0:00 So now we're going to shift to some new terrain. We're going to move from ancient Buddhist thought to modern psychology. And by modern psychology I mean psychology starting roughly in the second half of the 20th century. But we're going to stay focused on something we were looking at in the context of Buddhist thought, which is what to make of this thing that we call the self, what if anything it is. And we're going to see some experimental evidence that the thing we think of as the self the, the conscious me, the thing I think of as running the show, may not be running as much of the show as we think it is. We may be attributing more power to it than it really deserves. Now, in a way, this idea goes back to pre-modern psychology. Because of course, Sigmund Freud became famous for saying that,

现在我们将要转移到一些新的领域。我们将要从古老的佛教思想转移到现代心理学。我说的现代心理学，是指大约在20世纪下半叶开始的心理学，但是我们将要停止在专注于一些我们在佛教思想的背景里看到的东西，就是组成我们称为自我的东西，任何它是的东西。我们将要看到一些实验证据，我们认为自我是什么的东西的证据，那个有意识的我，那个主持这个节目的我，可能并没有像我们认为的那样主持这个节目。我可能贡献更多的力量在它上面，比它实际应得的。现在，总而言之，这个观点，回到前现代心理学，因为当然，Sigmund Freud变得出名，因为说那个。

terrain：地形;地势;地带

you know, that, our behavior is actually controlled to a considerable extent by all these unconscious forces, and the conscious mind isn't as in charge as we think it is. So broadly speaking, you could say that the experimental evidence we're about to see is an affirmation of a Freudian world view, but I want to emphasize broadly speaking, because when you look at specific ideas that Freud came up with about how exactly the unconscious mind influences. The, the conscious mind in behavior and, and what the dynamics of that are. Some of those ideas don't look very good in light of modern thought. And also, though Freud was very skeptical about the power of the self, some psychologists today would say he really wasn't quite skeptical enough. Freud had basically, a three part model of the mind. There was the id, which harbors these dark animal impulses.

你知道，那个，我们的行为实际上在相当大程度上被所有这些无意识的力量。有意识的思想不是我们想的那样有掌控力。所以广泛地说，你可以说，实验证据，我们将要看到的，是一个Freudian世界观的证实，但是我想要强调，广义地说，因为当你看这些具体的观点，Freudian 提出的无意识的思想影响怎样确切地。有意识的思想，在行为，和它们的动态。这些观点的有些从现代心理学的角度看起来并不好。同样，尽管Freud非常怀疑自我的力量，一些心理学家今天将要说他真的不是非常足够的怀疑。Fredud基本上，有一个思想的三部分模型。这是自我，庇护这些黑暗的动物冲动。

affirm：断言；申明；坚持声称；证实；确认 came up with：想出来，提出 harbor：海港；庇护

1:43 There was what he called the super ego which corresponds more or less to the conscious, and then in the middle of things was the ego, the self. And it's true that he emphasized that the self isn't as in charge as it thinks it is. But he did put it right there in the middle. And he did attribute some autonomy to it. Some independent power to it. And there, there are psychologists who especially in light of some of the experiments we're going to look at. Would say that even that model gives kind of, too much credit to the self. And some of these psychologists are working on a model of, of the mind which we will come to which really has no place for the self at all. Okay, now in the, kind of modern history of doubt about the power of the self, there is one set of experiment that really are kind of the landmark and these are known as the split-brain experiments. You may well have heard of them, especially if you've taken an introductory psychology course, they've gotten a certain amount of publicity, and they're certainly very memorable, because in a way, they have some very strange results.

有他称为超我的东西，多少负责意识，在这些东西中间是自我。这是真的，他强调，自我不是像我们想的那样有控制力。但是他把它放在中间那里。他确实贡献了一些自治权给它。一些独立的力量给它。有心理学家，特别根据一些实验，我们将要看的。将说，即使那个模型，给了某种，太多的信任给自我。这些心理学家的有些人在研究一个模型，思想的模型，我们的将要到达的东西，真的完全没有自我的位置。好的，现在，在现代心理学的某种怀疑，关于自我力量的怀疑中，有一组实验，真的有点儿有重大意义，这些被称为裂脑实验。你可能已经听说过它们，特别是你已经接受过心理学导论的课程，他们得到了一定程度的宣传，他们当然令人记忆深刻，因为在某种程度上，他们有些非常奇怪的结果。

autonomy：自治，自治权 credit：信任，归功于 working on：致力于，在研究 come to：苏醒，到达 landmark：里程碑，有重大意义或影响的 known as：被称为 they've gotten a certain amount of publicity：他们得到了一定程度的宣传 in a way：在某种程度上，在某点上

