0:00 Now if you were in a mood to push back against this modular view of the mind and I'm sure some of you are in a mood to push back against the modular view of the mind. One thing you could say is, okay granted, some times these these frames of mind set in and I'm not really aware of it happening. And maybe they're triggered by feelings okay that does happen and maybe sometimes I could see a movie that would affect my subsequent behavior in ways I don't even really understand.

现在如果你有一个情绪去反击这个大脑的模块化观点，我很确定，你们中的一些人会有一种情绪去反击这个大脑的模块化观点。你可以说的一件事情是，好吧假定，有时候，这些心情发生，我真的没有觉察到它的发生。也许它们被感觉触发。好吧，那确实发生，可能有时候我能看一个电影，会影响我接下来的行为，以我甚至不真的理解的方式。

push back against：反击 frames of mind：心情;心境 set in： (不好的事情)产生，开始，到来，恶化

Fine. But there's some times when I, the Chief Executive Self, I make a decision. So I may be tempted to eat chocolate, or a powdered sugar doughnut, but sometimes, I say no, I'm not going to do it. It's not in my long term interest to do it. Well, isn't that proof that the self, the chief executive self actually exists?

好吧。但是有时候，当我，首席执行自我，我做了一个决定。所以我可能试图吃巧克力，或者一个糖粉甜甜圈，但是有时候，我说不，我不会那样做。那样做不符合我的长期利益。好吧，那不是自我，首席执行自我实际存在的证据吗，吗？

0:53 Well, I may have bad news for you, I asked Rob Kerspon that question. You may remember him, he was a strong proponent of the modular view of the mind, wrote a book about it, we heard from him a couple times already. And his view is that, no, ultimately, the fact that sometimes we seem to be the ones consciously making the decision. That fact is not ultimately mean that the self exists. Here's how the exchange went when I asked him about this. Tell me what's wrong with this common way of describing a situation involving me.

好吧，我可能有坏消息给你。我问了Rob Kerspon那个问题。你可能记得他，他是一个大脑模块化观点的坚定拥护者，写了关于它的一本书，我们从他那里已经听说了很多次。他的观点是，不，最终，有时候我们看起来是那个有意识的做了决定的人，这个事实。这个事情并不最终意味着自我存在。这是交流怎样进行的，当我问他关于这个问题时。告诉我，通常描述一个包含自我的方式有什么错。

a strong proponent：一个坚定的拥护者

1:32 I really wanted to have the chocolate, and I really felt drawn to it. But, I knew that if I did it today, I would do it tomorrow, the next day, next day. Eventually, I'd gain weight and I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I ate so much chocolate, and so I decided not to eat the chocolate. So you think that's actually an inaccurate way to describe what's going on in my brain?

我真的想吃巧克力，我真的被它吸引。但是我知道如果我今天那样做，我明天也会那样做，接下来的一天，再一天，最终我长胖了，如果我吃太多巧克力，那我在晚上不能睡觉。所以我决定不要吃巧克力。所以你认为那是真的一个去描述在我的大脑正在发生什么的不精确的方式吗？

·>> Yeah, I think that from, again, from a lay standpoint it's fine to talk like that. When you're talking to your family at the dinner table, it's fine. But I think eventually psychology as a scientific enterprise, it's going to have to move on from sentences that have pronouns like that. So, those sentences are going to have to be something like, there were certain systems in your head which are designed to be motivated to eat high calorie foods.

是的，我认为那从，再次，从一个世俗的角度，那样谈论没有关系。当你跟你的家人在晚餐桌上谈话时，那没关系。但是我认为最终心理学是一个科学事业，它将不得不从像那样的句子中移开。所以，那些句子，将不得不像某些东西，像有某种系统，在你的大脑，被设计来被激发去吃高热量的食物。

lay standpoint：世俗的角度 lay：世俗的 standpoint：角度;立场;立足点 enterprise：事业 move on：(结束某活动后) 改做别事；离去;继续前进

And those systems have had certain kinds of, you can call them motives, or beliefs, or representations. And then there's other parts of your head that have motives associated with long term health. And those systems had certain beliefs about chocolate, and what's a good thing to bring about. And so those modules inhibited that behavior that was being facilitated by the short term modules. And so in that description, there's no word I in there. There's no pronouns. That are sort of covering the whole self.

