德意志档案 I

其中一个问题是：《无限起源》对我而言最深刻的洞见是什么？

One of which was, what was the most profound insight from the beginning of infinity for me?

我想这和初次见面时我立刻抓住的那个问题一样——虽然现在人们确实开始重视了——我当时就说：我不明白为什么人们没有更认真地对待这个观点。

And I think it was exactly the same thing when I first met you that I jumped on and said, I don't understand why people are taking this more seriously, although they are now.

显然，人们曾因你在量子计算、推广埃弗雷特量子理论等方面的成就而赞誉你。

Obviously, people had lauded you for quantum computation, promotion of Everettian quantum theory, that kind of thing.

但最让我兴奋的是对'人是什么'这个问题的解答。

But what I found exciting was the answer to the question, what is a person?

你说的是通用解释器。

You say universal explainer.

查尔斯感兴趣的是，这个通用解释功能究竟如何区分人格与非人格？

And Charles was interested in, well, what is it about this universal explanation thing that really is the distinction between personhood and nonpersonhood?

我当时说，这与创造力有关，也与不服从有关，这三者是相互关联的。

And I was saying, well, it's to do with creativity also to do with disobedience, and these three things are tied up together.

比如查尔斯，每次你想在物理学上取得新突破时，这种创造力本质上就是一种不服从。

And every time you, Charles, for example, want to make some new advance in physics, this creativity, it's it really is a kind of disobedience.

不知道你是否认同——你拿现有的知识（比如广义相对论），然后拒绝其中一部分，试图改变和修正它。

I don't know if you're with me on this, that you're taking whatever the existing knowledge is, general relativity, and saying, well, I refuse a part of that, and I'm going to try and change it and alter it.

这就是不服从。

It's disobedience.

这不是在顺从你

It's not conforming to You

当你把论文提交给审稿人时就能看出来。

can see it when you submit the paper to the referees.

我的意思是，你会发现自己正在表现出不服从。

I mean, you you will see that you are being disobedient.

就像你交给老师一篇离题的论文一样。

It's the same thing as if you hand in the wrong essay to the teacher.

是的。

Yes.

因此，这正是ChatGPT所不具备的。

And this is what, therefore, chat GPT doesn't have.

拉瓦尔，你是说，可以想象或人们已经想象过将未来的ChatGPT之类的东西放进机器人里，让它四处游走并收集世界上的数据。

Laval, you're saying, yeah, you could imagine or people have imagined putting a future ChatGPT thing in a robot, which wanders around and is gathering data from the world.

但我的问题是，谁来提示它呢？

But my question then would be, who prompts it?

它如何知道哪些数据相关，哪些不相关？

How does it know what data is relevant and what isn't?

我是说，这是人类的一大谜题。

I mean, that's one of the great mysteries of people.

我们是如何本能地知道该忽略什么的？

How do we how do we know what to ignore intuitively kind of thing?

所以如果这东西带着数据收集器到处跑

So if this thing's getting around with a data collector

就像波普尔的演讲，他说要观察。

It's like Popper's lecture, you know, when he said observe.

格罗夫。

Grove.

是的。

Yes.

那个人等待着。

The man waited.

所以根据你的理解，存在人格与非人格的二元划分，还是说你在其他场合暗示过

So there is a binary there of personhood and not personhood as far as you can tell, or do you think there are you've hinted in other places.

可能存在不同层次。

There might be levels.

可能存在一个渐变的过程。

There could be a gradation.

我不认为存在任何实质性的等级。

I don't think there are levels in any serious sense.

在人类的进化史上，我不这么认为。

In the evolutionary history of humans, there might I don't think so.

但可能存在这样的人类，他们虽然是人，但由于大脑某些硬件功能的不足而无法进行太多思考。

But there might have been people who were people but were unable to think much because some hardware feature of their brain wasn't good enough.

比如，他们可能没有足够的记忆力，或者思维过程极其缓慢，以至于需要一整天才能想明白如何制作一个更好的剑齿虎陷阱之类的事情。

Like, for example, that they didn't have enough memory or that their thought processes were so slow that they you know, it would take them a day to work out a simple thing about making a better trap for the saber toothed tiger or whatever.

但我不认为这种情况发生过，因为我的最佳猜测是，早在人类进化之前，远在那之前，人就已经是人。

But I don't think that happened because my best guess is that people were already people long before humans evolved, long before.

我一直在读丹尼尔·埃弗雷特的作品，他是另一位我欣赏的特立独行者。

I've been reading the this guy Daniel Everett, another maverick Everett who I favor.

他是一位非主流的语言学家，曾在南美洲的纳格达部落等地生活过。

He's a maverick linguist, and he spent time among Nagdad tribes in South America and stuff.

他持有反乔姆斯基的语言学观点，这些都是很有前景的内容。

And he he's got an anti Chomskyan view of linguistics and all promising stuff.

好的。

Okay.

他认为人类，或者更准确地说，人类的祖先在200万年前的直立人时期就已经有了语言。

And he reckons that humans had language or rather sorry, that human ancestors had language 2,000,000 ago with Homo erectus.

他为此提供了各种证据，但他特别强调的一个观点是，语言一定是在言语之前进化出来的。

And he has various bits of evidence for this and but the idea he is very strong on saying that language must have evolved before speech.

所以我们有各种适应言语的生理结构，比如喉咙、口腔，这些在化石中看不到，但精细控制口腔、嘴唇等的运动能力确实存在。

So we have various adaptations for speech like in the throat, in the mouth, and you can't see this in fossils, but in in fine motor control over the the mouth, lips, and so on.

要让这些进化出来，必须存在推动其进化的演化压力。

Now for that to evolve, there had to be evolutionary pressure for it to evolve.

而这种演化压力必定是语言。

And that evolutionary pressure must have been language.