2:48 Now these experiments involve people whose hemispheres the, the two halves of their brains had been disconnected. Most of us have something called the corpus callosum, a bundle of fibers that connects the two halfs, halves of the brain, but these people had, had their's surgically severed in most cases to control seizures, and when, when this procedure was first done, you know, it seemed kind of miraculous because it didn't seem to have much effect on behavior, aside from controlling the seizures, which is kind of surprising. You'd think that something connecting the two halves of the brain, is this really important thing. Who knows what'll happen if it gets cut. Well, not much noticeable happened. But then in the 1960's, some researchers, in particular, Michael Gazzaniga came up with a kind of experimental apparatus that got split-brain patients to behave in some pretty

现在这些实验包括了这样的人，半脑，他们大脑的两半被分开了。我们中大多数有些称为胼胝体，一束纤维束，连接了两个半脑。但是这些人有他们的手术切断在大多数案例里，去控制发作，当这个过程第一次做时，你知道，它看起来有点儿神奇，因为它对行为似乎并没有很多影响，除了控制发作，有点令人惊奇。你会想，有些东西连接了大脑的两半，这是真的重要的事情。谁知道，什么会发生，如果它被剪断了。好吧，没多少值得注意的事情发生。但是在1960年代，一些研究者，特别是，Micheal Gazzaniga想出了一种实验，apparatus 让裂脑病人表现得非常奇怪。

corpus callosum：胼胝体 surgically severed：手术切断 seizure：(尤指心脏病或脑部疾病的)突然发作，侵袭；(对权力、土地的)夺取;(突然的)占领，控制；(对非法物品的)起获，查封；(因欠款未还而采取的)没收，充公 miraculous：神奇 aside from：除了 apparatus：机构；组织； 器械;器具;仪器;设备

strange ways. Now, to understand what he did you have to understand first of all that the way the brain works, information in the left half of the visual field, enters the right hemisphere and information on the right half of the visual field enters the left hemisphere. I don't know why natural selection did it that way. I don't think I would have, but that's the way we're set up. So, it's possible, if the two halves aren't connected, as in these patients To put information in one side of the brain that just stays there and doesn't go to the other side. So, for example, one kind of thing they did is they would flash a word like nut in the left half of the visual field, which means it entered the right half of the visual field of the hemisphere, the right hemisphere. And the way they could tell that it didn't get to the left hemisphere is they would say to the patient, what word do you see.

现在，去理解他做的事情，你必须首先理解，大脑工作的方式。左半视觉区域信息，进入右半脑；右半视觉区域的信息，进入左半脑。我不知道为什么自然选择要这样做。我不认为我将会知道，但是那就是我们被建立的方式。所以，它是可能的，如果两半没有连接，在这些病人中，放些信息在大脑的一边，就放在那里，不到另一边。所以，例如，他们做的一种事情是，他们将会闪现一个单词，比如nut，在左半视觉区域，那意味着它进入了大脑半球的右半视觉区域。右半脑。他们能分辨的方式，分辨出它没有进入左半脑，是他们将会对病人说，你看到了什么单词。

nut：坚果，坚果仁 hemisphere：大脑半球

4:38 And the patient would say, I don't see a word. Now, here's the explanation for that. In most people, it's the left hemisphere that houses the language faculties, so that's the half of the brain that does the talking. So that's the half of the brain that was reporting that it saw nothing.

病人将会说，我没看到单词。现在，这是解释。大多数人，左脑，管理语言官能，所以那是那个半脑做了说话的动作。所以那是那个半脑报告说他什么都没看到。

faculties：能力，官能，全体教员

4:58 But, they had a way of determining that the word nut had made it into the right hemisphere, because the right hemisphere controls the left hand, just as the left hemisphere controls the right hand, and they found that if they let the patient rummage through a box of objects, the left hand would cease upon a nut. Okay, even though you ask the patient. What word do you see? The patient say's I don't see a word. There clearly is somewhere that the, the presence of that word registers, and then in turn motivates a behavior, the seizing of the nut. Now this is kind of strange when you think about it, because, you know, ordinarily if a word enters your brain, it enters this conscious field and, and if it influences you to do something, you think of yourself as deciding to kind of do something in response to the information. And you can share the information with the world, right, you can talk about what you've seen. In this case that's not what's going on. The, the person can't talk about the, the information and, the person seems to be not conscious, but here not conscious of the information, but here we have to be careful, because we really have no way of knowing that the right brain is not

