功能甚至更多。我倾向于认为，一旦拥有所有这些认知功能——感知、注意力、推理、内省、语言、情感等——很可能也会拥有意识。至少我很难想象一个系统能具备所有这些...

At the very least, I don't see why someone couldn't simulate a brain, ultimately have a computational system that produces all of our behavior. And if that's possible, I'm sure vastly many other computational systems of equal or greater sophistication are possible with all of our cognitive functions and more. My inclination is to think that once you've got all these cognitive functions, perception, attention, reasoning, introspection, language, emotion, and so on. It's very likely you'll have, you'll have consciousness as well. At least it's very hard for me to see how you'd have a system that had all

功能却绕过意识。所以很自然地，它们是紧密整合的。实现这些功能所需的机制有很大重叠。因此即便在方程式中，你也无法将它们分离。

those things while bypassing somehow conscious. So just naturally, it's integrated quite naturally. There's a lot of overlap about the kind of function that required to achieve each of those things. That's the so you can't disentangle them even when you're used to the equation.

至少对人类是这样，但我们不知道意识在物理世界中的因果作用。假设意识确实在物理世界有特定功能，比如坍缩波函数——这是量子力学的一种常见解释。那么我们最终可能发现它确实产生影响的地方，可以说'啊，这里意识在坍缩波函数，驱动系统行为'。甚至可能对于AGI，你需要某种机制来扮演这个角色——有些人将意识与自由意志联系起来，认为意识坍缩波函数就是心智对物理世界施加影响、行使自由意志的方式。

At least in us, but we don't know the causal role of consciousness in the physical world, what it does. Mean, just say it turns out consciousness does something very specific in the physical world, like collapsing wave functions, as on one common interpretation of quantum mechanics. Then ultimately, we might find some place where it actually makes a difference, and we could say, Ah, here is where we're in collapsing wave functions. It's driving the behavior of a system, and maybe it could even turn out that for AGI, you'd need something playing that I mean, you wanted to connect this to free will, some people think consciousness collapsing wave functions. That would be how the conscious mind exerts effects on the physical world and exerts its free will.

也许最终会发现，任何不利用这种机制的AGI在其功能上都会受限。我个人觉得这不太可能，认为这种功能应该可以模拟。但可以想象，一旦我们明确意识在物理世界中的作用，这会影响AGI的能力。如果这个作用无法被其他方式复制，那么我们就必须找到方法要么...

Maybe it could turn out that any AGI that didn't utilize that mechanism would be limited in the kinds of functionality that it had. I don't myself find that plausible. I think probably that functionality could be simulated. But you could imagine once we had a very specific idea about the role of consciousness in the physical world, this would have some impact on the capacity of AGIs. If it was a role that could not be duplicated elsewhere, then a we'd we'd have to find some way to either Right.

让系统中的意识扮演这个角色，要么去模拟它。

Get consciousness in the system to play that role or to simulate it.

如果我们能分离出意识的特定作用——当然这看起来极其困难——你会担心非人类的意识智能生命带来生存威胁吗？显然，我相信你担心我们人类...从生存威胁角度。但除了人类，AI系统呢？

If we can isolate a particular role to consciousness, of course, that's incredibly seems like an incredibly difficult thing. Do you have worries about existential threats of conscious intelligent beings that are not us? So certainly, I'm sure you're worried about us Yeah. From an existential threat perspective, but outside of us, AI systems.

这里存在几种不同类型的生存威胁。一种是对意识本身的生存威胁。我的意思是，是的，我关心人类及其延续等问题，但假设最终我们被某种非人类的人工存在取代，它们以某种方式成为我们的继承者。它们依然拥有美好的生活，依然能在宇宙中从事有趣而奇妙的事情。

There's a couple of different kinds of existential threats here. One is an existential threat to consciousness generally. I mean, yes, I care about humans and the survival of humans and so on, but just say it turns out that eventually we're replaced by some artificial beings that aren't humans, but are somehow our successors. They still have good lives. They still do interesting and wonderful things with the universe.