他还引用了现代的实验案例：让研究生在不使用语言的情况下学习如何生火。

And he also cites experiments done today where where you get some graduate students, and you try and teach them how to make fire without using words.

这就像是在玩猜谜游戏。

And it's like charades.

不允许用任何人类的方式进行交流。

You're not allowed to communicate with them in any human way.

但你可以示范给他们看。

But you can sort of show them.

你可以发出含糊不清的声音，就像这样。

You can make inarticulate sounds, you know, like that.

我认为很明显，人类在掌握语言前就具备这种能力。

And I think it's obvious that people would have been able to do that before they could speak.

而语言能力更像是锦上添花。

And that speaking is really icing on the cake.

它让事情变得容易得多——比如你可以站在那儿喊'别那么做，你这个白痴'。

It makes it much easier to you know, you can stand out there and don't do that, you idiot.

你知道的，隔着十米远你都能这样喊话。

You know, you can say that from 10 meters away.

但这只是对语言基本概念的改进。

But that's just an improvement on the basic idea of language.

正如埃弗雷特所说，语言的基本概念就是符号。

The basic idea of language is as Everett says, symbols.

而符号并不必须是词语或句子。

And symbols need not be words or sentences.

我其实还没深入研究过他的理论。

I haven't actually looked into his theory yet.

我只看过他的一个视频。

I've only seen one of his videos.

我看过一个批评他的视频，但没看懂。

I've seen a video where somebody criticizes him but didn't get it.

基于这两点，我断定他肯定是正确的。

So from those two facts, I've zeroed in on on deciding that he must be right.

而且，这与我自己的想法非常契合。

And, also, it it fits in very well with what I think.

所以我想我们刚才...我忘记什么问题了

So I think we had I've forgotten what question

那些普遍的解释者，人类和...哦对。

Which are universal explainers, humans and Oh, yes.

远古人类可能具有较低的认知能力

Ancient humans having perhaps lower capacity

是啊。

Yeah.

或者不是。

Or not.

我我想是的。

I I think so.

我是说，他们可能记忆力较差，所以年轻时就会耗尽记忆容量。

I mean, they may have had less memory, so they would have run out of memory when they were younger.

也许他们解析复杂句子的能力较弱。

Maybe they had less ability to parse complex sentences.

这些都不是关键。

None of that is essential.

我能说复杂句子，也能说非常简单的句子。

I can speak in complex sentences, but I can also speak in very simple sentences.

而且，你知道，这只是效率上两到五倍的差异问题。

And and, you know, it's it's just a matter of a factor of two or five inefficiency.

我们讨论行为传递能否解释现存其他类人猿——它们会做些花哨行为但不具备创造性。

We talk about behavior passing being able to explain the other extant great apes that are out there that do sort of fancy things, but they're not creative.

假设这种向普遍性的跨越——如果你愿意称之为解释性普遍性——你认为它是单次发生然后我们传承自那次，还是多次发生其他物种现已灭绝，或者这完全是个未解之谜？

Presumably, this jump to universality, if you like, explanatory universality, do you think it happened once and then we descended from that first occasion, or did it happen multiple times and those other species have now gone extinct, or is this simply an open question?

嗯，这绝对是个未解之谜。

Well, it's it's definitely an open question.

我是说，我们对人类进化知之甚少。

I mean, we we know very little about human evolution.

我们不知道所有演化步骤是什么。

We don't know what all the steps were.

我们甚至分不清哪些是我们的祖先，哪些是我们的近亲。

We don't even know which were our ancestors and which were our cousins.

要知道，如果让我猜的话，我认为关键在于这类现象目前只在猿类及其后代中发现。

You know, if I had to guess, I think the fact that all the known instances of this kind of thing are in apes and their descendants.

而且根据我的理论，这种特征一定是在模因动物中演化出来的。

And also because of my theory, this thing must have evolved in memic animals.

所以鸟类也有模因等等，但其他模因动物似乎都没有直立人拥有的这些特征。

So birds have memes and so on, but none of the other memic animals seems to have had these things that Homo erectus had.

有证据表明，所以我认为它只起源过一次。

And there's evidence that so I I think my guess is it began once.

也许事实上，直立人就是起源的起点。

Maybe, in fact, Homo erectus is the place where it began.

而且这是一个非常长寿的物种。

And it was a very long lived species.

它延续了超过一百万年，大概这么久。

It lasted, like, over a million years, something like that.

它分化出了尼安德特人和其他分支，至少有些人这么认为。

And it split off, at least some people think, it split off into Neanderthals and other things.

或者可能直立人的直系祖先也是尼安德特人的直系祖先。

Or maybe the immediate ancestor of Homo erectus was also an immediate ancestor of Neanderthals.

我不知道。

I don't know.

我是说，我觉得他们也不知道。

I mean, I don't think they know.

如果真是这样，那就像进化中的一切一样，看起来会是个非常偶然的事情——虽然我称之为解决方案，但也可能是对费米悖论的一种解答。

If that's the case, that would seem to be a very fluky thing like everything in evolution is, which could be a solution well, solution, I say, but could be an answer to the Fermi Paradox.

我是说，显然你能在这里有多细胞生物就已经很幸运了。

I mean, if it you're lucky to have multicellular organisms here at all, apparently.

能有猿类就很幸运了。

Lucky to have apes.

然后这还需要进一步，你知道，概率叠加——猿类真正进化的机会。

And then this is a further, you know, multiply the probability kind of thing, chance that an ape will actually become

是啊。

Yeah.

嗯，会模仿的动物其实相对常见。

Well, memeing animals are relatively common.

一旦有了动物。

Once you have animals.

没错。

Yes.

一旦有了动物。

Once you have animals.

但你是说可能还存在进一步的瓶颈。

But you're saying there might be a further bottleneck.