但是，他们有一个方法决定，单词nut让它进入右半脑。因为右半脑控制着左手，就像左半脑控制着右手。他们发现，如果他们让病人通过一盒子物体翻查，左手将会在nut上停住。这显然是某个地方，单词注册了的表现，然后反过来激发了一个行为，抓住了nut。现在，这是有点奇怪，当你思考它时，因为你知道，通常如果一旦单词进入你的大脑，它进入了这个有意识的区域，如果它影响了你做什么事情，你认为自己决定了做某件事去对那个信息做反应。如果你能跟世界分享信息，对的，你能谈论你看到了什么，那个人看起来没有意识到，但是没有意识到信息，但是我们必须小心，因为我们真的没有办法知道，右脑自己没有意识。

rummage：翻查，搜出

itself conscious. We know that the conscious left half of the brain didn't see the word, but there is no way for that half of the brain to know whether the right brain is actually experiencing things subjectively and the right brain can't say, so we don't really know and it's funny. People have different intuitions about this. Some people tend to say, well of course it's conscious, the right, the right brain is going to be conscious. So it was conscious before they cut the brain in half, right? So naturally there's going to be some consciousness there. Other people find it weird, almost creepy, to think that you know, if you're identifying with the left half of the brain. You're the thing that does the talking as usual, to think that there's somewhere in your body, some conscious being that you can't communicate with, inhabiting the same body, that's, that strikes some people as very strange and very paradoxical. Okay, there was a second finding from these split-brain experiments that, that adds a, a kind of, a second dimension of strangeness. If you flash an instruction on the left visual field, so it enters the right brain, like it's, you say walk, the person will follow it, the person will get up and walk. And then if you ask the person, where are you going?

我们知道有意识的左半脑没有看到单词，但是那个半脑没有办法知道右脑是否真的主观经历了这些东西，右脑不能说话，所以我们不能真的知道，它很有趣。关于这个人们有不同的直觉。一些人倾向于说，当然它是有意识的，右脑，将会有意识。所以它是有意识的，在他们把脑分成两半之前，对吗？所以自然的说，有一些意识在哪里。另一些人发现它很奇怪，几乎毛骨悚然，去思考，你知道，如果你认同左脑。你是那个东西，像平常样做说话动作的，去想，有些地方，在你的身体里，有些有意识的，你不能连接到，居住于同样的身体，那是，那打击了一些人，因为非常奇怪，非常矛盾。好吧，有第二点发现，从这些裂脑实验中。加了一种，第二个纬度的奇怪的东西。如果你闪过一个指示，在左边视觉区域，所以它进入了右脑，像这个，你说走路，那个人将会跟随指示，那个人会起来走路。然后，你问这个人，你要去哪里？

intuition：直觉 creepy：令人紧张不安的;令人毛骨悚然的 inhabiting：居住于;栖居在

7:29 Remember the answer is going to come from the left brain, which doesn't know the correct answer as to why it got up and started walking.

记住答案将来自左脑，它不知道正确答案，关于为什么起来和开始走路。

7:37 And the left brain tends to come up with an answer. The, the person will say something like oh, I'm going to get a soda, and apparently, we'll believe it. That is, the left brain will believe the story even though it was fabricated on the spot.

左脑倾向于想出一个答案。那人将会说，噢，我将要去拿一个苏打，显然，我们相信它。那是左脑将相信的故事，尽管它在那点上捏造了。

fabricated：编造;捏造

7:52 And that's kind of strange when you think about it. Then there was a third finding that is a little more complicated than, than these, these first two. This involves kind of both halves of the brain at the same time and, and both hands. So what they did was, they presented to the left hemisphere the image of a chicken claw.

那有些奇怪，当你思考它时。这有第三个发现，有一点复杂，比前面的两个。这包含了，两个半脑，同时，两只手。他们做的事情是，他们呈现给左半脑鸡爪的图像，

8:15 And the right hemisphere saw a picture of a kind of a wintry scene with a lot of snow.