我认为这并不算太糟。那只是我们的继承者。我们是进化中的一个阶段。接下来会出现不同的、或许更好的事物。但另一方面，如果所有意识都被抹去，那将是一场极其严重的道德灾难。

I don't think that's not so bad. That's just our successors. We were one stage in evolution. Something different, maybe better, came next. If on the other hand, all of consciousness was wiped out, that would be a very serious moral disaster.

这种情况可能以所有智能生命被消灭的方式发生。许多人认为，当发展到人类和AI这种惊人复杂的阶段，每个个体都能通过按按钮创造摧毁整个宇宙的武器时，或许所有智能生命的灭绝就不可避免了。这无疑是场灾难，我们必须认真思考如何避免。但另一种有趣的灾难可能是：智能生命未被消灭，但所有意识都消失了。比如假设——与我刚才所言相反——存在两类智能系统，一类有意识，一类没有。

One way that could happen is by all intelligent life being wiped out. And many people think that, yeah, once you get to humans and AIs and amazing sophistication where everyone has got the ability to create weapons that can destroy the whole universe just by pressing a button, then maybe it's inevitable, all intelligent life will die out. That certainly be a disaster, and we've got to think very hard about how to avoid that. But yeah, another interesting kind of disaster is that maybe intelligent life is not wiped out, but all consciousness is wiped out. So just say you thought, unlike what I was saying a moment ago, that there are two different kinds of intelligent systems, some which are conscious and some which are not.

假设我们创造出的通用人工智能具有高度智能（即行为极其复杂），却完全没有意识。这种AGI或许能接管世界，但届时世界将不再有意识存在。这将是个僵尸世界。有人称之为'僵尸末日'，因为这是意识的末日——意识就此消亡。

And just say it turns out that we create AGI with a high degree of intelligence, meaning high degree of sophistication in its behavior, but with no consciousness at all. That AGI could take over the world, maybe, but then there'd be no consciousness in this world. This would be a world of zombies. Some people have called this the zombie apocalypse, because it's an apocalypse for consciousness. Consciousness is gone.

你得到的只是超级智能却无意识的机器人。我认为这与'无智能生命的世界'同样（或近乎同样）是场道德灾难。那个世界所有的价值与意义可能都已消失。这些都是需要警惕的威胁。我个人认为，若实现超级智能，几乎必然伴随意识产生。

You've merely got super intelligent, nonconscious robots. I would say that's a moral disaster in the same way, in almost the same way that the world with no intelligent life is a moral disaster. All value and meaning may be gone from that world. These are both threats to watch out for. Now my own view is if you get superintelligence, you're almost certainly gonna bring consciousness with it.

所以我希望这种情况不会发生，但当然，我并不理解意识本质。没人真正理解意识。这至少是众多原因之一，促使我们必须严肃思考意识问题，思考我们想在人类和/或AI共存的未来创造怎样的世界。

So I hope that's not gonna happen, but of course, I don't understand consciousness. No one understands consciousness. This is one reason for this is one reason, at least among many, for thinking very seriously about consciousness and thinking about the kind of future we want to create with a in a in a world with humans and or AIs. How do

如果意识确实会自然伴随AGI系统出现，而我们只是进化中的一个阶段——未来几个世纪后AGI系统在教科书里研究的人类不过是历史记录上的一个小点——你对这种可能性有何感受？

you feel about the possibility if consciousness so naturally does come with AGI systems that we are just a step in the evolution, that we will be just something, a blimp on the record, that'll be studied in books by the AGI systems centuries from now?

我想我大概能接受，特别是如果人类与AGI存在某种延续性。某种程度上这是不可避免的。至少人类将会被改造——技术正在以各种方式增强我们，这已经发生了。

I mean, I think I'd probably be okay with that, especially if somehow humans are continuous with AGIs. I mean, I think something like this is inevitable. At the very least, humans are gonna be transformed. We're gonna be augmented by technology. It's already happening in all kinds of ways.