你知道，也可能是相反的情况。

You know, it could be the other way around.

也可能是我们运气不好。

It could be that we were unlucky.

或许直立人曾建立过文明，那可能距今已有200万年了。

It could be that Homo erectus could have founded a civilization, and that could be 2,000,000 years old by now.

但他们并不知道。

But they didn't know.

他们不知道自己是什么。

They didn't know what they were.

他们没有任何抱负。

They didn't have any aspiration.

他们也存在反理性的文化基因。

They also had anti rational memes.

肯定存在过。

They must have.

所以这可能是个偶然，也可能是花了这么长时间才纯属偶然。

So it could be that it's a fluke, or it could be it's a fluke that it took so long.

这可能太抽象了，但你提到了反理性的文化基因。

So perhaps this is too abstract, but you mentioned anti rational memes.

你过去谈过更广泛的底层原则，我认为这些原则不仅适用于物理学，比如趣味准则、认真对待儿童、不要破坏纠错机制、无限乐观，你知道无知是最大的罪过，因为那样我们就无法修正问题、解决问题。

You've talked in the past about more broader underlying principles that I think are more applicable to than just physics, for example, the fun criterion, taking children seriously, don't destroy the means of error correction, boundless optimism, you know, ignorance being the ultimate sin because then then we can't fix things, we can't solve things.

所有这些似乎都指向一种根本的生活哲学。

All of these seem to point to an underlying life philosophy.

我不知道你是否明确阐述过，可能没有。

I don't know if you have articulated it, probably not.

但有哪些哲学原则是你努力践行的呢？

But are there philosophical principles you try to live by?

你是否遵循某些启发式方法，这些方法对你很有效，我想其他人或许也能借鉴，看到后会说‘哦，确实如此’。

Are there heuristics that you follow that you have led you well that I think would be perhaps, you know, other people can look at that and say, oh, yeah.

你知道，这对我同样适用。

You know, that's worked for me too.

所以我只是

So I'm just

是的。

Yeah.

嗯，肯定不是原则性的东西。

Well, certainly not principles.

我认为从零开始构建并不是个好主意。

I I don't think it's a good idea to try and work from the ground up.

我觉得发现问题就尝试解决才是明智之举。

I think it's a good idea to try and fix problems where you see them.

比如你在网上看到错误内容，就该发条推文——或者说现在叫X什么的。

So you see something wrong on the Internet, you've gotta post a tweet, you know, or an x, what it's whatever it's called now.

如果你发现量子力学有问题，就去尝试修正它。

And you see something wrong with quantum mechanics, and you try and fix it.

明白吗？

Know?

而且我觉得重新从零开始会显得相当愚蠢。

And I think it would be rather silly to go and try from the ground up again.

懂我意思吧？

You know?

在我们理解量子力学之前，先试着理解宇宙学吧。

Let let's try and understand cosmology before we understand quantum mechanics.

这样行不通的。

That's not gonna work.

所以你会根据具体情境来解决特定问题。

So you solve specific problems as you see them from context.

还有那些看起来有趣的问题。

And those problems which seem like fun.

我不确定现实中是否会以这种方式行事，但我认为不该直奔有趣的问题而去，要明白你可能解决不了它。

I don't know if I use this in this form in real life, but I think one should not just make a beeline for a problem that's interesting, but bear in mind that you probably won't solve it.

所以应该选择那些无论能否解决都能让你乐在其中的问题。

And so it should be something where you expect to have fun whether you solve it or not.

因为我觉得另一种方式——就像电影《烈火战车》里那样——如果你把所有希望都押在成功上，唯一的快乐来源就是...

Because I I think the other way you know, if you invest all your hopes in succeeding, the only way you'll be happy is by like, in chariots of fire, the movie.

如果你把所有希望都寄托在赢得金牌、成为世界第一上，那么即使你做到了也不会快乐，更别说如果没做到。

If you invest all your hopes in getting that gold medal, getting to be world number one, then you won't be happy even when you are world number one, let alone if you aren't.

你知道，如果没做到，你就会永远活在自己最害怕成为的失败者阴影里。

You know, if you aren't, you will always be the failure that you hoped you wouldn't be.

而即使做到了，你也会发现那很空虚。

And if you are, you'll find that it's empty.

而且再也没有需要解决的问题了。

And there's no more problem to solve.

是啊。

Yeah.

问题已经解决了。

There's no more problem.

你你确实如此。

You you so yeah.

这一点在那部电影中表现得非常出色。

And this is depicted very well in that film.

我们得小心剧透。

We should be careful about spoilers.

那部电影的结局出人意料——他最终并不快乐。

It's rather a surprise ending to that film that he isn't happy at the end.

所以我们别剧透给别人，但这个人生道理就藏在那部电影里。

So let's not spoil it for people, but this life lesson is in that film.

编剧中有人领悟了这个道理，或者他们只是如实取材自现实中的那个人。

Somebody among the script writers understood this lesson, or else maybe they just accurately took it from the guy in real life.

我不知道这部电影是否符合史实。

I don't know whether the film is historically accurate.

所以这整套理论算是人生哲学，因为很多自助大师和专家都会说我们应该过目标驱动的生活。

So this it's all kind of is a life philosophy because a lot of people, the self help gurus and someone out there will say that we should have a goal driven life.

你明白吗？

You know?

把你的目标写在梦想板上之类的。

Write down your goals on your dream board or something like that.

奋斗。

Struggle.

付诸行动。

Make the effort.

是啊。

Yeah.

起床。

Get out of bed.

完成你的晨间例行事项然后去工作，你需要先达成这个目标，才能攀登下一个阶梯。

Do your morning routine and get to work, And you would need to get to this goal, and then you can climb the ladder to the next one.

听起来极其危险。

Sounds terribly dangerous.