右半脑看见一个图片，是冬天的风景，有很多雪。

wintry：冬天

8:21 And then they let both hands choose from among a number of pictures.

然后他们让两只手选，从一堆照片里。

8:28 And the hand associated with the left hemisphere, which had seen the chicken claw, chose a chicken obviously, you know reasonably enough, and the hand associated with the right hemisphere, which had seen the winter scene, the snowy scene, chose a snow, a snow shovel, which also makes sense. And then they asked the person, okay, why did you make these choices? And remember the answer's coming from the left brain. And, and the person ,first says, well the chicken claw goes with the chicken, and, that's you know, the left brain knew both of those things, knew about the chicken and the chicken claw. And then the person looks down at his hands, and see's that one of the hands unbeknown to the left hemisphere has chosen a shovel and says, well, you need a shovel to clean out the chicken shed. So the person came up with this, with this story that makes sense. You know, it's coherent it's, it's just

与左半脑相关的手，看到鸡爪的手，选了一个小鸡，显然，你知道很合理；与右脑相关的手，那个看见冬天风景，雪景的右脑，选了一个雪铲，同样也说得通。然后他们问这个人，好的，为什么你做这些选择。记住，答案来自左脑，那个人，开始说，鸡爪跟小鸡相关。然后那人看下他的双手，看见一只手，左脑不知道的那只手，选择了雪铲，说，好吧，你需要一个雪铲，清理鸡棚。所以这个人想出来这个，这个故事说得通。你知道，它是连贯的，它只是不是真的。

came up with：想出来 coherent：一致的;连贯的；清楚明白的;有条理的

not true. Okay, so what's the main take away from that set of experiments? I would say, two basic things. First of all those experiments suggest but don't prove by any means that the conscious self is capable of greatly over estimating the amount influence it's exerting on behavior. Secondly, the experiments suggest, but again don't prove, that the conscious self can promulgate and apparently believe wildly untrue stories about the actual motivation of the person. Now, the reason I say suggest, but not prove, is that, remember, these were not anatomically normal, so we're not really seeing the conscious self work as it's normally wired. The findings are certainly very suggestive, but it's hard to conclude much with confidence about the self as it normally exists. The most we can say is, is that this left hemisphere which some people do think is the seed of consciousness and does seem to be the seed of language at least in, in most people.

好吧，这系列实验主要说明了什么？我将要说，两个基本的东西，首先，那些实验暗示了，但是没有证明，以任何方式，是意识自我是能够相当过分评估影响的数量，它施加在行为上的影响。第二，实验暗示了，但是再次没有证明，意识自我能够传播和明显相信不真实的故事，关于那个人的真实动机。现在，我说暗示的原因，不是证明，的原因是，记住，这不是解剖学上的正常。所以我们不是真的看到意识自我工作，像它平常那样连接着的。这些发现当然非常有启发性，但是它难以下很自信的结论，关于自我，像平时存在的自我。我们最多能说的是，是这左半脑，有些人认为是意识的种子，也确实看起来至少在大多数人中是语言的种子。

promulgate：散布；传播；颁布；公布 apparently believe wildly：显然相信 anatomically：在解剖学上 wired：连接着的（自译） suggestive：使人想起…的;引起联想的;暗示的

10:32 that, that is capable of these kinds of, of delusions. At least when it is, when it is severed from the rest of the brain. So, how can we study anatomically normal people? Well, it's, it's a little, it's harder to come up with such exotic results, as we saw in the split-brain experiments. But psychologists have managed to establish that people are sometimes not conscious of the actual motivation of their behavior. And that they may actually kind of come up with stories about the actual motivation when they don't know the real motivation. So a kind of classic in this field is a study that was done several decades ago by Richard Nisbett and Timothy Wilson. It involved pantyhose, four pair of pantyhose that were arrayed in front of people for them to examine the way a shopper would examine pantyhose, and one thing they found is that people had a strong tendency to choose, when asked which was their favorite pair of pantyhose to choose the pair on the far right. For whatever reason, people tend to do that in that kind of set up.