技术将改造我们：大脑会被上传并进行算力增强。最终，人类与AI的界限可能难以划分。比如，千年后某个源于我们的存在体是否仍具生物属性有多重要？如果能指出其认知系统中某些源于我们的部分，追溯出一条延续的脉络，我会自私地感到欣慰——我与未来世界的这条脉络相连。

We're going to be transformed by technology where our brains are going to be uploaded and computationally enhanced. Eventually, that line between what's a human and what's an AI may be kind of hard to hard to draw. How much does it matter, for example, that some future being a thousand years from now that's somehow descended from us actually still has biology? I think it would be nice if you kind of point to its cognitive system, point to some parts that had some roots in us and chase a trace a continuous line there. That would be selfishly nice for me to think that, okay, I'm connected to this thread line through the future of the world.

但如果事实是：那里出现了跳跃。他们找到了设计认知系统的更好方式，创造了全新事物，唯一的联系只是'系统设计更好系统'的因果链。这真的更糟吗？我不知道。

But if it turns out, okay, there's a jump there. They they found a better way to design cognitive systems. They designed a wholly new kind of thing, and the only line is some causal chain of designing and systems that design better systems. Is that so much worse? I don't know.

我们至少仍是设计因果链的一部分。是的，它们不是人类，但仍是我们的成就。最终，我认为类似情况的发生或许是不可避免的，至少我们参与了这个进程。如果它们仍愿意重视我们并参与我们的讨论就再好不过了。我真心希望人工通用智能能解决所有哲学难题。

We're still at least part of a causal chain of design. Yes, they're not humans, but still they're our successes. Ultimately, I think it's probably inevitable that something like that will happen, and at least we were part of the process. It would be nice if they still cared enough about us to engage with our arguments. I'm really hoping that the AGIs are going to solve all the problems of philosophy.

它们会回头研读二十世纪和二十一世纪这些糟糕的成果——关于意识难题的错误理解等等。若真如此，我会真切感受到自己参与了跨越数个世纪的思想进程，那将会非常酷。

They'll come back and read all this crappy work for the twentieth and twenty first century, hard problem of consciousness, here is why they got it wrong, and so on. If that happened, then I'd really feel like I was part of at least a intellectual process over centuries, and that would be kinda cool.

我相当确定它们会克隆或重现大卫·查默斯，还会为了趣味性复活其他哲学家。

Well, I'm pretty sure they would clone or they would recreate David Chalmers, and and for the fun of it, sort of bring back other philosophers.

把笛卡尔复活。笛卡尔。

Bring back Descartes. Descartes.

然后把他们关在房间里观察。这将成为未来的网飞节目——让不同时代的100%人类哲学家共处一室，看他们如何互动。

And just put them in a room and just watch. It'll be a a Netflix of the future show where you bring philosophers from different human 100% human philosophers from previous generations, put them in a room and see them.

我完全赞成这个主意。未来的模拟器和AGI们，如果你们正在收听这个播客，请务必实现它。我希望被重现。还有...现在说说笛卡尔。

I am totally I am totally up for that. Simulators, AGIs of the future, if you're watching this podcast, do that. I would like to be recreated. Who would And and and now Descartes.

如果要选择一位已故的古代哲学家参与这样的电视节目，你会选谁？

With Descartes would be the fur who who if you if you could hang out as part of such a TV show with a philosopher that's no longer with us from long ago, who would who would you choose?

笛卡尔肯定是首选。实际上几个月前，我有过与笛卡尔对话的经历。一位哲学家扮演的演员突然登台扮演笛卡尔——我完全没预料到，在我演讲的场所。相当超现实的时刻。

Well, Descartes would have to be right up there. Oh, actually, a couple of months ago, I got to have a conversation with Descartes. An actor who's actually a philosopher came out on stage playing Descartes. I didn't know this was gonna happen, and I'd stop where I gave a talk. A bit of a surreal moment.

我的思想在他面前显得拙劣且都源自于他。我们进行了长时间的激烈辩论，精彩绝伦。但我特别想知道笛卡尔会如何看待人工智能和现代神经科学。我猜不会有多少能让他惊讶，不过...对了，还有威廉·詹姆斯。

My ideas were crap and all derived from him. And so we had a long we had a long argument. This was great. But I would love to see what Descartes would think about AI, for example, and the modern neuroscience and so on. I suspect not too much would surprise him, but but, yeah, William James.