而且我不知道...我不知道谁更惨，是失败的人还是成功的人。

And I don't know I don't know who has it worse, the ones that fail or the ones that succeed.

我觉得也许很多人只是需要一些激励。

I think maybe a a lot of people just need inspiration.

一旦他们得到激励，无论如何都会做正确的事。

And once they've got that, they do the right thing anyway.

即使他们追随的意识形态并非如此，他们依然会坚持做正确的事。

Even if the ideology, their following isn't that, they're just doing the right thing anyway.

就像牛顿以为自己是在做归纳法，但他从未真正做过任何归纳。

Like, Newton thought he was doing induction, and he never did any induction.

但他被那个想法激励，因此将自己的行为解读成那样，尽管事实并非如此。

But he was inspired by that idea and therefore interpreted his own behavior as being that when it wasn't anything like that.

所以我认为人们经常误打误撞做对了。

So I think people often get it right.

我是说，世界上有很多快乐的人，如果他们真的遵循那些他们声称信奉的理论，就不会有这么多快乐的人了。

I mean, there are a lot of happy people in the world, which there wouldn't be if they were really following the theories that they say they think they're following.

那么，自发性是否是你生活的一部分呢？

So is therefore spontaneity sort of a part of your life?

这一直都是这样吗？

Has that always been there?

比如，与其坚持这个严格的计划，不如当有趣的事情出现时，我们就去做，不管别人在做什么。

Like, in so instead of having this rigid plan we're sticking to, something arises and it seems like fun, we're just going to do that regardless of what kind of everybody else is doing.

我认为这是我另一个例子中的失败者，即文森特·梵高，我理解他就是文森特·梵高。

And I think that's a thing for one of my other examples is a failure, namely Vincent van Gogh, which I understand is Vincent van Gogh.

他，你知道的，一幅画都没卖出去，拒绝了他哥哥在艺术画廊提供的工作，尽管他本可以做得很好。

He, you know, never sold a painting, refused to take the job that his brother offered him in the art gallery, which he would have been great at.

但他想画他的画，而且想按照自己的方式去画。

But he wanted to paint his paintings and he wanted to paint them how he wanted to paint.

他一定是个很难相处的人。

And he must have been a very difficult person to engage with.

但那就是他想要的，也是他做的。

But that's what he wanted and that's what he did.

最终，他被杀了。

And then eventually, he was killed.

你知道吗？

You know?

我不知道那有多大可能。

I don't know how probable that was.

然后他在去世后被公认为伟大的天才。

And then he was recognized after his death as a great genius.

那么，这如何与自助理念相契合呢？

Well, how does that fit into the self help thing?

你知道吗？

You know?

如果他至死都在尝试，那他到底算不算帮助了自己？

Did he help himself or not if he if he died trying?

让我想起

Reminds me

那个我现在想不起名字的人。

of that I now don't recall his name.

那位俄罗斯数学家，我想他还健在。

The Russian mathematician, I think he's still alive.

哦，对。

Oh, yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

他拒绝了所有奖项，包括数百万——我不确定具体数字——可能是几十万美元。

He refused all awards including multi I don't know if it was million dollars, hundreds of thousands.

是的。

Yeah.

不。

No.

我想那是一百万美元。

I think it was a million dollars.

这与接受一百万美元去做某事完全不同。

This is this is completely different from accepting a million dollars to work on something.

那样就不好了。

That would not have been good.

但如果他是出于本心去做这件事，然后有人给他一百万美元，他不会……

But if he worked on it for its own sake and then somebody offers him a million dollars, he wouldn't

为什么不拿那一百万美元呢？

Why not take the million dollars?

是啊。

Yeah.

对啊。

Yeah.

至少拿了钱可以送给你喜欢的人。

At least take it and then give it to someone that you like.

没错。

Yeah.

比如说，现在肯定有什么不对劲的地方。

For example, now then there must be something strange going on.

你懂吗？

You know?

有些小细节他们没告诉我们。

There's there's that little thing that they don't tell us.

说到这类动机和乐趣，你也将通用解释原则应用于认真对待儿童，视他们为成年人，给予他们充分的自由

So talking about these kinds of motivations and having fun, you've also applied that plus the universal explainer principle to taking children seriously, treating them as adults, giving them the full freedom

嗯，视他们为人。

Well, treating them as as people.

作为人。

As people.

是的。

Yes.

而且没有强制，甚至没有测试，没有推动，而是让他们追随自己天生的好奇心和动机。

And no coercion, not even testing, not pushing, but rather let them follow their own natural curiosity and motivation.

是否存在类似认真对待成年人的哲学？

Is there a similar philosophy to taking adults seriously?

因为我们甚至不清楚是否完全认真对待其他成年人，因此我们的关系也因此受损

Because it's not even clear we take other adults fully seriously, and so our relationships suffer as a

嗯，在宏观层面上，我们还不知道如何做到这一点。

Well, in on the large scale, we don't yet know how to do it.

我的意思是，西方的制度——科学、经济学、政治——是有史以来最好的。

I mean, the institutions of the West, science, economics, politics, are the best that have ever existed.

而且，你知道，与历史相比，它们在培养创造力方面非常出色，不是告诉人们该做什么，而是让人们自愿做他们想做的事并相应互动。

And they're, you know, compared with history, they're remarkably good at fostering creativity, not telling people what to do, but letting people do what they want to do voluntarily and interacting accordingly.

它们显然非常不完美。

They're obviously very imperfect.

它们都是如此。

They're all of them.

科学、经济和政治领域仍存在亟待解决的重大缺陷。

The science, economics, and politics have gaping imperfections which have yet to be solved.

我认为，即便是国家为维护法治而实施的强制手段，本质上也是不完美的表现。

And I believe that or I think that any coercion even as exerted by a state enforcing the rule of law is a sign of something imperfect.