那些系统，有某种，你能称为动机，或者信仰，或者代表。然后有其他部分，在你的大脑里，有跟长远健康相关的动机。那些系统对巧克力有某种信念，还有引发好东西是什么的信念。所以那些模块抑制了被短期模块促进的行为。所以在那个描述里，没有我在那里。没有代词。那是有点涵盖了整个自我。

bring about：导致；引起 inhibited：抑制，受抑制的;受约束的;拘谨的 facilitated：促进；使便利 pronouns：代词

·>> Okay, so this whole issue of conscious decision making is important because, after all, we make a lot of important decisions. We decide should I buy a car? Which car should I buy? Which college should I go to? Which job offer should I accept? And in addition, there are a lot of issues of self control, in the traditional sense, that are more consequential than the question of whether to eat some chocolate on a given day.

好吧，所以这整个的问题，关于有意识的决定，很重要，因为，毕竟我们做了很多重要的决定。我们决定，我应该买一辆车吗？我该买哪个车？我应该去哪个大学？我应该接受哪个工作？另外，有很多自我控制的问题，在传统意义上，有更重大的意义，比起在特定的一天是否吃些巧克力的问题。

consequential：重要的，意义重大的

So there's the question of whether I should have a drink even though last time I had one drink, had a bunch of drinks and would up making a fool of myself. Or should I smoke this cigarette, or should I cheat on my spouse, these are really important questions, it would be nice to know can this thing that feels like the reasonable me make decisions? Or at any rate, is there some sense in which reason can enter the equation, the process by which decisions are made.

所以有这样的问题：我是否应该喝一杯，即使上次我喝了一杯，喝了一堆，我会自欺欺人的。或者我应该抽这根烟吗，还是我应该骗我的另一半，这些是真的重要的问题。知道这个东西，感觉像理性的我，能够做决定，将会很好。或者不管怎样，哪个理由能进入方程式，即哪个决定被做出的过程，有意义吗？

drink：喝酒 I would up making a fool of myself.我会自欺欺人的。 at any rate：无论如何，至少，不管怎样 equation：等式;方程式

And is it possible that mediation can empower reason, can magnify the role of reason in these decisions. So this whole thing is worth grappling with. Now one question I asked Rob Courson is ff really, as you say, this all boils down to just kind of modules fighting it out and the more powerful module winning. Then why do we have to go through this whole ritual of listening to the reasons on both sides of whether you eat the chocolate or whether you do anything else? Is that just kind of for show or what? And he had two answers, kind of two somewhat conjectural explanations.

这可能吗？冥想能给予理由权力，能放大理性的作用，在这些决定里。所这这整个事情值得竭力解决。现在，我问Rob Courson的一个问题是，真的，像你说的，这所有的简单来说只是某种模块在搏斗，更强大的模块赢了。那么为什么我们不得不经历这整个的仪式：听双方在你是否吃巧克力或者你是否做别的事情上的理由？那只是某种作秀或者什么吗？他有两个答案，某种两个有些凭推测的解释。

empower：授权；给予…权力；给予…力量；使有能力(实现…) grappling with：尽力解决，处理，搏斗 boils down to：归结为，简单来说，说穿了 fighting it out：奋力拼搏，决一雌雄，据理力争 ritual：典礼;(宗教)仪式；风俗;习惯 conjectural：凭推测的;凭猜测的

They're both very interesting. First of all he said, well it makes sense that reason would play a role in here. It makes sense that natural selection would design the brain so that when the module that is kind of concerned with long term health or long term interest, comes up with a reason on its side of the argument. If the reason makes sense, if there's merit to it, then sure, that reason should enter the equation. So it makes sense that our brains would be designed that way.

