Using Language as Playing Chess Zouxiaohui 《Language》 Playing Chess with Mind Showing Zouxiaohui 《Mind》 The Chess for both Language and Mind Zouxiaohui 《Science》
Gut Bacteria Might Guide The Workings Of Our Minds by ROB STEIN November 18, 2013 3:07 AM Illustration by Benjamin Arthur for NPR You can learn more about this at http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/18/244526773/gut-bacteria-might-guide-the-workings-of-our-minds
1 Beware mind mapping essays can make them too complicated, a list of key points is an alternative. 2 Write your title down . If you have a choice of titles decide NOW and write it down. " wikiHow should not be editable". How far do you agree? 3 Decide on your paragraphs and these come off your title . You must have an introduction and a conclusion. You need about three other paragraphs. Vandalism, Range of Subjects, Rules and regulating 4 Start researching . Find points to put in your middle paragraphs. Some paragraphs might only have one point but others may have three, four or five! This is one of the hardest steps and is the core to your essay. It only needs to be written in short hand. Keep a record of websites, books (including page numbers) and articles you use to help you More People More knowledge, people work in different fields. 5 Back up your points . For each point you write you need to find evidence to prove it. This could be a quote or an example. If it's a quote be sure you write it down exactly how it is so you can copy it from your mind map. How to Teach Piano would require a piano teacher to write it and How to Read and Speak Like a TV News Reporter would need the experience of a reporter. 6 Write your introduction . Just a few key points for the plan. Make sure you don't try to put too much in the introduction. At the moment wikiHow is editable by everyone. This is its unique feature and makes it an ever expanding compilation of "how to's". However, it can lead to some problems. 7 Write the conclusion points . Make sure you tie up everything nicely and that you've answered the question. You should also say your opinion here if appropriate. Overall I think that wikiHow should be editable by all because this is what makes it so useful. 8 Write links between the paragraphs . The best essays will link between the paragraphs so it all flows smoothly. Often this is quite difficult and sometimes you might just have to move abruptly to a new topic but avoid this as much as possible. There are so many subjects (paragraph 2) but there have to be ways in which the public can decide when topics are irrelevant (1) 9 Consider all the help that you've got from teachers such as the mark scheme . Make sure you've included everything they've suggested. It might be useful to make a checklist. For some things you'll have to wait until you've written it. Check this again after you've finished it too. 10 Write your essay . Don't feel you need to stick to your plan but have it nearby because you'll find it helpful.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6092/293.3.full Science 20 July 2012: Vol. 337 no. 6092 pp. 293-294 DOI: 10.1126/science.1224868 BOOKS ET AL. NEUROSCIENCE The Mind Inside Our Skull Ricardo Basso Garcia1 Neuromania: On the Limits of Brain Science. Paolo Legrenzi and Carlo Umiltà; translated by Frances Anderson. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011. 132 pp. $29.95, ￡14.99. ISBN 9780199591343. 1The reviewer is at the Departamento de Psicologia (PG-Psicobiologia), Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Avenida Bandeirantes 3900. CEP 14040-901, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil. E-mail: rbgarcia@pg.ffclrp.usp.br It was noon, and church bells were ringing as a doctor carefully examined a patient who had traumatic lesions in the frontal cranial bone. He noticed that pulsations in the cerebral arteries had become stronger, but, curiously, that change was not linked to changes in pulse rate and blood pressure measured on the patient's arm. The patient then confirmed his doctor's somewhat weird suspicion: the ringing bells reminded him it was time to say a prayer. This experience led the Italian physiologist Angelo Mosso (1846–1910) to the first attempt to relate variations of blood flow in the brain to mental activity, a link that is at the core of modern neuroimaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Such techniques have allowed scientists to shed some light on the neural substrates underlying ongoing mental processes. Mosso's research is one of several important contributions that 19th-century neurologists made toward establishing the relationship between the mind and the brain and that are reviewed in Neuromania. In this brief book, neuropsychologists Paolo Legrenzi (Ca'Foscari University, Venice) and Carlo Umiltà (University of Padua) bring a welcome appraisal of brain research to a broad audience. They provide an insightful and comprehensible overview of methods and techniques from the origins of brain science to today's MRI scanners. However, rather than emphasizing state-of-the-art procedures and technologies, they focus on the limitations of the field, covering methodological aspects and controversial assumptions that are commonly unknown to the general public. Legrenzi and Umiltà put brain science in a broader perspective and discuss its sociopolitical implications, something scientists often neglect when presenting their own fields. The advent of neuroimaging opened many new lines of research. Because the question “what happens in the brain when …?” fits practically any aspect of human activity, fMRI has been applied to a wide range of issues—from people's artistic or religious experiences to their preferences for specific products or political parties. As a consequence, many established concepts in the social sciences gained the prefix “neuro-” and a profusion of new disciplines emerged (neuroaesthetics, neurotheology, and neuropolitics, to mention a few). Putting these disciplines under scrutiny, Legrenzi and Umiltà highlight that old knowledge may have been presented as novel just by changing “mind” to “brain,” without bringing actual scientific progress. In the authors' reading, the brain has become the system of reference in explanations of human mind and behavior, relegating to the background an alternative approach that emphasized the social and cultural aspects of the human mind. A word of caution: The important issue is not a matter of which perspective should prevail but that many decisions regarding human life depend on how society defines the mind-body relationship . If only one aspect appears in the foreground, there may be drastic differences when dealing with thorny topics such as abortion and euthanasia. Answers to the complex questions raised by technological and scientific progress toward controlling life and death depend on ethical and ideological choices. To think about such issues from a strictly biological point of view may be misleading—after all, inside our skull there is more than just a brain . Angelo Mosso. CREDIT: COURTESY NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE 参考资料： 【1】Garcia, Ricardo Basso. “The Mind Inside Our Skull.” Science 337, no. 6092 (July 20, 2012): 293–294.