我的意思是我们可以改进，但我不知道具体方法。

I mean, we can improve on that, but I don't know how.

但这些改进必须由有意愿的人通过创造性方式来实现。

But the improvements will have to be creatively produced by people who want to do that.

你知道的，我觉得对待朋友——或者说熟悉的人——我们自然会认真对待他们。

As for you know, I think with one's friends, let's say with with the people one knows, one is automatically doing the taking them seriously thing.

我的意思是，你不会对一个人说...虽然你可能会提醒他们'小心点'。

I mean, you wouldn't say to a person you might say to them, watch out.

今天可能会下雨。

It might rain today.

但如果他们说'不'。

But if they say, no.

我...我不喜欢我的雨衣。

I I don't like my raincoat.

我就穿这件夹克好了。

I'll just wear this jacket.

你知道的，就说'不行'。

You know, say, no.

把雨衣穿上。

Wear the raincoat.

穿上雨衣。

Wear the raincoat.

哦，我们不去那里。

Oh, we're not going there.

你会被认为既非常粗鲁又反常，就像以那种方式与成年人互动是不理智的。

You'd be considered both very rude and perverse, like not rational for interacting with adults that way.

除非是在明确的关系背景下。

Except in the context of a defined relationship.

所以如果是师生关系、老板员工关系、夫妻关系，那么他们对彼此的行为都有要求。

So if there's a teacher student, if there's a boss employee, if there's a husband wife, then they have claims on each other's behavior.

嗯，我认为那些制度——如果它们具有这种特性（通常没有），但如果有的话——它们是不完美的。

Well, I think that those institutions, if they have that property, which often they don't, but if they have that property, they're imperfect.

一定有更好的办法。

There's gotta be a better way.

我不认为雇主应该用这种惩罚性的、规定性的方式对员工说话。

I don't think that a employer should speak to an employee in this punitive way, in this prescriptive way.

雇主首先应该说——雇主和员工之间应该明确他被雇来做什么。

The employer should be saying, well, first of all, should be understood between the employer and employee what he was hired to do.

所以，你知道，在这方面他们是有共识的。

And so, you know, they're both on the same page in that regard.

你被雇来做某某事。

So you're hired to do so and so.

然后雇主可以说，那么某某事做得怎么样？

Then the employer can say, well, how about so and so?

然后员工可以说，嗯，听起来不错，但我确信那行不通。

And then then the employee can say, well, sounds good, but I'm sure that wouldn't work.

而雇主可以说，我认为这可能有效。

And the employer could say, I have an idea that it might.

是啊。

Yeah.

试试看吧。

Just try it.

这种友好的互动是最理想的。

And this kind of friendly interaction is optimal.

一旦出现强制、胁迫的因素，如何...

As soon as an element of compulsion, coercion How does

这如何影响你的人际关系，比如与生活中的人相处，例如配偶或同事，他们希望保持关系完好。

this inform, like, your human relationships with, you know, the people in your life where let's say, for example, you're with a spouse or you're with a coworker, and they want to keep their relationship intact.

因此存在某些限制条件。

So there's certain constraints around it.

所以你无法完全自由。

So you can't be fully free.

生活中是否仍存在运作的约束，或者你根本没有这类人际关系？

There's still constraints in operation, or do you just not have those kinds of relationships in your life?

你是否避免置身于无法完全享受乐趣和自由的处境？

Do you not put yourself in situations in life where you can't operate with full fun and full freedom?

所以每个人都有主要想解决的问题情境。

So everyone has a problem situation that is primarily what they're trying to solve.

在我看来，人际关系是为了解决个人所处的问题情境。

To me, relationships are for addressing one's own problem situation.

恰巧由于认识论等因素，世界就是这样运作的。

It so happens the way the world is works because of epistemology and and so on.

这意味着两个人互相解决对方的问题时，效率往往比各自单独行动高出不止两倍。

It means that very often, two people addressing each other's problems are far more than twice as efficient as each of them separately.

所以这里存在一个增效因子。

So there's an enhancement factor.

而整个经济体系的增效因子可能高达数万亿倍甚至更高。

And the economy at large has an enhancement factor of probably trillions or something.

有些东西可以通过经济体系获得，比如一部iPhone。

There are things which can be obtained via the economy like an iPhone.

成本效益的提升是巨大的。

The enhancement in cost is enormous.

如果你想和某人一起看电影，和朋友同去的乐趣很可能会超过单独观看的两倍。

If you wanna go and see a movie with somebody, it may well be that it's more than twice as enjoyable if you go with a friend.

但也不会达到数万亿倍的乐趣。

But it's not gonna be trillions of times more enjoyable.

但这仍然值得去做。

But it's still worth doing.

还有些事情比如养育子女等，只有当你与某人建立长期关系、拥有共同解决问题的制度体系时才能实现。

And there are things like having children and so on which you can only do if you have a long term relationship with a person with whom you have a common set of institutions for solving problems.

关于同意的制度，以及...没错的制度。

Institutions of consent and institutions of yeah.

所以我认为这实际上不是重点。

So I think that isn't the point, actually.

重点在于，当你参与任何一种解决问题的关系时，如果这种关系有效且良好，那么称自己受其约束是荒谬的。

The point is that when you are involved in a problem solving relationship of any kind and this works, and it's a good one, and it works, then it's perverse to call yourself constrained by that.

这就像说在经济中，你因为必须为东西付钱而受到约束。

It's rather like saying that in the economy, you're constrained by having to pay for things.

实际上并非如此，为东西付钱是达成共识的条件。

When you're not, having to pay for things is the condition of consent.

就像，如果没有共识，你就无法不付钱就得到东西。

Like, if it weren't for consent, you wouldn't get the things without paying.

你至少得去抢劫或采取其他手段。

You'd have to at least rob somebody or or whatever.

