#486 – 迈克尔·莱文：外星智慧与生物生命的隐秘现实

那不是我干的。

That wasn't me.

不管是谁做的，我当时嗑药了。

Whoever did that, I was on drugs.

那你为什么要嗑药呢？

Well, why'd you take the drugs?

呃，那是...你知道的...那是昨天的我。

Well, that was, you know, that was yesterday me.

今天这个才是真正的我对吧？

Today, this is some right?

所以我们才会陷入这些被'成年人'概念完全掩盖的深层问题。

So so we get into these very deep questions that are completely glossed over by this idea of an adult.

所以我认为一旦你开始深究，就会发现大多数分类都是这样的。

So so I think once you start scratching the surface, most of these categories are like that.

它们很便利，也很实用。

They're convenient, and they're good.

你知道，我经常和神经元打交道。

It it's you know, I get into this with neurons all the time.

我会问别人，神经元到底是什么？

I'll I'll ask people, what's what's a neuron?

比如，神经元究竟是什么？

Like, what's really a neuron?

当然，如果你上过神经生物学101课程，你可能会直接说，看。

And, yes, if you're if you're in neurobiology one zero one, of of course, you just say, look.

这就是神经元的样子。

These are what neurons look like.

我们只需研究神经解剖学就完事了。

Let's just study the neuroanatomy, and we're done.

但如果你真想理解其中的奥秘，神经元是从其他类型的细胞发展而来的，那是个缓慢渐进的过程，而且你体内大多数细胞都能做神经元做的事。

But if you really wanna understand what's going on, well, neurons develop from other types of cells, and that was a slow and gradual process, and most of the cells in your body do the things that neurons do.

那么神经元到底是什么呢？

So what really is a neuron?

对吧？

Right?

所以一旦你开始深究这个问题，就会发生这种情况，我认为我们实验室和其他一些地方正在产出一些关于生命起源的非常有趣的研究成果，但我认为这不是要找到那种'砰'的一下就出现的答案。

So so once you start scratching this, this this happens, and I have some things that I think are coming out of our lab and others that are, I think, very interesting about the origin of life, but I don't think it's about finding that one boom like this is yeah.

会有创新的。

There'll be there there are innovations.

对吧？

Right?

确实存在一些能让你以惊人方式扩展规模的创新。

There are there are innovations that that allow you to scale in a in an amazing way, for for sure.

而且有很多人在研究这些创新。

And and there are lots of people that study those.

对吧？

Right?

所以那些热力学相关的代谢机制啊，各种结构设计之类的都是。

So so things that thermodynamic kind of metabolic things and and and all kinds of architectures and so on.

但我认为关键不在于找到一条界限

But I don't think it's about finding a line.

我认为关键在于找到一个可扩展的过程

I think it's about finding a scaling process.

扩展过程确实存在，但有的扩展更快，有的则较慢

The scaling process, but then there's more rapid scaling and there's slower scaling.

因此理解创新和发明很有价值，这样你就能预测其他行星上出现类似现象的概率，或者描述特定环境中发生这类现象的可能性

So innovation, invention, I think is useful to understand so you can predict how likely it is on other planets, for example, or to be able to describe the likelihood of these kinds of phenomena happening in certain kinds of environments.

特别是在回答外星文明数量这个问题时

Again, specifically in answering how many alien civilizations there are.

是的

Yeah.

这就是为什么它很有用

You that's why it's useful.

但从科学层面来说，分类体系的价值不仅在于让我们内心感到舒适，更在于它能使对话成为可能并富有成效

But it is also useful on a scientific level to have categories, not just because it makes us feel good and fuzzy inside, but because it makes conversation possible and productive, I think.

如果一切都是一个连续谱系，那么要做出具体陈述就会变得困难，我认为。

If everything is a spectrum, it's it it becomes difficult to make concrete statements, I think.

就像，我们甚至使用生物学和物理学的术语。

Like, we even use the terms of biology and physics.

这些都是分类。

Those are categories.

从技术上讲，它们本质上都是同一回事。

Technically, it's all the same thing, really.

从根本上说，它们都是相同的。

Fundamentally, it's all the same.

生物学和物理学之间没有区别，但这是一种有用的分类。

There's no difference in biology and physics, but it's a useful category.

如果你去物理系和生物系，那些人在某种程度上是以分类的方式不同的。

If you go to the physics department and the biology department, those people are different in in some kind of categorical way.

所以不知怎么的，我不知道是先有鸡还是先有蛋，但这些分类或许是因为我们思考和运用语言的方式而自我形成的，但这确实显得很有用。

So somehow, I don't know what the chicken or the egg is, but the categories maybe the categories create themselves because of the way we think about them and use them in language, but it does seem useful.

让我提出相反的观点。

Let me make the opposite argument.

它们绝对有用。

They're absolutely useful.

当你想要忽略某些细节时，它们特别有用。

They're useful specifically when you wanna gloss over certain things.

嗯。

Mhmm.

举例来说，当存在大量信息时，分类法就特别有用——这正是科学的重要之处：能够在不先说明一切的情况下表达观点。

Ex the categories are exactly useful when there's a whole bunch of stuff, and this is this is what's important about science is, like, the art of being able to say something without first having to say everything.

对吧？

Right?

否则就会变得不可能。

Which would make it impossible.

所以当你想说'听着'的时候，分类法就非常有用。

So so categories are great when you when you wanna say, look.

我 我 我知道这里隐藏着很多东西。

I I I know there's a bunch of stuff hidden here.

我打算忽略所有这些，我们就专注于眼前这件事。

I'm gonna ignore all that, and we're just gonna like, let's get on with this particular thing.

只要你不忘记那些被略过的东西，这一切都没问题。

And all of that is great as long as you don't lose track of the stuff that you glossed over.

而我担心的正是这一点正在以多种方式发生。

And that was what I'm afraid is happening in a lot of different ways.

就...而言

And in terms of look.

你看

Look.

我 我 我对地球外的生命非常感兴趣，包括所有这些方面，不过我们也该聊聊我称之为SUTI（非常规陆地智慧生命搜索）的东西。

I'm I'm I'm very interested in in in life beyond Earth and all all of these kinds of things, although we should also talk about what I call Suti, s u t I, the search for unconventional terrestrial intelligences.

我认为我们面临的问题远比识别外星生命要严峻得多。

Think I think we got much bigger issues than than actually recognizing aliens off Earth.

但我要提出这个观点，我认为分类思维实际上正在阻碍这项研究。

But I'll make this claim, I think the categorical stuff is actually hurting that search.

因为如果我们试图用我们习惯的标准来定义类别，我们将很难识别出新型生命形态。

Because because if we try to define categories with the kinds of criteria that we've gotten used to, we are going to be very poorly set up to recognize life in novel embodiments.

我认为我们存在某种心智盲区。

I think we have a kind of mind blindness.

我认为这非常关键。

I think this is really key.

但对我来说，认知谱系比生命谱系有趣得多。

It's much but to to me to me, the cognitive spectrum is much more interesting than the spectrum of life.

我认为我们真正讨论的是认知的谱系。

I think really what we're talking about is a spectrum of cognition.

作为一个生物学家这么说可能很奇怪，但我不认为生命是个特别有趣的分类范畴。

And it is I know it's weird as a biologist to say, I I don't think life is all that interesting a category.

我认为不同类型心智的分类才极其有趣。

I think the categories of of different types of minds, I think, is extremely interesting.

