Now, this nice picture shows a thought-balloon, a thought-bubble.
好了,這張圖展示的是一個“思維泡泡”。
I think everybody understands what that means.
我想大家都知道這是什么意思。
That's supposed to exhibit the stream of consciousness.
它展示了意識流。
This is my favorite picture of consciousness that's ever been done.
這是到目前,我最喜歡的展示意識的圖片。
It's a Saul Steinberg of course -- it was a New Yorker cover.
它是Saul Steinberg的作品——是《紐約客》的一幅封面圖片。
And this fellow here is looking at the painting by Braque.
這個人是在看Braque的畫。
That reminds him of the word baroque, barrack, bark, poodle,
讓他想起了巴洛克、兵營、樹皮、獅毛狗
Suzanne R. -- he's off to the races.
Suzanne R. 精彩正要開始。
There's a wonderful stream of consciousness here
這是個極好的意識流
and if you follow it along, you learn a lot about this man.
如果你一直跟下去,你可以了解這個男人很多事情

What I particularly like about this picture, too,
我還特別喜歡這個圖片里邊
is that Steinberg has rendered the guy Steinberg in this sort of pointillist style.
把整個人渲染成一種點彩畫風格
Which reminds us, as Rod Brooks was saying yesterday:
這讓我們想起,Rod Brooks昨天所說的:
what we are, what each of us is -- what you are, what I am --
我們是什么,我們每個人是什么——你是什么,我是什么——
is approximately 100 trillion little cellular robots.
是將近一萬億億的小細胞機器人。
That's what we're made of.
那就是我們的組成成分。
No other ingredients at all. We're just made of cells, about 100 trillion of them.
沒有任何其他成分。我們就是細胞組成的,約一萬億億個。
Not a single one of those cells is conscious;
這些細胞中沒有任何一個有意識,
not a single one of those cells knows who you are, or cares.
沒有一個知道你是誰,或者在乎這個。
Somehow, we have to explain
從某種意義上,我們需要解釋
how when you put together teams, armies, battalions of hundreds of millions of little robotic unconscious cells
我們如何把數隊,數軍,數營的成百百億的無意識細胞機器
not so different really from a bacterium, each one of them the result is this. I mean, just look at it.
他們每個都與細菌沒有多大區別,組合成了這個。我的意思是,就看一下。
The content -- there's color, there's ideas, there's memories, there's history.
這些內容——有顏色、有想法、有回憶,有歷史。
And somehow all that content of consciousness is accomplished by the busy activity of those hoards of neurons.
從某種意義上,這些意識的內容是由那些聚集的神經元的繁忙活動完成的。
How is that possible? Many people just think it isn't possible at all.
這怎么可能呢?很多人認為這一點可能性都沒有。
They think, "No, there can't be any sort of naturalistic explanation of consciousness."
他們覺得,“不,不可能有任何對意識的科學的解釋?!?/div>
This is a lovely book by a friend of mine named Lee Siegel,
這是一本由我朋友Lee Siegel寫的可愛的書,
who's a professor of religion, actually, at the University of Hawaii,
他是夏威夷大學的宗教方向教授,
and he's an expert magician, and an expert on the street magic of India,
而且還是個魔術專家,是印度街頭魔術的專家,
which is what this book is about, "Net of Magic."
也就是這本書的內容,“魔術的網?!?/div>
And there's a passage in it which I would love to share with you.
我要與你們分享里面的一篇文章。
It speaks so eloquently to the problem.
這些話在這個問題上說的真是太好了。
"'I'm writing a book on magic,' I explain, and I'm asked, 'Real magic?'
“‘我在寫一本關于魔術的書,’我解釋道,然后我又被問道,‘真正的魔術?’
By 'real magic,' people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers.
真正的魔術,人們指的是奇跡、魔法,以及超自然力量。
'No,' I answer. 'Conjuring tricks, not real magic.'
‘不’,我回應道。‘變戲法而已,不是真正的魔術?!?/div>
'Real magic,' in other words, refers to the magic that is not real;
真正的魔術,換句話來說,指的是那些并不真實可行的魔法,
while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic."
而那些真實可行的魔術,又不是真正的魔法?!?/p>
來源:可可英語 http://www.ccdyzl.cn/Article/201607/454865.shtml
?