但更重要的是，这些东西一开始就不会存在。

But more to the point, it wouldn't be there in the first place.

事物的存在依赖于这一整套庞大的共识机制——我本想说你配合它们，但这个词甚至都不准确。

Things are only there because of this massive set of institutions of consent, which if you I was gonna say if you play along with them, but that's not really even the word.

如果你认同它们，认同这些机制并希望成为能融入其中的人，那么你就会得到一部iPhone。

If you identify with them, you identify with these institutions and want to be the kind of person that can fit into them, then you get an iPhone.

任何关系都是如此。

It's the same with any kind of relationship.

但当你从中得不到什么时，比如这位拒绝奖项的俄罗斯人，你对经济就无所求。

But when you're not getting something out of them, like maybe this Russian guy with the his refusing the prize, there's nothing you want from the economy.

你只想待在小木屋里研究数学，这就是你全部所求。

You just want to stay in your log cabin and work on maths, and that's all you want.

任何形式的人际关系或与人交往对你来说都只是烦恼，那么这就是你要面对的。

And any kind of human relationship or any kind of interaction with people is just an annoyance, well, then that's what you do.

这就是你不得不做的事。

That's what you'd have to do.

如果你被迫进入正常的人际关系，你会感到不快乐。

And if you then were somehow forced into the normal relationship, you'd be unhappy.

你可能会...呃，我也不确定。

And you probably well, I I don't know.

我不想说可能，但那些被他人称为自由的东西，实际上会损害你创造优秀数学成果和获得幸福的条件。

I don't wanna say probably, but conditions for you producing good math and for producing happiness for yourself are impaired by this thing which other people call freedom.

所以，虽然我给出了很长的回答，但本质上，良好的人际关系不会成为阻碍。

So, you know, I gave a very long answer, but, basically, one isn't impaired by good relationships.

相反，它们会让你变得更好。

One is enhanced by them.

这与所谓的文明冲突有关，虽然我认为现在这个说法并不准确。

Well, that ties into what is sometimes called clash of civilizations, although I think that's a misnomer right now.

这是文明与野蛮的冲突。

It's the clash of civilization with the uncivilized.

而且眼下就有一场显著的冲突正在进行。

And there's a prominent one going on right now, obviously.

虽然听众可能不知道我们具体指什么。

Although when people listen to this, they might not know what we're referring to.

但在我看来，像iPhone这样的存在，正是源于具有批判传统的文明。

But it seems to me that the existence of iPhones, for example, arises out of the civilization with the tradition of criticism.

这是我们取得快速进展的必要前提条件。

That's the necessary precondition for making the kind of rapid progress that we have.

但目前我们在这方面遇到了阻力。

But we've got enemies of that at the moment.

你认为我们当前面临的主要威胁是什么？这些威胁是否关乎生存？

What do you think are the major threats that we're facing at the moment, and are they existential?

因为很多人担心生存威胁，比如机器人将统治世界，或者下一场病毒会消灭人类。

Because a lot of people worried about existential threats in terms of the robots are gonna take over the world or the next virus is gonna wipe us out.

但就所谓的文明冲突而言，作为启蒙运动的继承者，我们面临的主要矛盾或威胁是什么？又该如何应对？

But in terms of the so called clash of civilization, what's the major tension or threat that we're facing as inheritors of the enlightenment, and what's the remedy?

是的。

Yeah.

嗯，你知道的，我无法预言。

Well, as you know, I can't prophesy.

没人能做到。

No one can.

我只是尽量避免这么做。

I just try to avoid it.

我无法认真对待来自外部对我们文明的任何威胁。

I can't take seriously any threats to our civilization from the outside.

无论是独裁者、恐怖分子，还是可能出现的人工智能（AGI）或超级智能（ASI）。

That is dictators, terrorists, and also AIs if or AGIs or ASIs if they appear.

可以预见的是，首批出现的AGI应该会融入我们的文化，成为启蒙运动的一部分，并只会增强它。

Presumably, the AGIs that appear to be hoped that the first ones will in fact be part of our culture, be part of the enlightenment, and they will only enhance it.

但如果存在一种生存威胁，我也无法认真对待诸如天气这类威胁，因为它们的时间尺度要长得多。

But if there is an existential and and I can't take seriously the existential threats from things like the weather either because they're on a on a much longer time scale.

所有这些骇人听闻的故事实质上是说，它可能比我们想象的更昂贵。

And all that scare stories are really about is that it might prove to be more expensive than we think.

或许今天就开始重大项目会更好。

It could be that it would be better to start today on major projects.

那绝不可能是生存威胁。

That can't possibly be an existential threat.

唯一可能构成生存威胁的是，如果我们的文明——启蒙运动的文明——犯了足够严重的错误。

The only threat that could possibly be existential is if our civilization, the civilization of the enlightenment, makes bad enough mistakes.

例如，否认和憎恨这一文明的潮流与意识形态。

For example, fads and ideologies of denying and hating that very civilization.

这类潮流一直存在，正如我追随罗伊·波特所言，启蒙运动本身从诞生之日起就内置了反启蒙的叛逆基因。

There have always been such fads, and I've following Roy Porter, I've talked about the fact that the the enlightenment in itself had a a rebellious anti enlightenment built in from day one.

这种反启蒙思想如今仍有传承，诸如'觉醒'运动等，无论你如何称呼它们，都是其现代衍生物。

And that anti enlightenment has got descendants today, And things like woke and so on, whatever you call them, are among the descendants of it.

从理论上讲，这类事物可能摧毁文明。

In principle, a thing like that could bring down civilization.

必须说，我目前未见其迹象。

I see no sign of it, I must say.

我的意思是，我在此尽量避免做出预言。

I mean, I I'm trying to avoid prophecy here.