就我们自以为分类体系已完备且符合自然本质的程度而言，我们将很难识别新型系统。

And to the extent that we think our categories are complete and are cutting nature at its joints, we are going to be very poorly placed to recognize novel systems.

比如很多人会说，这个有智能，那个没有。

So for example, a lot of people will say, well, this is intelligent and this isn't.

对吧？

Right?

这是一种二元划分，虽然有时在某些场合确实有用。

And there's a binary thing, and and and that's useful and occasionally that's useful for some things.

我想说的是，不如让我们承认存在一个连续谱系。

I would like to say, instead of that, let's make us let's let's let's admit that we have a spectrum.

而不是简单地说'看啊'

But instead of just saying, oh, look.

万物皆有智能

Everything's intelligent.

对吧？

Right?

因为如果你那样做，你是对的。

Because if you do that, you're right.

之后你就无法采取任何行动了。

You can't you can't do anything after that.

我想说的是，不。

What I'd like to say instead is, no.

不。

No.

你必须非常具体地说明是哪种类型以及程度如何。

You have to be very specific as to what kind and how much.

换句话说，它在解决什么问题领域？

In other words, what problem space is it operating in?

它拥有什么样的心智？

What kind of mind does it have?

它具备哪些认知能力？

What kind of cognitive capacities does it have?

你必须更加具体明确，我们甚至可以命名。

You have to actually be much more specific, and and we can even name.

对吧？

Right?

这没问题。

That's fine.

我们可以命名不同类型——我是说，这是在执行预测处理。

We can name different types of I mean, this is doing predictive processing.

这个做不到那一点，但它无法形成记忆。

This can't do that, but it can't form memories.

哪种类型？

What kind?

习惯化和敏感化可以，但无法进行关联性条件反射。

Well, habituation and sensitization, but not associative conditioning.

其实为特定能力设立分类是可行的，但事实上——我认为这反而能让讨论更加严谨，因为它迫使你说清楚：你声称这个东西具体具备什么功能？

Like, it's fine to have categories for specific capabilities, but it's it's it it actually I think it actually makes makes for much more rigorous discussions because it makes you say, what is it that you're claiming this thing does?

而且它是双向运作的。

And it works in both directions.

所以有些人会说，那不过是个细胞。

So and so some people will say, well, that's a that's a cell.

那不可能有智能。

That can't be intelligent.

而我会说，让我们具体一点。

And I'll say, well, let's be very specific.

这里有一些关于它正在解决的问题的断言。

Here are some claims about here is some problem solving that it's doing.

告诉我为什么这不符合标准。

Tell me why that doesn't you know, why doesn't that match.

或者反过来，有人来对我说，你是对的。

Or in the opposite direction, somebody comes to me and says, you're right.

你是对的。

You're right.

要知道，整个太阳系啊，简直太神奇了，好吧。

You know, the whole the whole solar system, man, it's just like this amazing like, okay.

它在做什么？

What is it doing?

比如，告诉我，你用了哪些认知和行为科学的工具来得出这个结论？

Like, tell me tell me what what tools of cognitive and behavioral science are you using to to reach that conclusion.

对吧？

Right?

所以我认为采取这种操作性的立场实际上更有建设性，就是说，告诉我你认为可以部署哪些协议来让你使用这些术语。

And so I think I think it's actually much more productive to take this operational stance and say, tell tell me what protocols you think you can deploy with this thing that would lead you to to to use these terms.

关于这次对话本身我想说，我们两个智慧生物正在进行的可说服性论证中，部分是我时不时扮演魔鬼代言人，而你也做了同样的事，这很有趣——站在对立面看看会有什么结果。

To have a bit of a meta conversation about the conversation, I say that part of the persuadability argument that we two intelligent creatures are doing is me playing devil's advocate every once in a while, and you did the same, which is kinda interesting taking the opposite view and see what comes out.

因为在论证之前你无法预知结果，而站在对立面进行论证似乎很有成效。

Because you don't know the result of the argument until you have the argument, and it seems productive to just take the other side of the argument.

确实如此。

For sure.

首先，这是一种非常重要的思维辅助工具，你知道他们称之为‘钢人论证’对吧，就是尽可能为对方构建最强有力的论点，然后问问自己，好吧。

It's a very important thinking aid to, first of all, you know, they call steel manning, right, to try to try to make the strongest possible case for the other side, and to ask yourself, okay.

我有哪些地方因为不知道确切该说什么而一带而过？

What are all the what are all the places that I'm sort of glossing over because I don't know exactly what to say?

论点中存在哪些漏洞，一个真正有力的批评应该是什么样子？

And where all the where all the holes in the argument, and what would what would a, you know, a really good critique really look like.

是的。

Yeah.

抱歉回到刚才的话题，因为这个术语太有趣了——‘可说服性’。

Sorry to go back there, just to link on the term because it's so interesting, persuadability.

我理解得对吗？你的意思是它某种程度上等同于智能？

Did I understand correctly that you mean that it's kind of synonymous with intelligence?

所以这是对智能系统的一种以工程为中心的视角，因为如果它是可说服的，你就更关注如何引导系统的目标和行为？

So it's an engineering centric view of an intelligence system because if it's persuadable, you're more focused on how can I steer the goals of the system, the behaviors of the system?

这意味着智能系统可能是一个具有目标导向、目标驱动和能动性的系统。

Which meaning an intelligence system maybe is a is a goal oriented, goal driven system with agency.

当你称其为'可说服性'时，你更多是在想，好吧，这是一个我正在与之互动的智能系统，我希望它能完成某些特定任务。

And when you call it persuadable, you're thinking more like, okay, here's an intelligence system that I'm interacting with that I would like to get it to accomplish certain things.

但从根本上说，可说服性和智能是同义词或相关概念吗？

But fundamentally, they're synonymous or correlated, persuadability and intelligence?

它们绝对是相关的。

They're definitely correlated.

所以让我先说明一点。

So so let me I wanna I wanna preface this with with one thing.

当我说这是工程学视角时，并不是指我们应该用工程学中的标准工具和强制控制、导向的理念来看待整个世界。

When I say it's an engineering perspective, I don't mean that the standard tools that we use in engineering and this idea of of enforced control and steering is how we should view all of the world.

我完全没有这个意思。

I'm not saying that at all.

这一点我必须非常明确，因为确实有人发邮件说'这种工程学思维会抽离高端人类对话中的生命力和庄严感'。

And and and I wanna be very clear on the because because because people do email me and say, this engineering thing, you're gonna drain the, you know, the life and the majesty out of these high end, like, human conversation.

我的观点完全不是这样。

My whole my whole point is not that at all.

关键在于，在光谱的右侧，它已经不再像是工程学了。

It's that, of course, at the right side of the spectrum, it doesn't look like engineering anymore.

对吧？

Right?

它看起来更像是友谊、爱情、心理分析以及我们拥有的所有其他工具。

It looks like friendship and love and psychoanalysis and all these other tools that we have.

但我想做的是：

But here's what I wanna do.

我想非常具体地针对我在再生医学领域的同事们。

I wanna be very specific to my colleagues in regenerative medicine.

想象一下，如果我去了生物工程系或遗传学系，开始谈论高层次的认知和心理分析。

Just imagine if I, you know, if I if I went to a bioengineering department or a genetics department and I started talking about high level, you know, cognition and psychoanalysis.

对吧？

Right?

他们可不想听这些。

They don't wanna hear that.

所以我专注于工程方法，因为我想说，听着。

So so I I bring my I focus on the engineering approach because I I want to say, look.