那是，有能力这些错觉（华佼注：不通。）至少，当它是，当它从大脑剩下的部分被服务时。所以我们怎么能在解剖学上的正常人？好吧，它是有点儿，难以想出这样奇异的结果，像我们在裂脑实验里看到的那样。但是心理学家已经成功地证明，人们有时候对他们实际的动机没有意识。他们可能实际有点编故事，关于实际动机，当他们不知道实际动机时。所以一种经典，在这个领域的经典，是一个研究，在几十年前做的，Richard Nisbett和Timothy Wilson做的。它包含了连裤袜，四对连裤袜，被排列到人们面前，为他们，来检查那个方式，一个购物者将检查连裤袜的方式。他们发现的一件事是，人们有强的选择倾向，但被问到，哪种是他们的最爱的连裤袜对，来选择在最右边的那对。不管出于什么原因，人们倾向于那样做，在那种安排里。

delusion：错觉 exotic：具有异国情调的;外来的; establish：建立;创立;设立；制定；建立，开始（联系） have managed to establish that：已经成功地证明 pantyhose：（女用）尼龙连裤袜 array：排列 set up：安排

11:44 The people weren't aware that that was influencing their judgement because when they were asked, well, why did you make choice, all the people who had chosen the one on the far right didn't say, well, because it's the one on the far right. They came up with other reasons, they would talk about the texture of the pantyhose, or you know, I like the way it's slightly more opaque than the other pantyhose. But, in fact, all the panty hose were identical. They we're the same brand, same model. So, you know [UNKNOWN] subjects hadn't been told this, but clearly these people were kind of straining to come up with a reason for having done what they had done for a reason they didn't understand.

人们不会觉察到，那影响了他们的判断，因为当他们被问时，好吧，为什么你做了这个选择？所有人选择了最右边的那个不会说，好吧，因为它是最右边的那个。他们想出其他原因，他们将会谈论连裤袜的材质，或者你知道，我喜欢那个方式，它有点儿更不透明比另一个连裤袜。但是，实际上，所有的连裤袜是同样的。他们是同样的品牌，同样的模型。所以，你知道，被试没有被告知这些，但是显然这些人有点努力去想出一个理由，为他们因为一个他们并不理解的理由所做的事情。

opaque：不透明的，不透光的 straining：努力做;竭力做;费力做事

12:22 Now a lot of experimentation, has been done on unconscious motivation or motivation that we're not aware of using subliminal techniques. That is, presenting information in a way that does not enter the conscious mind, but still does influence behavior.

现在很多实验，都在无意识的动机或者我们没有觉察到使用了潜意识技术的动机。那就是呈现信息，通过一个方式，那个不会进入意识大脑的方式，但实际仍然影响行为。

subliminal：下意识的，潜意识的 mind：头脑，大脑(指思考和推理的能力)

12:44 typically, you would flash the information so briefly on a screen say, that the person is not aware of having seen it. But sometimes it does influence behavior. One study in particular that I think is worth talking about. Now, subjects were brought in, and they were told, here's a hand grip. The harder you squeeze it, the more money you're going to make. And on each trial, it will be randomly determined, whether what you earned. Whether the maximum payoff was a 便士 or a, a, pound. This is in England, okay, so it's a 便士 or a pound. A pound is of course a whole lot more than a 便士.

典型的，你将闪现一个信息，简单地在屏幕上说，人没有觉察到看到过它。但是有时候它确实影响行为。一个研究，我认为特别值得谈谈。现在，被试们被带进来了，他们被告知，有一个把手。你越用力捏它，你将挣到越多钱。在每个实验里，它将是随机地决定，你挣得什么。无论最大的酬金是一个便士或者一个英镑。这是在英国。好吧，它是一个便士或者一个英镑。一个英镑当然比一个便士多得多。

13:23 Now, as the subjects looked at the computer screen. Where they were going to see a guage of how forcefully they were, they were squeezing the grip.

现在，当被试们看着电脑屏幕，那里他们将要看到一个尺度他们是怎么强有力。他们在捏把手。

grip：把手，抱住，握力；握，抓住，抱住，钳

13:33 Before they gripped, the, the grip, a pattern appeared on the screen. It was just a, a kind of, abstract, circular pattern.

在他们抓那个把手之前，一个模式出现在屏幕上。它是一种抽象的，循环论证的模式。

circular：(论证或理论)循环论证的

13:42 For a fraction of a second, but long enough to see and then that would be replaced in the, in the same circumference by an image of a coin it would be either a 便士 or a pound and then that would be replaced again by the pattern that was initially there, so the image of the coin was sandwiched in between the two appearances of this pattern. And in some of the trials, it was done subliminally. With the, the coin was shown so briefly that there was no conscious awareness of having seen the coin.