但尽管我认为这些事物正朝着摧毁文明的方向发展，我并未看到它们真正取得进展的实际迹象。

But but although I think those things are acting in the direction of bringing down civilization, I don't see any actual sign that they are actually making progress in that.

我们是否仍处于西方世界——无论是伦敦、纽约还是悉尼——却比二战时期更为软弱？当然，我并非历史学家，但当时普通人似乎至少更有动力去明确分辨正义与非正义的界限。

Are we nonetheless in the West, whether it's London, New York, Sydney, a little weaker than what we would have been during the Second World War where and again, of course, I'm no historian, but there seem to at least be a stronger impulse of the average person to understand the bright line between who was on the right side and who wasn't.

但现在我们看到西方民众不是在为受害者发声，而是在为施暴者辩护。

But now we're seeing people in the West standing up for not the victims, but the perpetrators.

这是新出现的现象吗？

Is that a new phenomenon?

如果要与二十世纪中叶类比，我们最相似的时期并非二战。

If you want to draw an analogy with the mid twentieth century, the place where we're most analogous to is not the second world war.

而是三十年代。

It's the thirties.

二十到三十年代，即两次大战间的时期。

Twenties and thirties, the interwar period.

那时人们对我们文化正确性的信心也遭受了巨大打击。

There there was also a massive loss of confidence in the rightness of our culture.

当时有大萧条。

There was the great depression.

这是普遍现象。

It was commonplace.

人们从大萧条中得出了完全错误的教训，这曾是主流观点。

It was conventional wisdom to draw completely the wrong lesson from the Great Depression.

人们认为我们需要减少资本主义，普遍减少自由。

People thought that we needed less capitalism, less freedom in general.

我们需要更多强硬的领导人。

We needed more strong leaders.

一旦战争来临，人们意识到事态已无可挽回，西方世界几乎无人反对做正确的事。

Once it came to the war, people saw that push had come to shove, and there was very little in the West that opposed doing the right thing.

我最喜欢的例子是牛津大学辩论社，他们曾与本科生辩论，议题是‘本议院在任何情况下都不会为国王和国家而战’。

My favorite example of this is the Oxford Union Society, which had a debate with the undergraduates with where the motion was this house would not fight for king and country under any circumstances.

我原本不知道是‘在任何情况下’。

I I didn't know it was under any circumstances.

我最近查了资料，发现这个议题获胜了。

I looked it up recently, and it won.

那个议题确实通过了。

That motion won.

据说，这给了希特勒可乘之机。

Allegedly, this gave Hitler ideas.

无论如何，纳粹乃至整个法西斯主义的意识形态都认为自由民主是腐朽堕落的。

In any case, the ideology of the Nazis and so on, of the fascists in general, was that liberal democracy was decadent and decaying.

而英美法三国也不遗余力地证实这一点，使其看起来确实在衰败。

And Britain and France and America lost no opportunity to confirm this, to make it look as though it was decaying.

事实绝非如此。

It wasn't doing anything of the kind.

这更像是——你们朝我们撒尿，我们还说下雨了。

It was just kind of it was more like, you piss on us, we say it's raining.

这才是更真实的态度。

That was more the attitude.

在这种情况下，有人为这种态度找了各种借口，比如和平主义等等。

And and within that, there were people who adopted all sorts of justifications for that, like the pacifism and so on.

但在那次动员一年后，牛津大学的精英学生们纷纷参军，你知道，他们正在参加不列颠之战。

But a year after that motion, after the elite students in Oxford University had joined up in the armed forces, you know, they were fighting the battle of Britain.

他们就是那些在不列颠之战中作战的飞行员。

They they were the pilots fighting the battle of Britain.

他们是带领士兵们战斗的军官，深知我方立场正确，尽管战争初期遭遇重大挫折，但终将获胜。

They were the officers who were leading their men to fight and to know that our side was right and was going to win despite awful setbacks at the beginning of the war.

我曾问过我母亲——她是大屠杀幸存者，当时处境非常艰难。

I I once asked my mother, who is a Holocaust survivor and was having a very bad time at the time.

我问她，你是什么时候确信盟军会胜利的？

I once asked her, when did you become sure that the allies were going to win?

因为在我看来，九月份时全世界都认为英国完蛋了。

Because it seemed to me that, you know, in September, I thought the whole world thought that Britain was doomed.

美国大使约瑟夫·肯尼迪（约翰·肯尼迪的父亲）发回电报说：英国完了。

Joseph Kennedy, the American ambassador, father of John Kennedy, cabled back saying, Britain is finished.

去和纳粹达成妥协吧，诸如此类。

Make your accommodation with the Nazis and so on.

后来英国人得知此事，要求将他召回不再担任大使。

And then the British got to hear of this and asked him to be be withdrawn as ambassador.

不过，总之，我觉得这是普遍看法。

But but, anyway, that was a common thing I thought.

但我母亲回答我的问题时说，你何时确信盟军会胜利？

But my mother said when I asked her, when did you become sure the allies would win?

她说：1939年9月3日，英国和法国宣战的那天。

She said, 09/03/1939, the day that Britain and France declared war.

因为那正是他们扭转政策的关键时刻，从宣称天下太平转为真正捍卫文明。

Because that was the moment when they reversed their policy of saying it's raining and started their policy of actually standing up for civilization.

至于具体如何实施这一转变，其战术细节无人能预见。

The tactical details of how that was going to happen, nobody could have foreseen.

没人能确切预知我们将如何取得胜利。

Nobody could have foreseen exactly how we're going to win.

但对某些人而言，我们必将且必须获胜是显而易见的，而英国民众的态度瞬间发生了逆转。

But that we would win and had to win was to some people obvious, and the British as a nation just flipped on a dime.

他们原本坚信一套理念和意识形态。

They just believed one batch of things, one batch of ideologies.