这不是一个哲学问题。

This is not a philosophical problem.

这不是一个语言学问题。

This is not a linguistics problem.

我们不是在用不同方式定义术语来让人感觉模糊。

We are not trying to define terms in different ways to make anybody feel fuzzy.

我要告诉你们的是，如果想实现某些能力——无论是重编程癌细胞、再生新器官、战胜衰老，还是完成这些具体目标——如果毫无根据地假设我们现有的底层工具（即化学规则和分子层面的重新布线）足以达成目标，那你们就错失太多可能性了。

What I'm telling you is if you want to reach certain capabilities, if you want to reprogram cancer, if you want to regrow new organs, you wanna defeat aging, you wanna do these specific things, you are leaving too much on the table by making an unwarranted assumption that the low level tools that we have, so these are the rules of chemistry and the kind of remolecular rewiring, that those are going to be sufficient to get to where you want to go.

这只是一个假设，而且是没有根据的假设。

It's a it's a it's an assumption only, and it's an unwarranted assumption.

实际上我们已经做了实验——不是哲学探讨而是真实实验——证明如果采用这些其他工具，确实能以前所未有的方式影响系统，这些我们都可以详细展开。

And, actually, we've done experiments now, so so not philosophy, but real experiments, that if you take these other tools, you can in fact persuade the system in ways that has never been done before, and and and we can we can unpack all of that.

但这绝对与智力相关，让我稍作详细说明。

But it is it is absolutely correlated with intelligence, so let me flesh that out a little bit.

我认为所有这些事物中正在扩展的是什么呢，因为我一直在谈论扩展性。

What I think is scaling in all of these things, right, because I keep talking about the scaling.

那么到底是什么在扩展呢？

So what is it that's scaling?

我认为正在扩展的是我称之为'认知光锥'的东西。

What I think is scaling is something I call the cognitive light cone.

认知光锥是指你能够追求的最大目标状态的规模。

And the cognitive light cone is the size of the biggest goal state that you can pursue.

这并不意味着你的感知能触及多远。

This doesn't mean how far do your senses reach.

这也不意味着你能影响多远。

This doesn't mean how far can you affect it.

詹姆斯·韦伯望远镜拥有巨大的感知范围，但这并不意味着那就是它的认知LICO的规模。

So the James Webb Telescope has enormous sensory reach, but that doesn't mean that's that's the size of its cognitive LICO.

认知LICO的规模是指你能够积极追求的最大目标的尺度。

The size of the cognitive LICO is the scale of the biggest goal you can actively pursue.

但我确实认为这个概念很有用，它能让我们思考各种不同类型的智能体——不同构成、不同起源的，无论是工程设计的、进化而来的还是混合型的，都能纳入同一框架。

But I do think it's a useful concept to enable us to think about very different types of agents of different composition, different provenance, you know, engineered, evolved, hybrid, whatever, all in the same framework.

顺便说一句，我使用'认知光锥'这个术语是因为它借鉴了物理学中将时空置于同一图景的理念，这点我很欣赏。

And by the way, the reason I use lichone is that it has this idea from physics that you're putting space and time kind of in the same diagram, which is which which I like here.

如果你告诉我，你的所有目标都围绕着在10-20微米时空半径内最大化糖分摄取，并且只有20分钟的记忆回溯能力和5分钟的预测能力，那么从这个小认知光锥我大概能判断出你是个细菌。

So if you tell me that all your goals revolve around maximizing the amount of sugar con the amount of sugar in this in this, you know, ten, twenty micron radius of space time, and that you have, you know, twenty minutes memory going back and maybe five minutes predictive capacity going forward, that tiny little cognitive glycoon, I'm gonna see probably a bacteria.

但如果你说你能关注几百码范围内的事物，却永远无法关心三周后两个镇子之外发生的事，

And if you say to me that, well, I I'm able to care about several 100 yards sort of scale, I could never care about what happens three weeks from now, two towns over.

这根本不可能。

It's just impossible.

那我就会说，你可能是一条狗。

I'm saying, you might be a dog.

而如果你告诉我，你真正关心的是地球金融市场在你死后很久的走势等等，那你很可能是个人类。

And if and if you say to me, okay, I care about really what happens, you know, the financial markets on Earth, you know, long after I'm dead and this and that, say, you're probably a human.

要是你说你能在可感知范围内主动关心这个星球上所有生命体（不只是口头说说），那我就要说：你绝非普通人类。

And if you say to me, I care in the linear range, I actively not I'm not just saying that I can actively care in the linear range about all the living beings on this planet, I'm gonna say, well, you're not a standard human.

你一定是别的什么存在，因为人类做不到这一点。

You must be something else because humans don't know.

现今的普通人类，认为自己无法做到那样的事。

Standard humans today, don't think can do that.

你必定是某种菩萨般的存在，或是拥有巨大认知光锥的其他存在。

You you must be some kind of a Bodhisattva or some other thing that has these massive cognitive light cones.

因此我认为这种尺度从零开始延伸——确实可以一直向下延伸，我们甚至可以说基本粒子也在做类似的事——真正在扩展的是认知糖原体的规模。

So I think what's scaling from zero, and I do think it goes all the way down, I think we can talk about even even particles doing something like this, I think what scales is the size of the cognitive glycone.

现在这里有个有趣的观点，我要尝试给生命下个定义——无论这个定义价值几何。

And so now this is an interesting here, I'll I'll try for a definition of life for whatever for whatever it's worth.

我并没有花时间试图让这个定义成立，但如果我们愿意的话...

I spent no time trying to make that stick, but if we wanted to.

我认为我们称某物为生命，取决于该物的认知光锥比其组成部分的认知光锥更大。

I think we call things alive to the extent that the cognitive light cone of that thing is bigger than that of its parts.

换句话说，岩石并不有趣，因为它能做的事其组成部分早已掌握——比如遵循梯度变化等等。

So in other words, rocks aren't very exciting because the things it knows how to do are the things that its parts already know how to do, which is follow gradients and and things like that.

但生命体最神奇之处在于能协调其各功能部分，使整体拥有比各部分更大的认知光锥。

But living things are amazing at aligning their their competent parts so that the collective has a larger cognitive glycone than the parts.

我举个生物学中常见且在我们癌症项目中频繁出现的简单例子。

I'll give you a very simple example that comes up in in biology and that comes up in our cancer program all the time.

单个细胞只有非常微小的认知光锥。

Individual cells have little tiny cognitive glycones.

它们的目标是什么？

They what are their goals?

它们试图调控pH值、代谢状态及其他一些指标。

Well, they're trying to manage pH, metabolic state, some other things.

在转录空间、代谢空间和生理状态空间都有各自的目标，但这些目标通常都非常微小。

There are some goals in transcriptional space, some goals in metabolic space, some goals in physiological state space, but but they they're generally very tiny goals.

进化提供了一种认知粘合剂（我们稍后可以详述），将细胞联结成多细胞系统，这些系统拥有宏大的目标。

One thing evolution did was to provide a kind of cognitive glue, which we can also talk about, that ties them together into a multicellular system, and those systems have grandiose goals.

它们能生成肢体——如果你是蝾螈的肢体，被切断后能再生出正确数量的指头，完成后即停止生长。

They're making limbs, and and if you're a salamander limb and you chop it off, they will regrow that limb with the right number of fingers, then they'll stop when it's done.

目标已经达成。

The goal has been achieved.

没有一个单独的细胞知道手指是什么，或者你应该有多少根手指，但集体绝对知道。

No individual cell knows what a finger is or how many fingers you're supposed to have, but the collective absolutely does.