在一秒的一小段，但是足够长看到，然后，将会被提到，在同样的周长，被一个硬币的图像，它可能是一个便士或者一个英镑，然后将会再次被最初在那里的模式替代，所以硬币的形象，是夹在这个图形两次出现的中间。在某个trials，它被subliminally做完了。硬币被如此简单的显示，没有意识知觉到看到过那个硬币。

fraction：少量;小份;一点儿 circumference：(圆、地方、圆状物的)周长

14:14 What they found in, in those cases is that even when people weren't aware of having seen the coin, when the pound was shown, the people did tend to squeeze the grip. Harder, so, first of all, there was, there was that influence. Again, evidence that, that unconsciously things we're not aware of can, can influence our motivation. But there's another interesting dimension to this study because it was a brain scan study and they were scanning a part of the brain. That's associated with motivation and emotion and they found two things first of all they found that when they did leave the coin up their long enough for it to inter consciousness so people actually aware of whether they had seen a penny or a pound then what they found in this brain region. Was that it got more active when a pound was shown than when a penny was shown. Okay, this is when they're actually conscious of, of the, of seeing the coin. And, and they did squeeze harder in the case of seeing the pound.

他们发现，在那些例子里，即使当然们不会觉知到看见了硬币，当英镑被显示，人们倾向于捏把手，捏得更紧，所以首先，有那个影响力。再次，证据，无意识的东西，我们没有觉察到的，能够影响我们的动机。但是有另一种有趣的纬度，对这个研究的，因为它是一个大脑扫描研究，他们扫描了大脑的一部分。那是跟动机和情感相关的，他们发现两件事情，首先他们发现当他们确实让硬币留下的时间足够长，让它进入意识，所以人们实际上觉察到无论他们看到过一个便士或者一个英镑，然后他们发现在这个大脑区域，是它变得更加活跃，当一个英镑被显示时，比一个便士显示时。好吧，这是当他们实际上意识到看到硬币。他们确实捏得更紧了，在看到英镑的情况下。

leave...up... 留下

15:21 What's interesting to me is they, they found the same asymmetry.

对我来说有趣的是，他们发现了同样的不对称。

asymmetry：不对称；不匀称

15:25 In the case of, of the subliminal presentation of the coin. So when people aren't aware of having seen the coin, they aren't consciously aware of it, that same brain region shows that asymmetry that is, when the pound is shown, there's more activity in that brain region than when the 便士 is shown.

在情况下，在硬币阈下呈现下。所以当人们没有觉察到看到过硬币，他们没有意识觉察到它。同样的大脑区域显示不对称，那是，当英镑被显示，在那个区域有更多的活动，比便士被显示时。

15:46 Now what this suggests, and this is just one interpretation, but it's plausible and interesting, is that maybe, you know, that the conscious perception just doesn't matter at all in a situation like this. In other words, the real motivational action is happening there in the physical brain. And the more activated this particular region gets, the harder the person is going to squeeze the grip. This region gets activated, sends a signal to squeeze the grip. And in some cases, the person becomes conscious of, of the activity in the brain, because it's that strong, or it lasts that long or whatever. And in those cases, the person may kind of, in a sense, become aware of the motivation and even own it. The person may say, and I don't know [UNKNOWN] if, you know, in this experiment, they didn't ask this question apparently, but the person could conceivably say, well you know, I felt. You know, when I saw the coin it, you know I, I, I obviously decided to squeeze harder. I felt motivated so I squeezed harder. But maybe the, the conscious experience of seeing the coin actually didn't add anything to the motivation at all. And all the action is in the, the strictly physical machine. This

现在这暗示，这只是一种解释。但是它貌似合理和有趣，是那可能，你知道，有意识的知觉，只是毫无影响，在像这样的一个情况下。换句话说，实际动机的行动发生了，在物理的大脑里。这特别区域的更多激活，让，这人将要捏把手更用力了。这个区域变得活跃，发送了一个信号，去捏把手。在某些情况下，人变得觉察到大脑的这些活动，因为它是那么强烈。或者它持续得足够长或者其他。在那些例子里，人可能有点儿，在某个意义上，变得觉察到那个动机，和拥有它。那个人可能说，我不知道，如果，你知道，在这个实验里，他们没有明显的问这个问题，但是那个人可以令人信服地说，你知道，我感觉到了。你知道，当我看到硬币，你知道，我显然决定抓得更紧。我感觉到了被激励了，所以我抓的更紧。但是可能，有意识看到硬币的实验，实际没有增加任何东西到那个动机上。所有的行动，在严格的物理机器上里。