然而转眼之间，他们似乎又完全倒向了相反立场。

And then, apparently, you know, it seemed like a day later that they believed the opposite.

最新的丘吉尔电影中有个精彩场景——不知你是否看过——丘吉尔深陷抑郁时，保守党同僚正试图迫使他与希特勒达成协议。

There's a nice scene in the latest Churchill movie, and I don't know if you've seen it, but it's where Churchill is very depressed and his colleagues in the conservative party are trying to push him to come to a deal with Hitler.

而他早在上世纪三十年代初就已看清这是绝无可能的。

And he has already seen since since the early thirties that this is impossible.

但愿意倾听他意见的人寥寥无几。

But no very few will listen to him.

随后他去接触了一些普通民众。

And then he goes and meets some ordinary people.

为避免剧透我就不多说了，虽然这段情节本可能真实发生，但实际并非史实。

And I I won't spoil it for you, but not a thing that happened in real life, although it could have happened.

也就是说，他从所谓的普通人那里获得了清醒的常识性判断。

So he's getting the common sense clear vision from the so called normal people.

来自普通民众。

From the ordinary people.

是的。

Yes.

但你知道，氧气联盟的那些精英们站错了队。

But, you know, the oxygen union, the elites are taking the wrong side.

嗯，他们曾经是。

Well, they had been.

我认为到那时，他们也已经转变了立场。

I think by that time, they had flipped as well.

所以今天，反启蒙思想的蔓延似乎正在各地的精英大学中加速。

So today, it seems like the festering of anti enlightenment goes on a pace at elite colleges and universities around the place.

这不过是必然的副产品，毕竟这里是富有创造力、聪明人聚集的地方，他们自然会反叛。

It's just this a necessary byproduct of, well, this is where the creative, bright people are, and so they're going to be rebellious.

因此你必然会看到有人站出来反对主流。

And so you're necessarily going to get people standing up against the mainstream.

本不必如此。

It doesn't have to be this way.

我认为从历史上看，这是多种因素混合的结果。

I think historically, it was a mixture of things.

学生中存在反叛者是件好事，而且这种情况将永远存在。

The fact that there were rebels among the students, that's a good thing, and it will always be true.

在德国，学生曾是纳粹主义的温床。

In Germany, the students were that was the hotbed of Nazism.

因此，纳粹主义的核心曾存在于德国大学中。

So the core of Nazism was in German universities.

但在英国情况并非如此。

That wasn't true in Britain.

在英国，反民主倾向的是左翼分子。

In Britain, the antidemocratic tendency were leftists.

他们是共产主义者。

They were communists.

如你所知，战争初期时，他们都假装成和平主义者。

They were as you know, at the beginning of the war, they were all pretending to be pacifists.

所以他们反对战争，但那是因为斯大林命令他们反对战争——因为他与希特勒签订了协议。

So they were against the war, but that was because Stalin told them to be against the war because he'd signed a deal with Hitler.

当斯大林下令时他们立刻转变立场，这是另一种现象。

They turned on a sixpence when Stalin told them to that's that's a different phenomenon.

当时的学生属于上流阶层。

So students were upper class people at the time.

他们是左翼分子。

They were leftists.

其中有些人是法西斯同情者。

Some of them were fascist sympathizers.

大多数人立即转变了立场。

Most of them flipped immediately.

不知道为什么，就像发生了某种相变。

Don't know why, you know, it's one of these like a phase change.

希特勒入侵了捷克斯洛伐克。

Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia.

没有人对此予以关注。

Nobody paid any attention.

他们，你知道的，他们想要绥靖政策。

They, you know, they wanted appeasement.

在那之前，他入侵了奥地利。

Before that, he invaded Austria.

更早之前，他占领了莱茵兰地区，然后继续扩张。

Before that, invaded the Rhineland and then so on.

所有人都只想要绥靖。

Everybody just wanted appeasement.

突然间，他入侵波兰，所有人都觉得这不可接受。

Suddenly, he invades Poland, and everybody's like, this is unacceptable.

你知道，大家突然意识到发生了什么。

You know, everybody, like, suddenly realized what was happening.

我不知道为什么。

I don't know why.

这些事件之间并无本质区别，但事情就是这样发展的。

There was no difference between the cases, but that's how it worked.

也许是因为一些人一直在思考，而另一些人依赖这些人的判断，但他们的想法是错误的。

Maybe it's that some people had been thinking and other people had been relying on those people, and they'd been thinking wrong.

他们改变了主意，因为他们进行了思考。

And they changed their minds because they had been thinking.

而那些当时依赖他们的人也改变了主意。

And the people who relied on them then also changed their minds.

你知道，也许事情就是这样发生的，就像一种播种过程。

You know, may maybe it happened like that as a sort of seeding process.

信息级联。

Information cascade.

是的。

Yeah.

似乎人们总倾向于玩弄意识形态，直到事态变得严重，那时意识形态的后果才会显现。

It seems that people have a tendency to play around with ideology until things become serious, and then the consequences of the ideology become obvious.

然后高层的明智之人改变了想法，大多数人就会随波逐流——事情可能就是如此。

And then the right thinking people at the top change their minds, and then most people just follow them as a It could be.

我非常希望这在当前发生的暴乱危机中能成为现实。

I'd very much like that to be true in the current crisis with the pogrom that's just happened.

但我不知道是否会如此。

But I don't know whether it will.

我的意思是，过去也有过类似情况，我当时会说现在就是转折点，但事实并非如此。

I mean, there again, there have been cases before where I would have said, right now is the time, but it wasn't.

我不知道这次是否会有所不同。

And I don't know whether it'll turn out different this time.

不过，你之前问我文明是否处于危险之中？

But, I mean, you asked me earlier the question, is civilization in danger?

我认为并非如此。

I don't think so.