而这个将认知糖原从单个细胞增长到更大规模的过程，当然，还有这一过程的失败模式，即癌症。

And that process of growing that cognitive glycone from a single cell to something much bigger, and of course, the failure mode of that process, so cancer.

对吧？

Right?

当细胞断开连接时，它们会从生理上与其他细胞分离。

When cells disconnect, they physiologically disconnect from the other cells.

它们的认知糖原缩小了。

Their cognitive glycone shrinks.

自我与世界的界限——这正是认知糖原所定义的——也随之缩小。

The boundary between self and world, which is what the cognitive glycone defines, shrinks.

现在它们又回到了阿米巴状态。

Now they're back to an amoeba.

就它们而言，身体的其余部分只是外部环境。

As far as they're concerned, the rest of the body is just external environment.

它们做着变形虫会做的事。

And they do what amoebas do.

它们去往生活条件好的地方。

They go where life is good.

它们尽可能多地繁殖。

They reproduce as much as they can.

对吧？

Right?

所以那个认知糖原，那个我正在谈论的、具有可扩展性的东西。

So that that cognitive glycone, that that that is the thing that I'm talking about that scales.

因此当我们寻找生命时，我认为我们寻找的不是特定物质。

And so when we are looking for life, I I don't think we're looking for specific materials.

我认为我们寻找的不是特定的代谢状态。

I don't think we're looking for specific metabolic states.

我认为我们寻找的是认知糖原的规模。

I think we're looking for scales of cognitive glycone.

我们寻找的是各部分朝着更大目标的协调一致，而这些目标是各部分自身无法理解的。

We're looking for alignment of parts towards bigger goals in spaces that the parts could not comprehend.

所以认知目标，科林，明确一下，是关于你现在可以积极追求的目标。

And so cognitive lot like, Colin, just to make clear, is about goals that you can actively pursue now.

你说的是线性的。

You said linear.

比如，会立即达到。

Like, would then reach immediately.

不。

No.

抱歉，我不是这个意思。

I didn't sorry.

我不是那个意思。

I didn't mean that.

首先，目标必然常常是时间上延迟的。

First of all, the goal necessarily is is often removed in time.

换句话说，当你追求一个目标时，意味着你当前状态与目标状态之间至少存在一个温差调节器般的间隔。

So in other words, when you're pursuing a goal, it means that you have a separation between current state and target state at minimum your your thermostat.

对吧？

Right?

让我们思考一下这个问题。

Let's just think about that.

这里存在时间上的间隔，因为你试图实现的温度达到特定水平的情况此刻并不成立。

There there is a separation in time because the thing you're trying to make happen so that the temperature goes to a certain level is not true right now.

而你的所有行动都将围绕减少这个误差展开。

And all your actions are going to be around reducing that error.

对吗？

Right?

这个基本的稳态循环就是关于缩小那个差距的。

That basic homeostatic loop is all about closing that that gap.

当我提到线性范围时，就是这个意思。

When I meant when I said linear range, this is what I meant.

如果我对你说这件可怕的事发生在10个人身上，你会产生一定程度的反应，然后他们又说，不不不，实际上是100人，甚至1万人。

If I say to you this this terrible thing happened to, you know, 10 people, and and, you know, you have some some degree of activation about it, and then they say, no no no, actually it was a 100, you know, 10,000 people.

你的反应强度并不会因此增强一千倍。

You're not a thousand times more activated about it.

你的反应会有所增强，但远不到一千倍的程度。

You're somewhat more activated, but it but it's not a thousand.

而如果我说，天啊。

And if I say, oh my god.

实际上是一千万人遇难。

It was actually 10,000,000 people.

你的反应强度也不会增强一百万倍。

You're you're not a million times more activated.

在线性范围内，你根本不具备这种反应能力。

You you don't have that capacity in the linear range.

你某种程度上是对的。

You sort you're sort of right.

如果你想想那条曲线，我们某种程度上达到了一个饱和点。

If you think about that curve, we sort of we reach a saturation point.

我在佛教团体中有一些出色的同事，我们一起就此撰写过一些论文。

I have some amazing colleagues in the Buddhist community with whom we've written some papers about this.

慈悲的半径就像是，你扩展自己的认知系统到一定程度，是的，它确实不再仅限于你的家庭群体。

The radius of compassion is like, you grow your cognitive system to the point that, yeah, it really isn't just your family group.

它确实不再只是你认识的那100个人，你知道的，在你的圈子里。

It really isn't just a 100 people you know in your in your, you know, circle.

你能扩展自己的认知能力到那种程度吗？不。

Can you grow your cognitive LICA to the point where, no.

不能。

No.

我们关心的是整体，无论是全人类、整个生态系统还是整个无论什么。

We care about the whole, whether it's all of humanity or the whole ecosystem or the whole whatever.

你是否真的能以我们现在关心一小部分人的那种方式，去同等程度地关心整个群体？

Can you actually care about that the exact same way that we now care about a much smaller set of people?

这就是我所说的线性范围。

That's what I mean by linear range.

但你提到时间上的区隔，就像恒温器那样。

But you said separated by time, like a thermostat.

但细菌，我是说如果视角足够宏观，细菌可以被设定以创造人类文明为目标状态。

But a bacteria I mean, if you zoom out far enough, a bacteria could be formulated to have a goal state of creating human civilization.

因为你看，细菌嗯...

Because if you look at the you know, bacteria Mhmm.

在地球整个历史进程中都有其作用。

Has a role to play in the whole history of Earth.

所以如果你足够拟人化细菌的目标，它在人类文明进化史中确实扮演着具体角色。

And so if you anthropomorphize the goals of bacteria enough, I mean, it has a concrete role to play in the history of the evolution of human civilization.

所以你确实需要在定义认知光锥时，着眼于直接短期行为。

So you do need to in when you define a cognitive light cone, you're looking at directly short term behavior.

嗯，不是的。

Well, no.

你怎么知道某事物的认知光锥是什么？

How do you know what the cognitive light cone of something is?

因为正如你所说，它几乎可以是任何东西。

Because as as as you've said, it could be it could be almost anything.

关键在于你必须进行实验。

The key is you have to do experiments.

你做实验的方式是必须进行干预性实验。

And the way you do experiments is you put you have to do interventional experiments.

你必须在它与目标之间设置障碍，然后观察会发生什么。

You have to put barriers between it and its goal, and you have to ask what happens.

而智能就是它克服与目标之间障碍所展现的机敏程度。

And intelligence is the degree of ingenuity that it has in overcoming barriers between it and its goal.

如果现在要实施的话——这个实验我认为完全可行，但不切实际且成本极高。

Now if it were to be that now now this is the this this is, I think, a totally doable but but impractical and very expensive experiment.

但你可以设想一个场景：细菌被阻止变得更复杂，然后观察它们是否会尝试寻找解决方法，还是说实际上——算了。

But you could imagine setting up a scenario where the bacteria were blocked from becoming more complex, and you can ask if they would try to find ways around it, or whether it's actually, nah.

它们的目标其实是代谢性的，只要这些目标得到满足，它们就不会真正绕过你的障碍。

Their goals are actually metabolic, as long as those goals are met, they're not gonna actually get around your barrier.