conceivably：令人信服地；

interpretation of the findings is not one that the authors of the paper themselves put forward. The did emphasize that as they put it, consistently, the same basal forebrain region underpinned subliminal and conscious motivation. But they didn't get into the various possible interpretations of, of that really interesting fact. Now before we finish up this lecture, I want to bring up one more finding from this split-brain stuff. There's a kind of experiment you can do with people, where you show them like dozens of pictures, and the pictures tell a kind of coherent story like. Guy gets up in the morning, gets ready to go to work, goes to work, and then, you show them a second bunch of pictures including a lot of the ones you, you showed them the first time. But, also including some other ones. And you ask them, with each picture is this, was this in the original group? Did we show you this the first time around? And there's two kinds of new pictures that have been added to the series. One is pictures that, that weren't shown to the person but make sense and fit into that plot line. So it would be a different picture of the same guy getting ready to go to work or a different picture of him driving to work or something. And then, there are also pictures that don't make any sense in terms of the narrative. The guy's out playing golf. He's going to the zoo or something like that.

这个发现的这个解释，不是那个论文作者自己提出来的。这确实强调了，当他们提出它的时候，连续的，同样的基底前脑部分支撑阈下和意识的动机。但是他们没有进入对那个实际很有趣的事实的各种可能的解释。现在，在我们结束这个讲座之前，我想要带出一个更多的发现，从裂脑事情里。有一种实验，你能跟人们做的。当你显示给他们，比如几十张图片，图片说了某种连贯的故事。人们早上起来，准备好工作，去工作，然后，你显示给他们第二组图片，包括很多你第一次显示给他们的图片。但是，也包括了其他的一些。然后你问他们，每个图片，是，这个，这个在先前的那组里吗？在第一轮里我们显示了这个吗？有两种新图片，被添加到这个系列。一种是图片，没有显示过那个人，但是说得懂，适合那个情节线。所以它将是另一个不同的图片，对同样的人，准备好工作的那个人，或者一个他的不同的图片，开车去工作或者其他。然后，同样有些图片，没有任何道理，根据叙事。那个人出去打高尔夫。他将要去动物园，或者类似那样的事。

basal：基础的；基本的；基部的 underpinned：加强…的基础；巩固；支撑 coherent：一致的;连贯的；清楚明白的;有条理的 narrative：故事;叙事

18:30 Now, what happens with anatomically normal people whose, whose brain hemispheres are still connected, is they say you know, the, the, the, pictures that are obviously don't fit, they, they easily reject. You know, no, he wasn't at the zoo, no he wasn't playing golf. But, a fair number of the pictures that make narrative sense that fit into the storyline they'll say yeah, yeah, I saw that, even though they in fact didn't.

现在，什么在解剖学上发生了，人们，他们的大脑半球仍然是相连的，是他们说你知道，图片显然不合适，他们轻易地否决了。你知道，不，他不是在动物园，他不是在打高尔夫。但是，相当一部分图片，在叙事上说得通，吻合那个故事线，他们将要说，是的，我看见过那个，即使他们实际上没有见过。

anatomically：解剖的；（人体或动物体）结构上的

18:58 Now, when they do this with split-brain patients, they find that the left brain does that same thing. Does what an anatomically normal person would do. But when they, when they show these pictures to the right brain and then, and then have the, the, the right brain kind of discard pictures in the second round that weren't part of the first round, what they find is that the right brain is, you know, strictly accurate. It not only discards the pictures that obviously don't fit, it also discards the pictures that make narrative sense, but weren't part of the original series of pictures. So what this suggests is, first of all, the right brain is, is, is about literal truth and, and, and detailed orientation, it sees in the trees but not necessarily the force whereas the left brain is more about kind of the gist of the story, the overall plot line and it may even be willing to live with a certain amount of embellishment, if the embellishment fits the story. And, that makes sense in a way because the left brain is after all responsible for telling stories to the world. It generates the language.