自从写了《 may the force NOT be with you ! 》之后，我发现自己的时运是非常的不济，命途是极其的多舛，似乎force（原力，星球大战的概念， 前文有解释 ）正离我而去。所以要写这篇博文，纯粹是为了转转运。（貌似越来越迷信了～～） 上文提了一种理论，思维状态和物质结构只是mind world和energy的一种pattern。根据Max Plank的认识，两者应该是一个东西，就是force。再次无耻地引用一下他的原文： All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. --------Max Plank 这段话同时出现了force和matrix，似乎是两部科幻巨作《星球大战》和《黑客帝国》（英文名是The Matrix， 这个中文翻译很难理解 ，我支持翻译成“母体”）的哲学背景。 这种看法下，mind和matter都只是force的不同pattern了，只是表现出的不同侧面，就像一个平面，有两个面（像基督教的三位一体的解释～～）。这样的话，整个理论更为简洁了，而且可以直接对应mind和matter的pattern，没有了怎么相互作用，各个pattern怎么联系到一起的问题。为了解释清楚一点，举一个布料的例子，一块布有两面，可以染上不同的图案。抖动这块布料的时候，布料上的波纹是在两面都有出现的。对应到物质的结构和mind的状态。 从这个观点来看的话，那真的是万物皆有识了！只是除了人脑，大部分的物体或组织没有足够的相空间，不能达到自我觉知（self awareness）的地步。 如果星球大战就是持这种世界观的话，哲学背景也太深刻了！ 最后，祝福一下自己： May the force be with ME ! 有一个游戏就叫《the FORCE》，和电影里的形象差异也太大了！ Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player. ----- Albert Einstein
中国人大部分都是持唯物主义观点的，特别是搞科研的。看到题目可能就会嗤之以鼻，这是唯心主义观点，是错误的！各位看官姑且放下这个马克思灌输的成见，以平和的心态来看待。 我今天就是要argue一下唯心主义观点，看看是否能引起你的思考。本文会汇聚我前面博文的很多内容和思考，形成一个完整的理论和故事。首先提出一个理论或者图景，然后按照这个理论去解释一些唯物主义无法解释的现象，最后谈谈怎么检验这个理论。 Mind and Matter 首先需要说明的是，这个图景是结合了前人的很多观点，并不是完全是我空想的。 Mind world的实在性 。每个人都可以清晰地体会到自己思维存在的实在性，但从唯物主义的观点看，自己的mind是没有来源的，可能是一种illusion ！很多哲学观点或者数学推理都有前提，我们应该把mind存在也作为一个前提，就像对待1+1=2一样，认为是一个客观实在。我们把mind排除在客观世界以外，源于亚里斯多德，到笛卡尔就完全割裂开了，这种观点排除了个人看法的差异，使得我们统一认识了物质世界 。在人类认识发展的早期是非常有利的，相当与对自然做了简化，这种哲学观点取得了巨大的成功。可以说我们现在几乎所有科学知识都源于这种观念，以至于我们把这种看法当作了自然本身的属性！到了量子力学发展的阶段，越来越多的人认识到了意识的作用，典型的就是薛定谔 和普朗克。普朗克认为mind是所有matter的matrix，这个应该是电影《黑客帝国》的背景。 All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. --------Max Plank 什么是物质 ？从爱因斯坦的质能关系式也可以看出来，实质上是能量的有序排列。从量子力学的观点看，所有物质实际上也是波 。这是广为接受的观点，还得了诺贝尔奖的。研究量子力学的应该比我清楚多了。波的频率对应了能量的强度，所以，可以把物质看作是能量的有序排列。正是这种有序排列，才形成我们看到的大千世界，可以触摸，可以感受，以至于我们把它当成了全部的真实！ 虚无中的实在 。在真空中，是可以产生粒子的！这里说的真空是真的什么都没有，完全的理想的真空。这个已经通过实验侧面验证了 。真空中会不断有正粒子和对应的反物质产生，这正是霍金赖以成名的黑洞蒸发理论的根本依据。从这一现象中，也可以看出，我们眼见的物质下面，实际上还隐藏着一层深刻的东西。最新的弦理论，是有望成为统一四种基本力的大统一理论的唯一候选者，这在不断修正和检验 。这种理论认为，深层的是“弦”，弦的振动表现出粒子，再组成宏观的物质。实际上还是一种能量，真空中产生的粒子是能量波动的反映。 为什么会出现有序排列？ 这是一个混沌现象，混乱中是可以产生有序的pattern的，而且形态各异，姿态万千。对这一点有疑问的，可以看视频，直接看实验现象，非常直观 。能量的波动，产生有序的结构，形成我们所见的有形态的物质。 the Mind World . Mcginn Colin提到了一种观点“Dualism without God” （详见博文 Dualism Without God ）。这里的表述做了一些“改进”，结合了彭罗斯的相空间 （这种结合是我的原创）。在宇宙大爆炸的时候，不止产生了我们现在看到、摸到的，充满能量的宇宙，而且还有一个mind world，你可以看作是一个思维的“海洋”。这个海洋对应于物质的状态或者能量的pattern多样性，也就是彭罗斯的相空间。物体的有序状态就像一个管道，连接了思维的海洋。物体能够处于有序状态越多，相空间越大，这个管道越大，和mind world的连结也就越强。 the Mind Pattern . 我们的某种思维状态，对应mind world的某种pattern，mind本身也像energy，可以有混沌状态，产生pattern，这些都是自发产生的。mind的pattern和物质的pattern可能是一一对应的，高度有序的mind pattern对应于我们的高级思维。 人脑是连接Mind World的大通道 。这个观点在前面的两篇博文有详细阐述。人脑的相空间是非常大的，有人认为比整个宇宙的结构还复杂 ！从结构上来看，人脑有约1000亿个神经元，每个神经元大约与5000个其他神经元连接，而且神经元的排列也是非常有序的，突起形成的网络就更加复杂了。从功能上来看，主要可以分为兴奋性和抑制性两类，又可以分成100多个小类型，神经元连接的突触上，传递神经冲动的递质也有多种类型。最近，MIT有一个教授提出了人的自我在于脑内的神经连接（I'm my Connectome） ，认为自我就在神经是怎么连接的，这个才是稳定中有一定变化的。 这个mind world和能量又从何而来，那可能真的只有上帝知道了（天晓得）。 终极问题的回答 用这个理论可以回答很多终极拷问。 自由意志在这里 。博文第一篇，问了自由意志在哪里？从mind world的理论来看，自由意志就在这里了。我们的思维都是mind world活动的一小部分。 我是谁？ “我”应该是energy和mind的pattern，也就是body和mind共同构成自我。两个都重要，而且是互相对应的。如果你身体的大脑损坏了或者老了，相空间减小，映射到的mind world就小了，自己的思维能力也弱了。 灵魂是永恒的？ 首先，这个问题是有问题的。灵魂是不断在变化的，你的性格和想法是不断变化的，而永恒是不变的，两者不能共存。你想要永恒的是你什么时候的灵魂呢？小时候的？年轻的？老年的？在我们这个理论里，身体仍然会消亡。柏拉图早就认识到了有形有质的东西都会消亡，只有无形无质的才得永恒。我们理论里的mind world和energy是永恒的，而pattern是不断变化的，energy的pattern变化对应物质状态的变化，mind pattern的变化对应想法或者情绪的变化。所以，我的状态是会变化消亡的，组成“我”的mind和energy是永恒的！这似乎没什么意义了:( 因果与自由 。所有的物理观念都有一个因果关系，有一个cause，然后导出一个effect。整个过程环环相扣，如果一直追问下去，最终的因只能归之于上帝。这里面就没有人的自由空间。