在事物与其目标之间设置障碍这种做法实际上非常强大，因为我们已经在各种——我相信我们稍后会谈到——但我们已经在各种你意想不到的目标驱动系统中应用了这种方法。

The the the this this this business of putting barriers between things and their goals is actually extremely powerful because we've deployed it in all kinds of and I'm sure I'm sure we'll get to this later, but we've we've deployed it in all kinds of weird systems that you wouldn't think are goal driven systems.

这让我们能够超越单纯拟人化的断言，比如随口说'哦，我觉得这东西是想做这个或那个'。

And what it allows us to do is to get beyond just the the the what you call the anthropomorphizing claims of, say, saying, oh, yeah.

我认为这个东西是想做这个或那个。

I think this thing is trying to do this or that.

问题在于：让我们做实验验证吧。

The question is, well, let's do the experiment.

关于拟人化我还想说一点——人们经常对我这么说。

And one other thing I wanna say about anthropomorphizing is people people say this to me all the time.

我...我觉得这种说法不存在。

I I I don't think that exists.

我觉得这有点像，你知道，我会告诉你为什么。

I think that's kinda like, you know and and I'll I'll I'll tell you why.

我认为这就像异端邪说或其他实际上并不存在的概念。

I think it's like heresy or like other other terms that aren't really a thing.

因为如果你拆解它，拟人化真正的含义是这样的：

Because if you if you unpack it, here's here's what anthropomorphism means.

人类拥有某种魔力，而你通过将这种魔力赋予其他事物犯了一个范畴错误。

Humans have a certain magic, and you're making a category error by attributing that magic somewhere else.

我的观点是我们和万物拥有相同的魔力。

My point is we have the same magic that everything has.

除了认知符号之类的东西外，我们确实有些特别之处。

We have a couple of interesting things beside the cognitive icon and some other stuff.

并不是说必须将人类单独区分开来，因为存在某种明确界限。

And it isn't that you have to keep the humans separate because there's some bright line.

其实我主张的始终都是科学方法，仅此而已。

It's just it's it's that same old all all I'm all I'm arguing for is the scientific method, really.

事情的本质就是这样。

That's really all this is.

我只是说，你不能简单地断言人类是这样那样的，而不去验证。

All I'm saying is you can't just make pronouncements such as humans are this, and let's not sort of push that.

你必须进行实验。

You have to do experiments.

完成实验后，你才能得出结论：要么我做到了并发现了证据。

After you've done your experiments, you can say, either I've done it and I found look at that.

那个东西确实能预测未来，比如接下来的十二分钟。

That thing actually can predict the future for the next, you know, twelve minutes.

太神奇了。

Amazing.

或者说，你知道吗？

Or you say, you know what?

我已经尝试了行为主义手册中的所有方法。

I've tried all the things in the behaviorist handbook.

它们就是帮不上我的忙。

They just don't help me with this.

这是一种非常基础的层次，就这样。

It's a very low level of like, that's it.

这是一种非常低级的智能。

It's a it's a very low level of intelligence.

好吧。

Fine.

对吧？

Right?

完成。

Done.

所以我真正主张的是一种实证方法。

So that's really all I'm arguing for is an empirical approach.

然后像拟人化这样的东西就会消失。

And then things like anthropomorphism go away.

关键在于你是否做了实验，以及你发现了什么？

It's just a matter of have you done the experiment, and what did you find?

这实际上正是你所说的观点之一：如果取消事物的分类，你就可以使用工具。是的。

And that's actually one of the things you're saying that if you remove the categorization of things, you can use the tools Yeah.

将单一学科的方法应用于一切

Of one discipline on everything

你可以试试。

You can try.

尝试然后观察。

To try and then see.

这就是批评拟人化的基础，因为那到底是什么？

That's the underpinnings of the criticism anthropomorphization because what is that?

这就像把对人类的精神分析技术性地应用到机器人、人工智能系统，乃至更原始的生物系统等等。

That's like psychoanalysis of another human could technically be applied to to robots, to AI systems, to more primitive biological systems, and so on.

是的。

Yeah.

试试。

Try.

是啊。

Yeah.

我们尝试过从基础的习惯化条件反射到抗焦虑药物、致幻剂，再到各种认知改造手段，范围之广超乎想象。

We've used everything from basic habituation conditioning all the way through anxiolytics, hallucinogens, all kinds of cognitive modification on the range of things that you wouldn't believe.

顺便说一句，我并非第一个提出这种观点的人。

And by the way, I'm not the first person to come up with this.

一百多年前有位叫博斯的学者，他研究麻醉剂如何影响动物和动物细胞，并绘制了关于电兴奋性的特定曲线。

So there was a guy named Bose, well over a hundred years ago, who was studying how anesthesia affected animals and animal cells, and drawing specific curves around electrical excitability.

后来他又对植物进行实验，观察到了非常相似的现象。

And he then went and did it with plants and saw some very similar phenomena.

作为天才的他随即表示——虽然我不知道该在哪里止步——但当时人们嘲笑他研究植物，觉得我们早该在动物阶段就停止实验。

And being the genius that he was, he then said, well, how do I don't know when to stop, but there's there's no you know, everybody thinks we we should have stopped long before plants because people made fun of him for that.

他就这样回应。

He's like, yeah.

但科学并没有告诉我们该在哪里停下。

But but the science doesn't tell us where to stop.

这个工具是有效的。

The tool is working.

我们继续吧。

Let's keep going.

他还在金属及其他各类材料上展示了有趣的现象。

And he showed interesting phenomena on materials, metals and and and other kinds of materials.

对吧？

Right?

所以，是的。

And so Yeah.

有趣的是，确实没有一个通用的规则能告诉你何时该停止。

The interesting thing is that, yeah, there is no there is no, you know, generic rule that tells you when when do you need to stop.

这些规则都是我们自己制定的。

We make those up.

这些完全是人为编造的。

Those are completely made up.

你必须通过科学研究来发现真相。

You have to just you have to do the science and find out.

是的。

Yeah.

你可能会研究到它的。

You will probably get to it.

你最近在研究计算系统，甚至是像算法和排序算法这样简单的系统

You've been doing recent work on looking at computational systems, even trivial ones like algorithms and sorting algorithms

嗯。

Mhmm.

并从行为模式的角度分析，看看这些排序算法中是否存在意识。

And analyzing the behavioral kind of ways, see if there's minds inside those sorting algorithms.

当然，让我在这里提出一个大胆的问题：你甚至可以尝试对排序算法进行致幻实验。

And it, of course, let me make a pothead statement question here that you can start to do things like, trying to do psychedelics with a sorting.

是啊。

Yeah.

那看起来会是什么样子呢？

And what does that even look like?

对。

Yeah.

这问题看起来就很荒谬。

It looks like a ridiculous question.

在大多数学术部门问这个会让你被解雇。

It'll get you fired from most academic departments.

但如果你认真对待，也许可以试试嗯。

But it may be if you take it seriously, you could try Mhmm.

看看是否适用。

And see if it applies.

没错。

Yeah.

如果一个事物被证明具有某种认知复杂性或某种心智，为何不能对其应用与人类心智相同的分析方法和工具，比如致幻剂？

If it has if a thing could be shown to have some kind of cognitive complexity, some kind of mind, why not apply to it the same kind of analysis and the same kind of tools like psychedelics that you would to a human mind?

这是一个复杂的人类心智。

It's a complex human mind.

至少这可能是个富有成效的问题。

It's at least might be a productive question to ask.

因为你见过蜘蛛在致幻剂作用下的反应，那些原始生物体在致幻剂下的表现。

What cause you've seen, like, spiders on psychedelics, like, primitive biological organisms on psychedelics.