它们都很有趣。首先他说，好吧它说得通，理由会有作用。它说得通，自然选择将设计大脑所以当模块关心长期健康或者长期利益时，提出一个理由，在它主张的那一边。如果理由说得通，如果对它有优点，那么当然，那个理由将会进入方程式。所以它说得通，我们的大脑可能以那种方式设计的。

To give some kind of credit to good reasons. Now, Rob isn't saying that it's the way it feels which is that, I am this conscious judge adjudicating. I, the chief executive self, hears out the two parties, decides which one has more reason on its side and then makes the decision. He's not saying that happens. But he is suggesting that somewhere in the system is some algorithm or something that kind of evaluates the merit of reasons.

一些归功于好理由。现在Rob不是说，它是那个方式，感觉是，我是那个有意识的判断裁决。我，首席执行自我，听两方说完，决定哪个更有理由，在它的一边，然后做决定。他不是说是那样发生的。但是他在暗示，系统的某处是有点算法，或者有些东西，在评估那些理由的优点。

hear out：听完 adjudicating：判决；裁决

5:45 And that leads to another question I have which is why is this process conscious? Why does this all have to enter consciousness? Because after all, presumably you can design a computer program that evaluates the merit of logic or something and wouldn't necessarily have to be conscious. So why is it that we have to spend all the time hearing about the pros and cons of the decision before the module with the most power winds up winning.

那引向了另一个问题，我有的，是为什么这个过程是有意识的？为什么这个都必须进入意识呢？因为毕竟，假设你能设计一个电脑程序，评估逻辑或者什么东西的优点，不一定必须有意识的。所以为什么它是我们必须花费所有时间听决定的优点与缺点，在最大力量的模块最终胜利之前。

the pros and cons：利弊得失，优点与缺点

I mean, even granted that a module's generation of a valid reason gives that module more power in Rob's scenario, why do we have to hear about the whole thing? Why don't we just let the decision-making happen and then we just hear the verdict? Well here, I think the second question or the explanation that Rob had, in response to my question enters the picture. So when I said, why does there have to be this conscious rehearsal of the pros and the cons? He said, well there's a second possible explanation of that and here's the explanation he gave.

我是指，即使假设一个模块的有效理由的产生，给了那个模块更多的力量，在Rob的剧本里。为什么我们必须听整个的事情？为什么我们不只是让决定发生，然后我们只是听结论？好吧这里，我想第二个问题或者Rob有的解释，对我的问题做反应，进入了画面。所以当我说，为什么必须是这个有意识的赞成与反对的彩排? 他说，好吧，那有第二个可能解释，这是他给的解释。

scenario： (电影的)剧情梗概；设想;可能发生的情况 verdict：（经过思考或调查后的）意见，结论；（陪审团或法官的）裁决，裁定，裁断 rehearsal：排练;彩排；预演;试演;演习;演练 pros and the cons：利与弊，赞成与反对

·>> People want to come up with reasons to justify their behavior to other people. Again, this goes back as a public relations thing. So the production of reasons inside your head, my guess is that a large part of the reason that that goes on is because if someone ever challenges you or asks you why you did x, y, or z. You want to have that in your hand. And you don't want to take actions until you have some reason ready to go, since people ask you about it.

人们想要提出理由去判断他们对其他人的行为是否正当。再次，这回到公共关系的东西。理由的产出，在你的大脑里，我的猜想是，理由的大部分，继续，因为如果有人想要挑战里，或者问题为什么你做了x，y或z。你想要有那个在手里。你会在准备好某些理由后再采取行动，因为人们会问你。

The social world pings you and says, what was the story with that? That you have something ready to go. I think this is why the marketing people are telling me that consumers need only one reason to buy a product. Is that basically, it's not that one reason dominates all the other features of the product. The price, or the quality, or whatever, the brand, who knows. But it's that as long as you have one reason, you can't look like an idiot for making the choice. You can always tell the other guy who asked you why you bought that particular microwave is well, it has the gizmo.