作为研究意识的心理学家，我认为詹姆斯可能是思想最丰沛的。当然还有康德——我始终未能真正理解他的理论，若能当面请教就好了。记得是伊丽莎白公主在与笛卡尔对话时，精准指出了其非物理心智与物理身体互动理论的漏洞。如今多数哲学家认为她是对的。不如把我和笛卡尔、伊丽莎白公主关在一起，让我们好好辩论一番。

You know, for a psychologist of consciousness, I think James was probably the was probably the the richest. But there are Immanuel Kant, you know, I never really understood what he was up to if I got to actually talk to him about some of this. Hey, it was Princess Elizabeth who talked with Descartes and who really got at the problems of how Descartes' ideas of a nonphysical mind interacting with the the physical body couldn't really work. She's been kind of most philosophers think she's been proved right. So maybe put me in a room with Descartes and Princess Elizabeth, and we can all argue it out.

我们之前谈论了僵尸般的未来，一个令人忧虑的未来，但什么样的未来会让你感到兴奋？如果我们展望未来——目前我们正处于理解意识的初级阶段，也刚开始能够设计具有不同程度智能的复杂有趣系统，或许有一天我们能实现不同程度的意识，甚至上传大脑，所有这些可能性，包括虚拟现实。这个未来世界中有什么特别让你兴奋的方面吗？

What kind of future so we talked about with zombies, a concerning future, but what kind of future excites you? What do you think if we look forward sort of we're at the very early stages of understanding consciousness, and we're now at the early stages of being able to engineer complex, interesting systems that have degrees of intelligence, and maybe one day we'll have degrees of consciousness, maybe be able to upload brains, all those possibilities, virtual reality. What is there a particular aspect to this future world that just excites you?

嗯，我认为有很多不同的方面。说实话，我希望能快点实现。虽然最近我们在人工智能和虚拟现实方面取得了一些进展，但从宏观角度看，进展仍然相对缓慢。这些变化尚未具有变革性。而且，你知道，我已经五十多岁了。

Well, I think there are lots of different aspects. I mean, frankly, I wanted to hurry up and happen. It's like, yeah, we've had some progress lately in AI and VR, but in the grand scheme of things, it's still kind of slow. The changes are not yet transformative. And, you know, I'm in my fifties.

我的时间不多了。我希望在有生之年能看到真正强大的人工智能和虚拟世界，因为一旦实现，我希望能在比现实更丰富的虚拟现实中生活，体验完全不同的空间。我非常希望能将我的意识上传到电脑，这样也许我就不必死亡。或许可以逐步用硅芯片替代我的神经元，生活在电脑中。自私地说，那将非常美妙。

I've only got so long left. I'd like to see really serious AI in my lifetime and really serious virtual worlds because, yeah, once people are I would like to be able to hang out in a virtual reality, which is richer than this reality to really get to inhabit fundamentally different kinds of spaces. Well, I would very much like to be able to upload my mind onto a computer, so maybe I don't have to die. If this is maybe gradually replace my neurons with silicon chips and inhabit a computer. Selfishly, that would be wonderful.

我怀疑我在有生之年可能无法完全实现这一点，但一旦成为可能，你就有机会以非凡的方式改造、增强和提升你的意识。

I suspect I'm not going to quite get there in in my lifetime, but once that's possible, then you've got the possibility of transforming your consciousness in remarkable ways, augmenting it, enhancing it.

那么让我问一下，如果这样的系统在你的有生之年成为可能，并且你有机会以这种方式获得永生，你会选择永生吗？

So let me ask then if such a system is a possibility within your lifetime, and you were given the opportunity to become immortal in this kind of way, would you choose to be immortal?