为何不尝试观察算法在致幻剂作用下会如何表现呢？

Why not try to see what what an algorithm does on psychedelics?

嗯...确实。

Well well yeah.

因为要记住，我们并没有神奇的感知能力，也没有真正可靠的直觉来判断某物具体形态与其智能程度之间的对应关系。

Because, you see, the the thing to remember is we don't have a magic sense or really good intuition for what the mapping is between the embodiment of something and the degree of intelligence it has.

我们自以为明白，因为地球上只有一个样本（人类），我们大概知道该对细胞、蛇类、灵长类动物抱有什么期待，但实际上我们并不真正了解。

We we think we do because we have an n of one example on Earth, and we kinda know what to expect from cells, snakes, you know, primates, what but we really don't.

我们并没有——这个话题我们稍后会在柏拉图空间部分深入探讨——但我们对这类事物的直觉实在太差了，以至于现在自以为掌握了足够知识而不去尝试，我认为这种想法非常短视。

We don't have and this is we'll we'll get into more of the stuff on the Platonic space, but our intuitions around that stuff is so bad that to really think that we know enough not to try things at this point is is, I think, really shortsighted.

在讨论柏拉图空间之前，我们先来奠定一些基础。

Before we talk about the platonic space, let's let's lay it out some foundations.

我认为一个有用的起点来自论文《无处不在的思维技术路径》。

I think one useful one comes from the paper technological approach to mind everywhere.

嗯。

Mhmm.

一个基于实验的框架，用于理解多样的身体与心智。

An experimentally grounded framework for understanding diverse bodies and minds.

你能介绍一下这个框架吗？或许可以谈谈论文中的图一，它包含几个组成部分。

Could you tell me about this framework, and maybe can you tell me about figure one from this paper that has a few components.

其一是生物认知的层级结构：从群体到完整有机体，再到组织器官，接着是神经网络、细胞骨架，最后到基因网络。

One is the tiers of biological cognition that goes from group to whole organism to whole tissue organ down to neural network down to cytoskeleton down to genetic network.

另一部分是生物系统的层次：从生态系统到群体，再到有机体、组织，最终到细胞。

And then there's layers of biological systems from ecosystem, down to swarm, down to organism, tissue, and then finally, cell.

那么你能解释一下这个图表吗？以及你能解释一下这个所谓的框架吗？

So can you explain this figure, and can you explain the tame so called framework?

这是1.0版本，目前我正在撰写2.0版本的更新内容。

So this is the version one point o, and there's a there's a kind of update at two point o that I'm writing at the moment.

试图用一种严谨的方式来形式化我们在这里讨论的所有内容，特别是需要通过实验来确定任何给定系统在连续体上的位置这个概念。

Trying to formalize in a careful way all the things that we've been talking about here, and in particular, this notion of having to do experiments to figure out where any given system is on a continuum.

我们可以先看看图二，稍后再回到图一。

And we can let's let's just start with figure two maybe for a second, and then we'll come back to figure one.

首先，我们来拆解这个缩写词。

And first, just to unpack the acronym.

我喜欢它拼写为tame这个想法，因为其核心焦点在于交互——你如何与系统互动才能产生富有成效的交互。

I like the idea that it spells out tame because the central focus of this is interactions, and how do you how do you interact with a system to have a productive interaction with it.

其核心理念是：关于认知的断言本质上是关于操作协议的断言。

And the idea is that cognitive claims are really protocol claims.

当你告诉我某物具有某种程度的智能时，实际上是在说：'这是我即将采用的一套工具，然后我们都能看到实际效果如何'。

When you tell me that something has some degree of intelligence, what you're really saying is this is the set of tools I'm gonna deploy, and then we can all find out how that worked out for you.

因此是技术性的，因为我想向同事们明确表示这不仅仅是一个哲学项目。

And so technological, because I wanted to be clear with my colleagues that this was not a project in just philosophy.

它具有非常具体的实证意义，将在工程学、再生医学等领域产生影响。

This had very specific empirical implications that are going to play out in engineering and regenerative medicine and so on.

‘无处不在的心智技术方法’——我们尚不清楚不同类型的心智存在于何处，必须通过实证来探索。

Technological approach to mind everywhere, this idea that we don't know yet where different kinds of minds are to be found, and we have to empirically figure that out.

因此图二展示的核心观点是存在一个连续谱系，我只是标出了该谱系上的四个关键节点。

And so what you see here in figure two is basically this this idea that there is a spectrum, and I'm just showing four waypoints along that spectrum.

当沿着谱系向右移动时，会出现两个变化：

As you move to the right of that spectrum, a couple things happen.

可说服性增强，意味着系统变得更可重编程、更具可塑性，能超越标准功能执行更多任务，因此你更有能力让它们完成新颖有趣的工作。

Persuadability goes up, meaning that the systems become more reprogrammable, more plastic, more able to do different things than whatever they're standardly doing, so you have more ability to get them to do new and interesting things.

施加影响所需的努力减少，即自主性提升——只要擅长说服或激励系统执行任务，就无需过度纠结细节。

The effort needed to exert influence goes down, that is autonomy goes up, and to the extent that you are good at convincing or motivating the system to do things, you don't have to sweat the details as much.

对吧？

Right?

这也与我称之为'工程代理材料'的概念有关。

And this also has to do with what I call engineering agential materials.

当你对木材、金属、塑料等材料进行工程处理时，你需要对一切负责，因为这些材料除了保持形状外几乎不会自主行动。

So when you engineer wood, metal, plastic, things like that, you are responsible for absolutely everything because the material is not going to do anything other than hopefully hold its shape.

如果你正在设计活性物质、计算材料，或是更高级的活体材料，你可以进行高层次引导，让系统自主完成复杂任务而无需微观管理。

If you're engineering active matter or you're engineering computational materials, or better materials like living living matter, you can do some very high level prompting and let the system then do very complicated things that you don't need to micromanage.

我们都知道，当开始与智能系统（如动物和人类等）合作时，这种特性会显著增强。

We all we all know that that increases when you're starting to work with intelligent systems like animals and humans and so on.

另一个随着向右移动而减少的因素是：施加影响所需的机械或物理手段会减少。

And the other thing that goes down as you get to the right is the amount of mechanism or physics that you need to exert the influence goes down.

就像你只需要知道如何设置恒温器的目标温度，其他细节几乎无需了解。

So if you know how your thermostat is to be set as far as its set point, you really don't need to know much of anything else.

对吧？

Right?

你只需要知道这是个稳态系统，以及如何改变设定值即可。

You you just need to know that it is a homeostatic system and that this is how I change the set point.

你不需要了解冷却和加热系统的工作原理，就能让它完成复杂的工作。

You don't need to know how the cooling and heating plant works in order to get it to do complex things.

顺便提一下，给正在收听的人说明一下。

By the way, a quick pause just for people who are listening.

让我来描述一下图中的内容。

Let me describe what's in the figure.

图中有四个不同的系统，按需说服时间递增。

So there's four different systems going up the scale of persuadability.

第一个是机械钟，然后是恒温器，接着是获得奖励和惩罚的狗——巴甫洛夫的狗，最后是一群看起来非常聪明的人类互相交流，用理由说服对方。

So the first system is a mechanical clock, then it's a thermostat, then it's a dog that gets rewards and punishments, Pavlov's dog, and then finally, a bunch of very smart looking humans communicating with each other and arguing, persuading each other using hashtag reasons.