社交世界追问你，说，那个的故事是什么？你有些东西准备好了去说。我想这是为什么市场营销人员在告诉我，顾客只需要一个理由去买一个产品。那是，基本上，不是一个理由，支配这个产品的所有其他特性。价格，或者质量，或者什么，品牌，谁知道。但是那是，只要你有一个理由，你不能在做选择上看起来像一个傻瓜。你总能告诉别人，问你为什么买那个特别的微波炉的人，说好吧，它有gizmo。

ping：（铃或金属）发出当（或砰）的响声 dominates：在…中占首要地位，在…中最具影响力；控制;统治;支配 gizmo：小玩意儿；小装置

·>> So the idea here is one reason. We go through this rehearsal of reasons so that will be prepared to to give reasons for our behavior if we're challenged. And I imagine this is especially important if you've done something that if found out. Might meet with real social disapproval or possibly even retribution from an offended party.

所以这里的观点是，一个理由。我们检查理由的彩排，所以将会准备好当遇到挑战时为我们的行为给出理由。 我想像这特别重要，如果你做了某事，如果被发现的化。可能遇到真的社交反对或者可能甚至从被冒犯的一方的惩罚。

go through：检查 disapproval：不赞同;反对;不许可 retribution：惩罚;报应 an offended party：被冒犯的一方，party不是聚会。

So for example, if you're having an extramarital affair. Now the way you might think of this in modular terms, the decision of whether to have one would be, there's a module that seeks short term sexual gratification. Then there's a module that's concerned about your long term reputation, or is concerned about eventual retaliation. You know, and they're both coming up with reasons for their position. Well, one reason that the module advocating the affair can't come up with is the truth, which is, you know, I wanted short term sexual gratification. Right? That's not an acceptable answer in society

所以例如，如果你有一个婚外恋。现在你思考它的方式，以模块化的术语，是否有一个的决定，有一个模块，寻求短期性满足。那么有一个模块担心你长期的声望，或者担心最终报复。你知道，它们都给它们的立场提出了理由。好吧，一个理由，倡导婚外恋的那个模块不能提出的一个理由，是真相，你知道，我想要短期性满足，对吗？在社会上那不是一个可接受的答案，因为违反规范。

extramarital affair：婚外恋 eventual retaliation：最终报复 advocating：倡导 for violating a norm：违反规范

8:53 for violating a norm. You have to have a better reason. So, we come up with reasons like, if you knew how emotionally distant my spouse was you'd understand why I did it, and so on.

你不得不有一个更好的理由。所以我们提出像这样的理由，如果你知道我跟我的另一半感情多么淡漠，你将会理解我为什么这样做，等等。

9:08 And this explains why these reasons would be rehearsed consciously, right? If the purpose of the reasons is to be shared with others in the event that we have to give reasons, then it makes sense that it would be the conscious mind

这解释了为什么这些理由将会有意识的彩排，对吗？如果理由的目的是将与他人分享，在那个我们必须给出理由的事件里，那么它说得通，它将是有意识的思维：

9:26 that observes and rehearses these reasons because after all, it seems to be the conscious mind that does the communicating with other people. So the idea here is an analogy I guess would be suppose there is a corporation and instead of two contending modules you have two contending vice presidents. They have very different ideas about strategies, about what they want to do on a particular issue and so they go to the Office of the Public Relations director and they each give the reasons that they have for advocating their position.

观察和排练这些理由，因为毕竟，它看起来是有意识的大脑与其他人交流。所以这里的观点是，一个类比，我猜，将是假设有一个公司，代替两个竞争的模块，你有两个竞争的副总裁。他们有非常不同的观点，对于策略，关于他们想要做什么，在一个特别的议题上，他们去公共关系经理的办公室，他们各自为倡导各自的立场给了理由。

contending：竞争;争夺；处理;对付;解决；声称;争辩;主张

And a lot of the point of this exercise, it's not that the PR director is necessarily going to declare a winner, but rather he or she is just kind of hearing the reasons so that they'll be prepared to share the reasons with the world when when the time comes. Now on the other hand this does suggest a second way that reason could matter because after all, if the policy that one vice president is advocating is going to lead to huge blowback