如果从mind world观点来看的话，这个因就在这里，mind world和energy有相互作用，从而影响energy的pattern，造成物质状态的改变。 思维创造宇宙 。从混沌理论知道，初始状态的微小改变足以造成大变化。从薛定厄的猫的思想实验来看，量子水平的状态确实需要意识的介入，才能决定最终的状态。mind world和energy的相互作用可能只是在量子水平，强度很低，但可以通过混沌效应放大，影响energy的pattern，也就是宏观物质的状态。每个原子、分子都受这个作用影响，那观测到的整个宇宙，都是受观测者的意识决定的，所以，mind决定了宇宙的形态！ 生命的意义 。如果你认真对待唯物主义的话，会发现生命只不过是一个原子的钟摆，自我是不存在的，人生也没有意义（详见博文第一篇“ 自由意志在哪里？ ”）。从本文的理论来看，生命又有什么意义呢？首先，人自我本身既由物质的body部分，也由mind world的部分组成。这是共同作用，才形成一个活蹦乱跳的人。body是与mind连接的通道，所以需要爱惜自己的身体。mind才是人的情绪、情感和思维的所在，是超出物质和body之上的，人更应该珍惜。在mind world里，有爱有恨，有喜怒哀乐，或许可以分成几个层次：（0）各种恨，这个就不多说了。（1）爱物。爱大千世界，爱旅游观光，体验物质世界的pattern之神奇；（2）爱自己。对自己有信心，珍惜自己的人生体验，包括心灵体验，爱看书，爱内省；心灵的体验包括自己的喜怒哀乐，哭骂怒笑，自己都能接受。（3）爱他人。爱惜保护社会的美好，遇到灾难，愿意奉献爱心。人始终是社会的动物，需要社会人情的温暖。（4）爱情。对一个人有强烈的美好感觉。这是两个人的情感共鸣，超出地老天荒，超出社会冷暖。（5）爱上帝。终极的爱，无条件的爱。这个我也比较模糊，但感觉到这是超出自然的一部分，是终极的源泉，存在的根本。 如果什么都不爱，无欲无求，那也没什么好说的了，估计这种人也不会看我的博客。 理论的预测和检验 一个好的理论不止能解释现有的现象和疑问，还应该能够作出预测，并且这些预测是可以检验的。本文的理论已经给出了一些终极问题的回答，还应该给出一些预测。既然人的思维是连接到一个共同的海洋里的，怎么思维看似孤立的，没有交集呢？我们需要语言进行沟通，还没有看到直接用意念交流的。这可能是要归因于mind world空间的广大，以至于每个人的思维就像一个孤岛，没有连通。mind world大到什么程度？你类比一下宇宙空间的广大，就有概念了。即使地球的人口已经达到70亿之多，如果把人均匀散落在宇宙空间的各个角落，人与人之间认识的概率也就接近0了吧。那我们不是永远没有思维的交集？请注意我前面只是说均匀地分布，实际上人与人之间的差异还是有大小不同的，不是均匀的。比如双胞胎，至少身体的结构会更为接近，包括大脑的结构，对应于mind world的距离也会更为接近，就有可能会有意识的交汇。我们可以在物质世界中，通过心理学实验进行检验。如果证明有意念的交流，则可以辅助证明这个理论的实在性。 最后，以罗素的一句话结束：Ask yourself only, what are the facts? 复杂的脑结构 , 2011_scienceReview_The Big and the Small Challenges of.PDF Brain graph construction 古老的问题：大脑是否足够复杂而足以认识自身? 参考资料： 【1】Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy . Simon Schuster/Touchstone, 1967. 【2】Edelman, G. M, and G. Tononi. A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination . Basic books, 2001. 【3】Heisenberg, Martin. “Is Free Will an Illusion?” Nature 459, no. 7244 (2009): 164–165. 【4】“Neuroscience Vs Philosophy: Taking Aim at Free Will : Nature News”, n.d. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html. 【5】 The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow , n.d. http://www.randomhouse.com/book/77018/the-grand-design-by-stephen-hawking-and-leonard-mlodinow. 【6】McGinn, Colin. The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds in a Material World . Basic Books, 2000. 【7】罗杰·彭罗斯. 皇帝新脑 . Translated by 许明贤 and 吴忠超. 湖南科学技术出版社, 2007. 【8】Bassett, Danielle S., and Michael S. Gazzaniga. “Understanding Complexity in the Human Brain.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15, no. 5 (2011): 200–209. 【9】斯蒂芬, and 霍金. 时间简史 . DynoMedia Inc., 1993. 【10】 Schrödinger, Erwin. What Is Life?: With “Mind and Matter” and “Autobiographical Sketches” . Cambridge University Press, 1992. 【11】 Lichtman, J. W, and W. Denk. “The Big and the Small: Challenges of Imaging the Brain’s Circuits.” Science 334, no. 6056 (2011): 618–623. 视频资料： 这几个视频对理解本文很有帮助，或许会让你有全新的看法。 【V1】霍金的宇宙，BBC出品 从微观的量子世界，到宏观的宇宙全景，都展现得淋漓尽致。展示了最新的弦理论，粒子都是弦的振动，对应不同的频率和能量。 有一个系列的6集，都很精彩，讲解通俗。这只是其中之一，第二集。 【V2】I‘m my Connectome, by Sebastian Seung 展示了脑的高度复杂的结构，并认为脑神经连接就是“自我”！ 这哥们是MIT的教授，和哈佛的几个小组合作，最近在Nature同期灌了三篇文章。还写了一本书，本人没钱买了。这才是真的“叫兽”，有木有？！ Seung, Sebastian. Connectome: How the Brain’s Wiring Makes Us Who We Are . None. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Trade, 2012. 【V3】 耶鲁的公开课《Death》 ，by Shelly Kagan 《death 死亡》讨论了自我的定义、自由意志等问题。仅凭Shelly的三寸不烂之舌，会让你觉得长生不老是很痛苦的一件事。 总共有26集，下面的只是第一集，只是介绍这门课讲些什么，还没进入正题，没什么实质内容。 【V4】神秘的混沌理论，BBC出品 给出了大量实验，说明混乱中可以产生有序的pattern。是自发的，而且不断变化。 ----------------------后记，2013/04/12 有一个理论biocentrism ，和本文的理论不谋而合！非常类似。 Lanza R, Berman B. Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe . 第1版. BenBella Books, 2010.