下方箭头显示说服力从机械钟到一群希腊人争论逐渐上升，而需要施加影响的努力和机制知识则逐渐下降。

And then there's arrows below that showing persuadability going up as you go up these systems from the mechanical clock to a bunch of Greeks arguing, and then going down as the effort needed to exert influence, and once again, going down as mechanism knowledge needed to exert that influence.

是的。

Yeah.

我来举个例子，关于这里面板C上的那只狗。

I'll give you an example about that panel c here with the with the dog.

人类在完全不懂神经科学的情况下驯养狗和马已有数千年历史，这不是很神奇吗？

Isn't it amazing that humans have been training dogs and horses for thousands of years knowing zero neuroscience?

同样神奇的是，我现在和你交谈时，完全不需要操心如何操控你大脑中的突触蛋白来让你理解并记住我说的话。

Also amazing is that when I'm talking to you right now, I don't need to worry about manipulating all of the synaptic proteins in your brain to make you understand what I'm saying and hopefully remember it.

你自己就能完成这一切。

You're gonna do that all on your own.

我给你的信息提示非常单薄，但我相信你作为多尺度主体物质会自行处理好底层的化学反应。

I'm giving you very thin, in terms of information content, very thin prompts, and I'm counting on you as a as a multiscale agential material to take care of the chemistry underneath.

对吧？

Right?

所以你不需要扳手来说服我？

So you don't need a wrench to convince me?

没错。

Correct.

我不需要物理知识来说服你，也不需要了解你的运作原理。

I don't need and I don't need physics to convince you, and I don't need to know how you work.

比如，我不需要理解所有步骤。

Like, I I don't need to understand all of the steps.

我需要的是信任你是一个多尺度认知系统，已经能自主完成这些。

What I do need to have is trust that you are a multiscale cognitive system that already does that for for yourself.

而你确实做到了。

And you do.

这真是件神奇的事。

Like, this is an amazing thing.

我觉得人们对此思考得还不够。

Don't people don't think about this enough, I think.

当你清晨醒来，怀揣着社交目标、研究目标、财务目标或其他任何目标时，要让这些目标付诸行动，钠离子、钙离子和其他离子必须穿过你的肌肉膜。

When you wake up in the morning and you have social goals, research goals, financial goals, whatever whatever it is that you have, in order for you to act on those goals, sodium and calcium and other ions have to cross your muscle membranes.

这些极其抽象的目标状态最终必须以特定方式驱动化学反应。

Those incredibly abstract goal states ultimately have to make the chemistry dance in a very particular way.

对吧？

Right?

你们的整个身体都是非常抽象事物的转换器。

The your your our entire body is is is a transducer of of very abstract things.

顺便说一句，不仅是我们的大脑，其他器官也有解剖学目标之类的话题可以讨论，因为这一切都在再生和发育过程中体现。

And and by the way, not just our our brains, but other you know, our organs have anatomical goals and other things that we can talk about because all of this plays out in in in in regeneration and development and so on.

但这些事物的尺度关系，你们的自我调节方式并不是靠...天啊。

But the the scaling, right, of all of these things, the way the the way you regulate yourself is not by, oh my god.

你根本不需要有意识地坐在那里思考。

You don't have to sit there and think, wow.

我真的得推动一些钠离子穿过这层膜。

I really have to push some some, you know, some sodiums across this membrane.

所有这些过程都是自动发生的，这正是这种多尺度材料的惊人优势。

All of that happens automatically, and that's the that's the incredible benefit of these multiscale materials.

所以在这篇论文里我主要尝试做了几件事。

So what I was trying to do in this paper is a couple things.

顺便说一句，这些插图都是由杰里米·盖伊绘制的，他是位了不起的平面设计师，一直与我合作。

All of these were, by the way, drawn by Jeremy Gay, who's this amazing graphic artist that works with me.

首先，在图a中，就是这个螺旋结构我想指出的，是在生物组织的每个层级上，我们都知道自己像是套娃一样，由器官、组织、细胞、分子等等组成。

First of all, in panel a, which is this spiral I was trying to point out, is that at every level of biological organization, like we all know we're sort of nested dolls of, you know, organs and tissues and cells and molecules and whatever.

但我想指出的是，这不仅仅是结构性的。

But what I was trying to point out is that this is not just structural.

每一个层级都具备能力，并在不同的空间中进行问题解决，这些空间对我们来说很难想象。

Every one of those layers is competent and is doing problem solving in different spaces, and spaces that are very hard for us to imagine.

我们人类由于自身的进化历史，对三维空间中的运动如此痴迷，甚至在人工智能领域也随处可见这种思维。

We humans are because of our own evolutionary history, we are so obsessed with movement in three-dimensional space that even even in AI, you see this all the time.

他们会说，'这个东西没有机器人身体'。

They say, well, this thing doesn't have a robotic body.

'它没有具身化'。

It's not embodied.

是啊。

Yeah.

它没有通过在三维空间中移动来实现具身化，但生物学在所有我们难以想象的空间中都有其具身形式。

It's not embodied by moving around in three d space, but biology has embodiments in all kinds of spaces that are hard for us to imagine.

对吧？

Right?

所以你的细胞和组织是在高维生理状态空间、跨基因表达状态空间和解剖状态空间中移动。

So your cells and tissues are moving in high dimensional physiological state spaces, in in trans gene expression state spaces, in anatomical state spaces.

它们在进行那种感知-决策-行动的循环，就像我们在三维空间里想象机器人在厨房里走动时那样。

They're doing that perception decision making action loop that we do in three d space when we think about robots wandering around your kitchen.

它们正在这些其他空间中进行着类似的循环。

They're doing those loops in these other spaces.

所以我想指出的第一点是，没错，你身体的每一层都有能力在这些空间中解决问题。

And so the first thing I was trying to point out is that, yeah, every layer of your body has its own ability to solve problems in those spaces.

然后在右边，我所说的是这种区分——你知道，人们说存在生命体，然后有人工制造的机器，接着他们通常会列举所有机器永远无法做到的事情等等。

And then on the right, what I was saying is that this distinction between, you know, people say, well, there are living beings, and then there are engineered machines, and then they often follow-up with all the things machines are never gonna be able to do, and whatever.

因此我在这里想指出的是，很难维持这种区分，因为生命具有惊人的互操作性。

And so what I was trying to point out here is that it is very difficult to maintain those kind of distinctions because life is incredibly interoperable.

生命其实并不在乎与之协作的事物是通过随机试错进化而来，还是通过更高程度的能动性设计出来的。

Life doesn't really care if if the thing it's working with was evolved through random trial and error or was engineered with a higher degree of of agency.

因为在细胞的每个层面、组织内部、生物体内部乃至群体层面，你都可以用工程系统替代自然进化系统。

Because at every level within the cell, within the tissue, within the organism, within the collective, you you can replace and substitute engineered systems with the naturally evolved systems.

而关于‘它是真实的吗？是生物还是技术？’这个问题——

And that question of is it real you know, is it biology or is it technology?

我认为这已经不再是一个有意义的问题了。

I don't think it's a useful question anymore.

所以我试图用这个观点让大家热身：我们现在要讨论的是心智本身，不论其历史或构成。

So I was trying to warm people up with this idea that what we're going to do now is talk about minds in general, of their history or their composition.

你由什么构成并不重要。

Doesn't matter what you're made of.

你如何来到这里也不重要。

It doesn't matter how you got here.

让我们聊聊你能做什么，以及你的内心世界是什么样子。

Let's talk about what you're able to do and what your inner world looks like.