现在，当他们跟裂脑病人做这个时，他们发现，左脑做了同样的事。做了一个解剖学上的正常人会做的事。但是当他们，当他们把这些图片显示给右脑，然后，他们让右脑在第二轮中丢弃不会再第二轮中出现的图片，他们发现的是，右脑，你知道，严格的精确。它不仅丢弃那些显然不合适的，它也丢弃那些叙事上说得通的图片，但是不是最初的图片系列中的部分。所以这个暗示的是，首先，右脑是，关于确确实实的事实，细节导向，它在树林里看见，不必要的力量，同时左脑更有点关于那个故事的大概。总体情节线，它甚至可能在某个方式上说得通，因为左脑毕竟负责向这个世界说故事。它产生了语言。

discard：丢弃 literal： 确确实实的；完完全全的 gist：（发言、谈话或文章的）主旨，要点

It's the part of the brain that is going to say, well I saw a guy you know, he got up, he went to work, and so on, and the main thing is that you get the story line more or less right, and it's coherent. That's much more important than paying attention to every single detail as you observe the guide. The main thing is to have a story to tell that's more or less true. Okay, and so it, in that sense, it, it makes sense that the, the left brain focuses on the overall plot line. But remember, the left brain doesn't just tell stories about other people. About a guy who got up and went to work. The left brain also tells stories about ourselves to the world. It, it, it does kind of, the presentation of ourselves to the world through what it says about us. And, and what it says that implicitly reflects upon us. And you know, we've already discovered that the left brain is capable of, apparently, of buying into massive fabrications. So you know, it's worth exploring a little more, what kinds of stories in anatomically normal people, we do tell about ourselves, and how true the are, or are not.

是大脑的这个部分将说，好吧我看到一个人你知道的，他起来，他去工作，等等，主要的事情是，你多少得到故事线，对吗，它连贯。当你观察向导时，那比关注每一单个细节更重要。主要的事情是有一个多多少少有点真实的故事去讲。好吧，所以它，在那个意义上，它说得通，左脑关注于总体情节线。但是记住，左脑不只是讲关于他人的故事。关于一个人，谁起床，去工作。左脑也向世界讲述我们自己的故事。它有点，向世界展示我们自己，通过它谈论我们自己。它说的东西，间接地反映在我们身上。你知道，我们已经发现，左脑有能力，显然，相信大量的编造。所以你知道，它值得探索更多一点，哪种故事，在解剖学上的正常人，我们确实告诉我们自己，这有多真实，或者多不真实。

implicitly： 不言明的;含蓄的 reflects upon： 反映 fabrication：编造;捏造

21:32 And in the next lecture we're going to do some of that. We're going to look at our presentation of ourselves. The stories we tell about ourselves. How true are they, or aren't they.

在下一讲我们将要做一些那样的事。我们将要看看我们对自己的展示。我们讲的关于自己的故事。它们有多真实，或者多不真实。

21:45 And it's going to turn out that, that subject ties into a much large subject that we're going to spend most of the next lecture on. And that subject is this emerging theory of the mind, that I eluded to earlier. That a growing number of pyschologists are buying into. And this is a theory of mind called the Modular Theory of the Mind. And some versions of it have no place at all for the self. At least not, in anything like the way we've normally conceived of the self. So, you know, if you ask the question, well wait, if the Buddhists are right, you know, there are deeds, but there is no doer. There are thoughts, but there is no thinker then, then, how do the deeds get done, what decides what deeds get done, how do the thoughts get generated. Well, the theory we're going to talk about in the next lecture is the best candidate I'm aware of in modern psychology for answering that question. So I'll see you next time. [BLANK_AUDIO]

结果是，这个主题与一个更大的主题联系在一起，我们将要花下堂课的大部分时间讨论这个主题。那个主题是这个产生思想的理论，我早些时候避免的。越来越多的心理学家买账。这是一个思想的理论，叫做思想模块化理论。它的一些版本，完全没有自我的位置。至少不是，在像我们平常构思自我的方式任何东西里。所以你知道，如果你问那个问题，等等，如果佛教是对的，你知道，有做的事情，但是没有做事的人。有思想，但是没有思想者。然后，那些事情是怎么做成的呢？谁决定什么事情做完，思想怎么产生呢？好吧，我们将要谈论的理论，在下一讲，是最好的候选者，我所知道的，在现代心理学里，对于回到那个问题。所以下次再见。

subject：主题 it's going to turn out that,：结果是 ties into：联系

Source:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/science-of-meditation/lecture/QApA8/modern-psychology-and-the-self