Creating the Impossible是工业光魔的口号，借用一下。我们想创造的皇帝新脑，目前也是一种 impossible 。 在博文《 想象力是有限的，人脑可能根本不能认识mind！ 》中，提到了人脑的局限性，可能不能理解mind怎么从物质运动中产生。Mcginn提出用基因改造的方法，改造人脑。这可能有一定的可行性，但涉及到伦理问题，是不能实施的 。而且，在神经生物的物质基础上，人脑可能已经是最优化的了 。我们的教科书经常说人脑比猴子、猩猩大，智力水平高，但智力的水平并不是简单地依赖脑的大小或者神经元的多少。陆地上，蜂鸟的脑很小，但很聪明，大象的脑够大了，但智力水平可能还不如蜂鸟！海洋里，海豚是非常聪明的，甚至有人猜测他们都已经形成文化了，只是没有手建造出来，而鲸鱼的脑够大了吧，但聪明程度还不如海豚。脑变大，是有信息交换速度的代价的，神经电冲动从一个脑区的传导到另一个远离的脑区，需要时间和能量代价。能量可能是一个重要的约束条件，脑里的能量主要消耗在神经点传导中Na和K离子的主动运输上，以及突触连接部位，递质的释放和回收上。神经元越密集，突起长度越长，突触连接越多，消耗的能量也越大。依靠血液运输能量，是有限制的。因此，单纯地改造基因，进而改造脑，可能也是一种效果有限的办法。 我的看法类似强人工智能，认为人的思维也是一种计算 。mind不过是物质运动的过程，这个过程能够表征（represent）一些概念，所有的思维不过是对其他事物的一种表征。现有的计算程序有很多符号，也可以看作对其他事物的一种表征。但我理解的“计算”和目前的计算机工作是有很大差别的，只不过找不到更好的词描述，只能用这个词了。目前的计算机都是冯诺依曼架构的，基于存储程序的原理。每一个动作都需要预先设定好，按照既定的方案进行反应，这种死板的动作，造成所有结果都是可以预知的，明显是不可能有“自己”的想法或者说自由意志的。我们每天吃进去的，也都是普通的物质，脑也是由普通的物质构成的，并没有什么特殊的元素。那我们只要以一定的方式组织普通的物质，我相信还是可以创造出有智能的“机器”的。关键是要理解脑区别于其他物体的特有属性，根据这些属性，创造出具备这些属性的“机器”，才可能有mind emerge出来。根据我对脑科学的认识，认为至少有一下几点： 1. 可塑性 。生物体是不断变化的，脑也一样 。变化的东西才能成长，才能学习，才能认识。所以，这个“机器”应该是动态改变的。 2. 反馈、调整 。脑不仅能够理解外界输入的信号，而且还能根据信号，改造自身。这种改造不仅是软件上的，比如形成记忆，学习到技能，更重要的是硬件上的，脑本身结构上的改变，比如树突棘可以在几个小时内生长消亡 。这个“机器”也应该能根据输入信号改变自身，包括软件和硬件！现在的人工神经网络，特别是B-P 神经网络，就是一种通过反馈来改变调整网络中的权重，模拟脑神经的这种特性，才达到学习的能力的。但这种改变仍然只是软件上的，虽然有人在硬件上设计人工神经网络（我一个高中同学在中科院就是研究这个的），也仍然是根据反馈改软件，我还没有看到有改变硬件电路本身的研究。 3. 处于 混沌的临界状态 ，在有序和无序边缘。脑是一种高度结构化的组织，特别是神经元的分布和突起连接，比如皮层就分为六层（近年也有说7层的），每一层都有特异性的结构，发挥特别的作用，一般第四层是接收丘脑投射进来的神经信号，二三层主要是做内部信息处理，第五层的椎体细胞的轴突很长，把信息投射出去，到达特异的脑区或身体部位。这种结构的特异性并不代表稳定性，而是不断变化的，就是处于一种稳定的边缘。这个观点是浦大师说的，他人工培养神经元，形成网络，并分析网络的响应和学习特性。人工培养的神经网络就处于这么一种状态。 4. 模拟信号和数字信号融合 。日常生活中，声音和光线应该可以看作模拟信号，脑的输入也就是模拟信号。但转换成神经电信号的时候，似乎有一个模数转换的过程！神经电冲动是有一个阈值的，累积的电势达到阈值后，才会爆发一个神经冲动，就像一个离散化的过程，曲线见下图。显然目前的计算机都是数字信号，缺乏模拟信号的真实性。做过硬件电路的都知道，模拟电路是很难做的。 图片来自 Wiki 目前的技术水平来看，上述条件还是很难满足的，期待技术的突破。如果做出来了，从外观和行为上，也能表现得像有意识，我们能下结论说job done吗？ 怎么判断一个事物是否有意识？由于意识的孤立性，没有交集，所以无法直接与mind沟通，还是只能通过外部测试的方式。对这个问题，图灵（Alan Turing） 提出了图灵测试（Turing test）的方法，判断一个机器是否有意识。为了避开外观和行为的差异，把“机器”隔离开，由很多人和“她”用文字聊天，就像聊QQ，聊什么内容可以自由发挥，最后判断和你聊天的是不是一个人 。如果一台“机器”表现得和人一样，就认为通过了图灵测试，具备了mind。这是目前通用的检验方法，但Mcginn提出了异议 ，我很赞同。他有两点理由： 1. 太语言化。聊天的方式要求这个机器语言能力很强，不仅精通英语，还要懂其他语言，条件过于苛刻了。一只猫应该算有意识的，但肯定不能通过这个测试。 2. 行为表现不能证明内在是否有意识。大家可以设计复杂的语言程序，表现得像一个人在聊天，就像清华大学图书馆的小图一样，但实际上，我们可以认为这种数字化的程序结果，是没有自由意志的。 目前，仍然缺乏一个完美的可行的检验方法。 Alan Turing 参考资料： Mcginn C. The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds In A Material World . Basic Books, 2000. Fox D. The limits of intelligence . Scientific American, 2011, 305(1): 36–43. 史蒂芬 霍金, 许明贤. 时间简史——从大爆炸到黑洞 . 长沙: 湖南科学技术出版社, 2001. 彭罗斯, 许明贤, 吴忠超. 皇帝新脑 . 湖南科学技术出版社, 1998. Woolf C J, Salter M W. Neuronal plasticity: increasing the gain in pain . Science, 2000, 288(5472): 1765–1768. Xu T, Yu X, Perlik A J, et al. Rapid formation and selective stabilization of synapses for enduring motor memories . Nature, 2009, 462(7275): 915–919. Turing A M. Computing machinery and intelligence . Mind, 1950, 59(236): 433–460. Hodges A. Beyond Turing’s Machines . Science, 2012, 336(6078): 163–164. Nature最近出了一个专题，介绍Turing的贡献和影响 。 Turing at 100: Legacy of a universal mind TuringHub.com - take a Turing Test . . http://www.turinghub.com/. 一个图灵测试的网站，有兴趣的可以试试 Creating the Impossible ! 工业光魔的传说
李超勇博友在《 想象力是有限的，人脑可能根本不能认识mind！ 》中回复： 尝试一下：用可列无穷多个点，看能不能填满一个线段？ 很受启发，我原来认为脑的状态是有限的，实际上是用现在的计算机来类比，把脑的状态离散化了。按照彭罗斯的说法，现实的物体很多是不可计算的，不能把脑用现在的计算机来类比或者仿真。在有限范围的相空间中，实际的脑的状态可能是无限的。这里提到了有限中的无限，需要仔细解释一下。在一个有限空间范围内，比如一个圆内部，面积是有限的，但里面的点，可以有的坐标位置是无限的。 在宇宙天体学（cosmology）里，普遍地认为我们所处的空间是有限无界的，而且目前空间仍然在不断膨胀扩大，各个星系间互相远离。通常用一个气球来解释，用气球表面表示现有的三维空间，气球二维表面积是有限的，现有的三维空间也是有限的。各个星球是气球上的点。把气球吹大，表面不断膨胀，表面积是不断增大的，上面的点之间的距离也自然不断增大。而整个气球表面是没有明确的边界的，这就是有限无界。宇宙空间就是这样的，小时候经常想太阳的外面、银河的外面，外面的外面又是什么，用有限无界就可以解释了。mind状态所处的相空间，也可以看做是有限无界的，所以整个空间还是有限的，人的想象力虽然可能有无限的状态，但所能想象之“物”，触角所能延伸的范围仍然可能是有限的。所以，思想没多远。 另外，还有个有趣的东西，分形（Fractal），也是有限中蕴含无限。最开始是测量英国海岸线长度发现的，用不同尺子去量，得到的长度是不一样的！尺子无限小，长度就会无限大！而英国是在地球上的，范围是有限的。另外，分形描述了自然界的一些复杂物体，可能只遵循简单的规律，就可以演化出来。典型的就是Mandelbrot set，在一定的面积下，可以有无限复杂的形态。你可以无限放大，里面总是有特异性的结构！ Mandelbrot set，是我用Qt的例子程序生成的。 -------------------- 今天的Nature出了一篇文章，和我的看法不谋而合！认为人的认知能力是有限的，那些我们不知道不知道的东西，才是最急迫需要开拓的。我们应该focus到寻找问题上。下面这段话太经典了： “There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know,” Shermer, Michael. “Philosophy: What We Don’t Know.” Nature 484, no. 7395 (April 25, 2012): 446–447. ------------------------ 参考资料： 1. Stephen Hawking,The Grand Design,Bantam, 2011 2. Barry Masters, Physics and Biology: Fractals and the Human Retinal Blood Vessels, oral presentation, 2012 3.罗杰 彭罗斯 （许明贤 吴忠超 ），皇帝新脑，湖南科学技术出版社，2010（第二版） 4. BBC系列：神秘的混沌理论 这个视频给了很多例子，试图揭示分形的深层次含义，暗示了，光怪陆离、形态各异的花姿世界，包括人等形形色色的生命，可能都只遵循简单的规则，就可以演化出来了。