这就是那部分内容的初衷。

That was the the goal of that.

作为一种思想实验，一种极端共情的尝试，将我们自己置于螺旋不同阶段的不同心智空间中是否有意义？

Is it useful to as a thought experiment, as an experiment of radical empathy to try to put ourselves in the space of the different, minds at each stage of the spiral?

就像是，人类和文明作为一个具身的集体存在于怎样的空间？

It's like, stay space is human and civilization as a collective embodied?

嗯。

Mhmm.

比如，它在什么环境中运作？

Like, what does it operate in?

所以人类作为个体生物是在三维空间中运作的。

So humans, individual organisms operate in three d space.

这是我们能理解的。

That's what we understand.

但当一群人聚在一起时，我们共同在做什么？

But when there's a bunch of us together, what are we doing together?

这确实很难，你需要进行实验，而在更大规模上这些实验是非常困难的。

It's really hard, and you have to do experiments, which at larger scales is are, you know, really difficult.

但确实存在这样的东西。

But there is such a thing.

很可能存在。

There may well be.

我们必须进行实验。

We have to do experiments.

我...我不知道。

I I don't know.

这里有个例子。

There's an example.

有人会对我说，按照你那泛心论的观点，你大概会认为天气也是有能动性的吧。

Somebody will say to me, well, you know, with your with your kind of panpsychist view, you might as you you probably think the weather is is in is agential too.

这个嘛，我不能这么说，但我们确实不知道。

It's like, well, I can't say that, but we we don't know.

但你有没有试过观察飓风是否具有习惯化或敏感化的特性？

But have you ever tried to see if a hurricane has habituation or sensitization?

也许吧。

Maybe.

我们还没做这个实验。

We we haven't done the experiment.

这很难，但你可以试试。

It's hard, but you could.

对吧？

Right?

或许天气系统能拥有某种记忆。

And maybe maybe weather systems can have certain kinds of memories.

我完全没头绪。

I have no idea.

我们必须进行实验。

We have to do experiments.

我不知道全人类社会在做什么，但我可以举个简单的工具例子——我们正在积极构建工具，让完全不同的智能体能够交流。

So I don't know what the entire human society is doing, but but I'll just give you a simple example of the kinds of tools, and we're we're actively trying to build tools now to enable radically different agents to communicate.

所以我们正在利用人工智能和其他工具，试图在不同领域间建立这种沟通。

So so we we we are doing this using using AI and other other tools to try and try and get this kind of communication going across very different spaces.

我举个非常简单的例子来说明这可能是什么样子。

I'll just give you a a very kind of dumb example of of of how how that might be.

想象你正在和一个外星人玩井字棋。

Imagine that you're playing tic tac toe against an alien.

你身处一个房间，看不见他。

So you're in a room, you don't see him.

于是你在棋盘上画好井字格，你知道自己在做什么。

And so so you you you draw the tic tac toe thing on the board on the floor, and and you know what you're doing.

你试图用X和O连成直线。

You're trying to you're trying to make straight lines with x's and o's.

你们玩得很愉快。

And you're having a nice game.

很明显他理解这个游戏规则。

It's obvious that he understands the process.

比如，有时候你赢，有时候你输。

Like, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

很明显，这很显而易见。

Like, it's obvious.

在那一个小小的活动片段中，你们共享着一个世界。

In that in that one little little segment of activity, you guys are sharing a world.

隔壁房间里正在发生什么？

What what's happening in the other room next door?

假设外星人对几何学一无所知。

Well, let's say the alien doesn't know anything about geometry.

它不理解直线是什么。

He doesn't understand straight lines.

它所做的就是有一个盒子，里面装满了台球，每个球上都有一个数字。

What he's doing is he's got a he's got a box, and it's full of basically billiard balls, each one of which has a number on it.

它所做的就是翻找盒子，寻找数字加起来等于15的台球。

And all he's looking he's doing is he's looking through the box to find billiard balls whose numbers add up to 15.

他完全不懂几何。

He doesn't understand geometry at all.

他只懂算术。

All he understands is arithmetic.

你不会考虑算术。

You don't think about arithmetic.

你考虑的是几何。

You think geometry.

你们能玩同一个游戏的原因是存在这个神奇的方阵，有人设计了一个三乘三的方阵，如果数字选对了，加起来就是15。

The reason you guys are playing the same game is that there's this magic square, right, that somebody constructed that basically is is a three by three square where if you pick the numbers right, they add up to 15.

他完全不知道这有几何解释。

He has no idea that there's a geometric interpretation to this.

嗯。

Mhmm.

他正在解决他眼中的问题，那完全是代数问题。

He is he is solving the problem that that that he sees, which is which is totally algebra.

你对此一无所知。

You don't know anything about that.

但如果存在像这个魔方阵这样合适的界面，你们就能共享那种体验。

But if there is an appropriate interface like this magic square, you guys can share that experience.

你们可以获得一种体验。

You can have an experience.

这并不意味着你开始像他那样思考，而是意味着你们能够以特定方式互动。

It it doesn't mean you start to think like him, it means that you guys are able to interact in a particular way.

好的。

Okay.

所以在两种不同的世界观之间存在一个映射，使你们能够相互沟通

So there's a map in between the two different ways of seeing the world that allows you to communicate with each

世界的一个薄切片。

a thin slice of the world.

世界的薄切片。

Thin slice of the world.

你如何找到那种映射关系？

How do you find that mapping?

所以你是说我们正在尝试找出寻找那种映射关系的方法，是的。

So you're saying we're trying to figure out ways of finding that mapping Yeah.

针对不同类型的系统。

For different kinds of systems.

这么做的具体过程是什么？

What's the process for doing that?

这个过程分为两部分。

So so the process the process is twofold.

一是更好地理解系统在什么空间中导航。

One is to get a better understanding of what the system what space is the system navigating?

它有什么目标？

What goals does it have?

它需要达到何种程度的创造力才能实现这些目标？

What level of ingenuity does it have to reach those goals?

比如说，异种机器人。

For example, xenobots.

对吧？

Right?

我们制造异种机器人。

We make xenobots.

或者说人造人。

This is or anthrobots.

这些都是地球上从未存在过的生物系统。

These are biological systems that have never existed on Earth before.

我们完全不了解它们的认知特性。

We have no idea what their cognitive properties are.

我们正在研究。

We're learning.

我们已经发现了一些东西。

We found some things.

但你无法从第一性原理预测这一点，因为它们完全不符合其历史背景所能告知你的信息。

But you can't predict that from first principles because they're not at all what their past history would would would inform you of.

你能简单解释一下什么是异种机器人和人形机器人吗？

Can you actually explain briefly what a xenobot is and what an anthrobot is?

我们一直在尝试创造前所未有的新型生命体。

So one of the things that we've been doing is trying to create novel beings that have never been here before.

原因在于，通常当你面对一个生物系统，无论是动物还是植物，你会问：为什么它具有特定的行为模式、解剖结构和生理特征？

The reason is that typically when you have a biological system, an animal or a plant, and you say, hey, why does it have certain forms of behavior, certain forms of anatomy, certain forms of physiology?

为什么会有这些特征？

Why does it have those?

答案总是相同的。

The answer is very is is always the same.

嗯，这涉及进化选择的历史，以及漫长而久远的适应过程。

Well, there's a history of evolutionary selection, and there's a long long history going going back of adaptation.

在特定环境下，这些特征得以存续，因此它们就具备了这些特性。

And there are certain environments, and this is what survived, and so that's why it has.