是的，我完全愿意。我知道有些人说永生会很糟糕，会很无聊什么的。我真的不明白为什么会这样。即使只是继续普通的生活，普通的生活也不差。

Yes. I totally would. I know some people say they couldn't it'd be awful to be to be immortal, be so boring or something. I don't see I really don't see don't see why this might be. I mean, even if it's just ordinary life that continues ordinary life is not so bad.

而且，我有点怀疑，如果宇宙会永远或无限地持续下去，它会一直保持有趣。我不认为我们只能拥有现在这一个浪漫的兴趣点，之后就会陷入无聊的超智能停滞状态。我的愿景更像是，它会继续无限地有趣，就像你在集合论层次中不断上升一样。

But furthermore, I kinda suspect that, you know, if the universe is gonna go on forever or indefinitely, it's gonna continue to be interesting. I don't think yeah. Your view was that we just have to get this one romantic point of interest now, and afterwards, it's all gonna be boring, superintelligent stasis. I guess my vision is more like, no. It's gonna continue to be infinitely interesting, Something like as you go up the set theoretic hierarchy.

你知道，从有限的基数到阿列夫零，再到阿列夫一、阿列夫二，甚至连续统，你不断取幂集。在集合论中，他们发现这些结果实际上是根本不可预测的，不遵循任何简单的计算模式。随着集合论宇宙的不断扩展，会出现新的创造力层次。我想这就是我的未来。

You know, you go from the the finite card finite cardinals to aleph zero, and then through there to all the aleph one and aleph two and maybe the the continuum, and you keep taking power sets. In set theory, they've got these results that actually all this is fundamentally unpredictable. It doesn't follow any simple computational patterns. There's new levels of creativity as the set theoretic universe expands and expands. I guess that's my future.

这是我对未来的愿景，是我对超智能未来的乐观展望。它会不断扩展和成长，但在许多方面仍然根本不可预测。当然，这也会带来各种担忧，比如它是否脆弱，随时可能被摧毁？所以我们需要解决这个问题。但如果我们假设我能永生，我希望不仅仅是永生并永远困在一个单一的世界里，而是能参与这个过程。

That's my vision of the future that's my optimistic vision of the future of superintelligence. It will keep expanding and keep growing, but still being fundamentally unpredictable at many points. I mean, this gets creates all kinds of worries, like, couldn't it all be fragile and be destroyed at any point? So we're gonna need a solution to that problem. But if we get to stipulate that I'm immortal, well, I hope that I'm not just immortal and stuck in the single world forever, but I'm immortal and get to take part in this process

穿越无限丰富、创造的未来。丰富、不可预测、令人兴奋。我想我代表很多人说，希望你能实现永生，未来会有那样的Netflix节目，让你或许能与笛卡尔永远争论下去。戴夫，今天能与你交谈真是荣幸，非常感谢。

of going through infinitely rich, created futures. Rich, unpredictable, exciting. Well, I think I speak for a lot of people in saying, hope you do become immortal, and there'll be that Netflix show of the future where you get to argue with Descartes perhaps for all eternity. So, Dave, it was an honor. Thank you so much for talking today.

谢谢，非常愉快。

Thanks. It was a pleasure.

感谢收听本次对话，也感谢我们的主要赞助商Cash App。下载并使用邀请码Lex podcast，你将获得10美元，同时还有10美元会捐赠给First组织，该组织致力于激励和教育年轻一代成为未来的科技 innovators。如果你喜欢这期播客，请在YouTube订阅、苹果播客上打五星好评、Spotify上关注、Patreon上支持，或者直接在Twitter上联系我@lexfreedman。

Thanks for listening to this conversation, and thank you to our presenting sponsor Cash App. Download it. Use code Lex podcast. You'll get $10, and $10 will go to First, an organization that inspires and educates young minds to become science and technology innovators of tomorrow. If you enjoy this podcast, subscribe on YouTube, give it five stars on Apple Podcast, follow on Spotify, support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter at lex freedman.

最后，让我用大卫·查默斯的话作为结束：'唯物主义是一种美丽而引人入胜的世界观，但要解释意识，我们必须超越它提供的资源。'感谢收听，期待下次再见。

And now let me leave you with some words from David Chalmers. Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.