YC, James Taylor 心中的卡罗来纳及其他 刚才拜读了蒋科学博主多少有点儿“挂萝卜头卖豆腐”（呵呵，这里打死都不敢提羊和狗 ）的新博文 《深情懷念 YC 同志：北卡那深沉的情感與熾熱的理智》 ，得到三点指示： 1 。“ 北卡早已因為北卡最大的托—— YC 同志而成為科學網友心目中曖昧度最高的所在。” 2 。“ 俺们介绍任何与北卡有关的人和事，都必须要借 YC 的大名。” 3 。以后谁敢拿 YC 来写博文的都是脸皮厚的！ 俺这里就只好厚着脸皮说一说，唉，说来惭愧，开始读 YC 的文章以前，别人每说起北卡我想得更多的其实是他们顶呱呱的大学篮球队啦（比如 UNC 北卡大学 Chapel Hill 分校篮球队就是球王乔丹的发迹地呢）。七年前还去过一次北卡并参观了那里的杜克大学。可能那时给圣地亚哥的阳光和海滩宠坏了，只觉得环境和气候似乎一般，而且似乎去哪儿都要转机再转机。不过虽然对北卡没有太多印象，像在 YC 的其中一篇文章的评论里我提到的，我对一首和北卡密切相关的歌倒有着很深的印象。这首歌就是 James Taylor 的《 我心中的卡罗来纳》 （ Carolina in my mind ）。 才华横溢的欧美歌坛常青树 James Taylor 幼年跟随父母从波士顿移居到北卡的 Chapel Hill 附近，也有着深厚的北卡情结。在他的眼里： "Chapel Hill, the Piedmont, the outlying hills, were tranquil, rural, beautiful, but quiet . Thinking of the red soil, the seasons, the way things smelled down there, I feel as though my experience of coming of age there was more a matter of landscape and climate than people." 《 我心中的卡罗来纳》写于 1968 年。当年的 James Taylor 想在欧洲开始自己的歌唱事业。为此他游历了好几个国家，居无定所,后来在不同的场合都提到那时很想北卡的家，优美动人的《 我心中的卡罗来纳》可谓彼时心境的最佳写照。下面的是早期的一个版本： http://player.youku.com/player.php/sid/XMTczNjg2ODA=/v.swf 说点其他 。刚收到岗位调动的正式信件，万事开头难，这段时间得集中精神开展新工作。嗬嗬，不暧昧，不谈休博，忙完了一定再回来春花秋月何时了 Cheers. (照片来自网络，仅供参考）
Why Be Rational? Niko Kolodny + Author Affiliations 313 Emerson Hall, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA kolodny@fas.harvard.edu Abstract Normativity involves two kinds of relation . On the one hand, there is the relation of being a reason for . This is a relation between a fact and an attitude . On the other hand, there are relations specified by requirements of rationality . These are relations among a person's attitudes , viewed in abstraction from the reasons for them. I ask how the normativity of rationality —the sense in which we ‘ought’ to comply with requirements of rationality—is related to the normativity of reasons—the sense in which we ‘ought’ to have the attitudes what we have conclusive reason to have. The normativity of rationality is not straightforwardly that of reasons, I argue; there are no reasons to comply with rational requirements in general. First, this would lead to ‘bootstrapping’ , because, contrary to the claims of John Broome, not all rational requirements have ‘wide scope’. Second, it is unclear what such reasons to be rational might be. Finally, we typically do not , and in many cases could not, treat rational requirements as reasons. Instead, I suggest , rationality is only apparently normative, and the normativity that it appears to have is that of reasons. According to this ‘Transparency Account’, rational requirements govern our responses to our beliefs about reasons. The normative ‘pressure’ that we feel, when rational requirements apply to us, derives from these beliefs: from the reasons that, as it seems to us, we have. Kolodny 2005 http://mind.oxfordjournals.org/content/114/455/509.abstract Oxford Journals Humanities Mind Volume 114, Issue 455 Pp. 509-563. Recent Work on Normativity Analysis ( 2010 ) 70 ( 2 ): 331 - 346 Full Text (HTML) Full Text (PDF) Select this article Discussion : Niko Kolodny Reply to Bridges Mind ( April 2009 ) 118 ( 470 ): 369 - 376 doi: 10.1093/mind/fzp059 Abstract Full Text (PDF) Select this article Discussion : Niko Kolodny State or Process Requirements? Mind ( April 2007 ) 116 ( 462 ): 371 - 385 doi: 10.1093/mind/fzm371 Abstract Full Text (PDF) Book Review : Niko Kolodny Review: Reason and Value: Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz Mind ( April 2006 ) 115 ( 458 ): 498 - 502 doi: 10.1093/mind/fzl498 Full Text (PDF) Select this article Article : Niko Kolodny Why Be Rational? Mind ( July 2005 ) 114 ( 455 ): 509 - 563 doi: 10.1093/mind/fzi509 Abstract Full Text (PDF) Philosophy 108 Spring 2008 Number Title Instructor Days/time Room 108 Contemporary Ethical Issues Kolodny TuTh 9:30-11 102 Wurster As a thoughtful person , living in this country, at this time, you have at some point asked yourself some of the following questions. Should torture be allowed? Is there any difference between terrorism and “collateral damage”? May we kill enemy soldiers or even civilians to protect ourselves? Is capital punishment moral? Is abortion? Whether or not it’s moral, should it be legal? Should we let the majority or the courts decide? Is the government allowed to take your money and use it in ways you don’t want? If you have better grades and higher test scores, do you deserve a spot at UC more? Are you allowed to buy yourself an iPod when you could use the money to save people from starving? Should you buy a hybrid, rather than an SUV, when your individual choice is just “a drop in the bucket” and won’t really affect global warming? These questions can be difficult for many different reasons. Self- interest, prejudice, and fear can cloud our judgment. Religious authorities that we accept on faith, such as the Bible, can give unclear or conflicting directions. Finally, it can be hard to be sure of relevant facts: for example, whether information gained through torture tends to be reliable, whether the justice system applies the death penalty consistently, or whether burning fossil fuels leads to climate change. This course, however, is about another set of difficulties , which persist when we set aside our personal feelings, we see how far we can get without relying on faith, and we assume that we know the relevant facts. We may not be able to decide , by our own reflection and reasoning, which answers are correct, and even when we are sure that certain answers are correct, we may not be able to justify them. Our ethical ideas may seem not up to the task. Our aim in this course is to come to terms with these difficulties and to see to what extent they can be overcome. http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/courses/detail/271 Philosophy 104 Fall 2010 Number Title Instructor Days/time Room 104 Ethical Theories Kolodny MWF 10-11 105 Northgate This course will survey major treatments of the foundational questions of moral philosophy. We will discuss the work of some or all of the following philosophers: Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Sidgwick , Moore, Scanlon and Korsgaard . http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/courses/detail/468 Philosophy 2 Spring 2011 Number Title Instructor Days/time Room 2 Individual Morality Social Justice Kolodny TuTh 8-9:30 160 Kroeber We will survey the basic questions of moral and political philosophy, as well as some classic attempts to answer them . We will ask, among other things: What is the morally right thing for me to do? Why should I do it? Is there a fact of the matter what it is, or does it just depend on my feelings or upbringing? Why should I do what the government tells me to? Why should I tolerate alien moral beliefs and practices? We may read, among others : Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Bentham , Mill, and Nietzsche . http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/courses/detail/490 http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/people/detail/15 Niko Kolodny Associate Professor of Philosophy Undergraduate Advisor Office: 245 Moses Office hours: W 1-2, Th 1-2 Phone: (510) 984-3533 (Ph.D., University of California–Berkeley). His main interests are in moral and political philosophy. He is currently working on papers about partiality, rationality, promises, and Rousseau. His publications include “Why Be Rational?” ( Mind , 2005) and “Love as Valuing a Relationship” ( The Philosophical Review , 2003). http://sophos.berkeley.edu/kolodny/ I am Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, and a member of the New York Institute of Philosophy's Project on New Directions in Political Philosophy. My B.A. (1994) is from Williams, my M.A. (1996) is from Oxford, and my Ph.D. (2003) is from Berkeley. Before returning to Berkeley as Assistant Professor in 2005, I was Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University and Research Associate at the Research School of Social Sciences of the Australian National University. My main interests lie in moral and political philosophy. The wet burritos in the picture are Colette and Eddie Kolodny. My wife, Jessica Cross, is behind the camera. Here's a Bloggingheads diavlog between Simon Keller (Victoria University of Wellington) and me. CV: html / pdf My hobbies . Selected Abstracts Abstract 1 Discussion : Niko Kolodny Reply to Bridges Mind ( April 2009 ) 118 ( 470 ): 369 - 376 doi: 10.1093/mind/fzp059 Abstract Full Text (PDF) Abstract 2 Discussion : Niko Kolodny State or Process Requirements? Mind ( April 2007 ) 116 ( 462 ): 371 - 385 doi: 10.1093/mind/fzm371 Abstract Full Text (PDF) Abstract 1 of 2 Discussion Reply to Bridges Bridges (2009) argues that the ‘Transparency Account’ (TA) of Kolodny 2005 has a hidden flaw. The TA does not, after all, account for the fact that (1) in our ordinary, engaged thought and talk about rationality; we believe that, when it would be irrational of one of us to refuse to A , he has, because of this, conclusive reason to A . My reply is that this was the point. For reasons given in Kolodny 2005, (1) is false. The aim of the TA is to o.er an interpretation of our engaged thought and talk that is compatible with the falsity of (1) and that helps to explain why, when reflecting on our thought and talk, we are so prone to misrepresent what it involves. After making these points, I consider alternative senses in which rationality might be, or be taken by us to be, ‘normative’ and conclude that these alternatives have little bearing on the TA. Kolodny 2009 Full Text (PDF) Abstract 2 of 2 Discussion State or Process Requirements? In his ‘Wide or Narrow Scope?’, John Broome questions my contention in ‘Why Be Rational?’ that certain rational requirements are narrow scope. The source of our disagreement, I suspect, is that Broome believes that the relevant rational requirements govern states, whereas I believe that they govern processes. If they govern states, then the debate over scope is sterile. The difference between narrow - and wide -scope state requirements is only as important as the difference between not violating a requirement and satisfying one. Broome's observations about conflicting narrow-scope state requirements only corroborate this. Why, then, have we thought that there was an important difference? Perhaps, I conjecture , because there is an important difference between narrow- and wide-scope process requirements, and we have implicitly taken process requirements as our topic. I clarify and try to defend my argument that some process requirements are narrow scope, so that if there were reasons to conform to rational requirements, there would be implausible bootstrapping. I then reformulate Broome's observations about conflicting narrow-scope state requirements as an argument against narrow-scope process requirements, and suggest a reply. Kolodny 2007 Full Text (PDF)
States of Mind ... Every individual has to consider his or her own criteria for selecting a list of the worst or best states to retire, he said. The best way to start your individual list of best or worst states is to rank, or at least think about, your most important criteria. In his study, Brady focused mostly on fiscal health, taxation and climate. But according to Brady, the full list of factors to consider when searching for a state in which to retire includes: taxes; climate and topography; crime; fiscal health of the state; recreation; transportation; health care; cost of living, including housing; education, including college; cultural resources; susceptibility to natural disasters; proximity to friends and family; and fitting in socially, politically and religiously. And of those, taxes might be the most important. Retirees are affected in different ways by taxes, he said. For instance, the taxation of pensions and Social Security might be better or worse in different states. Ditto, sales taxes. Property taxes can vary widely, as well. For instance, Brady said, property tax can be one of the biggest bills for retirees and it's a category of taxation that's not progressive. You might not have any income, but you will still get taxed on the full value of your house, he said. Of note, some states do have programs to help seniors control their property taxes. Inheritance and estate taxes are also to be considered, though he said such taxes might be viewed as the tax tail wagging the state-of-residence dog. Choosing the best state in which to retire depends on many individual factors, and in truth, said Brady, For any two people, the 10-worst-states-for-retirees list might be a good list for one person, but not for . You can read the whole article, The 10 Worst States for Retirees by Robert Powell, MarketWatch Sunday, December 19, 2010. Blogger: I hope some day people in China will also have the means to plan their retirement in order to enjoy their golden years.
When the Mind Wanders, Happiness Also Strays By JOHN TIERNEY Published: November 15, 2010, Nytimes.com Related More Findings Columns The Lede Blog: Britain to Measure Happiness (November 15, 2010) A quick experiment. Before proceeding to the next paragraph, let your mind wander wherever it wants to go. Close your eyes for a few seconds, starting ... now. And now, welcome back for the hypothesis of our experiment: Wherever your mind went the South Seas, your job, your lunch, your unpaid bills that daydreaming is not likely to make you as happy as focusing intensely on the rest of this column will. Im not sure I believe this prediction, but I can assure you it is based on an enormous amount of daydreaming cataloged in the current issue of Science. Using an iPhone app called trackyourhappiness, psychologists at Harvard contacted people around the world at random intervals to ask how they were feeling, what they were doing and what they were thinking. The least surprising finding, based on a quarter-million responses from more than 2,200 people, was that the happiest people in the world were the ones in the midst of enjoying sex. Or at least they were enjoying it until the iPhone interrupted. The researchers are not sure how many of them stopped to pick up the phone and how many waited until afterward to respond. Nor, unfortunately, is there any way to gauge what thoughts happy, unhappy, murderous went through their partners minds when they tried to resume. When asked to rate their feelings on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being very good, the people having sex gave an average rating of 90. That was a good 15 points higher than the next-best activity, exercising, which was followed closely by conversation, listening to music, taking a walk, eating, praying and meditating, cooking, shopping, taking care of ones children and reading. Near the bottom of the list were personal grooming, commuting and working. When asked their thoughts, the people in flagrante were models of concentration: only 10 percent of the time did their thoughts stray from their endeavors. But when people were doing anything else, their minds wandered at least 30 percent of the time, and as much as 65 percent of the time (recorded during moments of personal grooming, clearly a less than scintillating enterprise). On average throughout all the quarter-million responses, minds were wandering 47 percent of the time. That figure surprised the researchers, Matthew Killingsworth and Daniel Gilbert. I find it kind of weird now to look down a crowded street and realize that half the people arent really there, Dr. Gilbert says. You might suppose that if peoples minds wander while theyre having fun, then those stray thoughts are liable to be about something pleasant and that was indeed the case with those happy campers having sex. But for the other 99.5 percent of the people, there was no correlation between the joy of the activity and the pleasantness of their thoughts. Even if youre doing something thats really enjoyable, Mr. Killingsworth says, that doesnt seem to protect against negative thoughts. The rate of mind-wandering is lower for more enjoyable activities, but when people wander they are just as likely to wander toward negative thoughts. Whatever people were doing, whether it was having sex or reading or shopping, they tended to be happier if they focused on the activity instead of thinking about something else. In fact, whether and where their minds wandered was a better predictor of happiness than what they were doing. If you ask people to imagine winning the lottery, Dr. Gilbert says, they typically talk about the things they would do Id go to Italy, Id buy a boat, Id lay on the beach and they rarely mention the things they would think. But our data suggest that the location of the body is much less important than the location of the mind, and that the former has surprisingly little influence on the latter. The heart goes where the head takes it, and neither cares much about the whereabouts of the feet. Still, even if people are less happy when their minds wander, which causes which? Could the mind-wandering be a consequence rather than a cause of unhappiness? To investigate cause and effect, the Harvard psychologists compared each persons moods and thoughts as the day went on. They found that if someones mind wandered at, say, 10 in the morning, then at 10:15 that person was likely to be less happy than at 10 , perhaps because of those stray thoughts. But if people were in a bad mood at 10, they werent more likely to be worrying or daydreaming at 10:15. We see evidence for mind-wandering causing unhappiness, but no evidence for unhappiness causing mind-wandering, Mr. Killingsworth says. This result may disappoint daydreamers, but its in keeping with the religious and philosophical admonitions to Be Here Now, as the yogi Ram Dass titled his 1971 book. The phrase later became the title of a George Harrison song warning that a mind that likes to wander round the corner is an unwise mind. What psychologists call flow immersing your mind fully in activity has long been advocated by nonpsychologists. Life is not long, Samuel Johnson said, and too much of it must not pass in idle deliberation how it shall be spent. Henry Ford was more blunt: Idleness warps the mind. The iPhone results jibe nicely with one of the favorite sayings of William F. Buckley Jr.: Industry is the enemy of melancholy. Alternatively, you could interpret the iPhone data as support for the philosophical dictum of Bobby McFerrin: Dont worry, be happy. The unhappiness produced by mind-wandering was largely a result of the episodes involving unpleasant topics. Such stray thoughts made people more miserable than commuting or working or any other activity. But the people having stray thoughts on neutral topics ranked only a little below the overall average in happiness. And the ones daydreaming about pleasant topics were actually a bit above the average, although not quite as happy as the people whose minds were not wandering. There are times, of course, when unpleasant thoughts are the most useful thoughts. Happiness in the moment is not the only reason to do something, says Jonathan Schooler, a psychologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His research has shown that mind-wandering can lead people to creative solutions of problems, which could make them happier in the long term. Over the several months of the iPhone study, though, the more frequent mind-wanderers remained less happy than the rest, and the moral at least for the short-term seems to be: you stray, you pay. So if youve been able to stay focused to the end of this column, perhaps youre happier than when you daydreamed at the beginning. If not, you can go back to daydreaming starting...now. Or you could try focusing on something else that is now, at long last, scientifically guaranteed to improve your mood. Just make sure you turn the phone off. A version of this article appeared in print on November 16, 2010, on page D1 of the New York edition.
This book, published in 1978 by Harvester Press and Humanities Press, has been out of print for many years, and is now online. This online version was produced from a scanned in copy of the original, digitised by OCR software and made available in September 2001. Since then a number of notes and corrections have been added. 页面地址
标签: mind
![[转载]The Mind Inside Our Skull](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201207/20/09261125aytp1jyvaptnx0.gif.thumb.jpg)