这个练习的许多点，不是PR经理将必须澄清一个胜利者，而是他或她只是在听理由，所以他们将会准备好分享理由给世界，当那个时间到来时。现在，另一面，这确实暗示了第二个方式，理由有作用，因为毕竟，如果一个副总裁提议的政策将会导向到的回击

blowback：报应，反冲

10:48 and the reason the vice president is giving for it just is not going to carry the day out there with the public then that counts against the argument that the vice president is making. So you can imagine this PR director saying, no, I'm sorry, that one is just not going to fly. If you don't have a better reason than that that we can publicize after we do this, then that counts against the argument that

那个副总裁所给的理由只是不去把这一天带到外面去和公众们，然后不利于那个副总裁做的主张。所以你能想象这个PR经理说，不，对不起，那个不会飞起来。如果你没有一个更好的理由，比那个我们能公开宣传的，在我们做这个之后，然后那个与论点相反。

carry the day out there：把这一天带到外面去 counts against：罪名成立，不利于

11:21 so in theory, there could be two separate senses in which reason matters. First of all, as Rob Kurzban suggested, you know you would expect the brain to be designed that such that it pays attention when there are good reasons that it's not in your long term self interest to do something. And secondly, to the extent that the reasons you would give people to justify something controversial you've done, are not going to fly, are not going to be accepted. Then that too counts against kind of the module that is advocating that particular course of action.

所以理论上，能有两个独立的意义，在理由重要上。首先，像Rob Kurzban提议的，你知道你会期待大脑被设计成，它关注，当有好理由时，那个不在你的长期自我的利益的理由，去做某事。第二，到了这个程度：那个理由你将给人们去判断一些你做的有争议的事情是否正当，不会被接受。那么也与倡导那个特定行动方针的模块相违背。

（华佼注：这一段没懂。）

Okay, so reason can matter. But on the other hand, with certain issues of self control, in particular, true addictions, reason seems to play a less and less prominent role as time goes on. You may deliberate earnestly before you start drinking, and then later develop a drinking problem. And, as you become an alcoholic, you do, you kind of skip the deliberation issue. You just drink.

好吧，所以理由可能很重要。但是另一方面，带着自我控制的某种问题，特别是，真的上瘾，理由看起来扮演了越来越少的突出的角色，随着时间过去。你可能在你开始喝酒之前认真的考虑，那么稍后发展出酗酒问题。当你变成一个酒鬼，你确实，略过了思考的问题，你只是喝。

prominent：显著的，突出的。 deliberate：（尤指作出重大决定前）慎重考虑，仔细思考 earnestly：热切地;真诚地；强烈地 deliberation：慎重的考虑;仔细的思考

You may have a rationale, a standard rationale for doing what you do, but the time for actual reason to enter the equation kind of seems to pass. Or with any addiction, with heroin addiction or whatever. So it seems as if modules in a sense gain more power with victory. So the module that's advocating doing this thing that may lead to short term gratification. It seems to get stronger as it kind of wins victory after victory.

你可能有一个基本理论，一个标准的理论基础，为你做的某件事。但是时间，为实际的理由去进入方程式，看起来通过。或者对任何上瘾，海洛因上瘾或者什么的。所以它看起来好像模块在一个意义上，因为胜利获得了更多的力量。所以模块，提倡做这件事的模块，可能导向短期满足，它看起来变得越来越强大，当它赢得了一个又一个胜利之后。

rationale：基本理论；理论基础；合理性的根据 equation：方程式

Your grandmother may have said, be careful about succumbing to temptation that first time because it's going to get harder to resist. They're after harder and harder and harder. Well, that actually is the way the system seems to work and one question is, why is it designed that way? Why is it that modules are given more power with victory? I mean you could imagine a system where they just take turns, you know and the deal is, well, this module won last time, the short term gratification module. Now the more responsible, far-seeing module is going to get to win this time around, but that's not the way it works. Now, why is that?

你的奶奶可能说，小心，不要屈从于那个第一次的诱惑，因为它将变得更难抵抗。它们后来会越来越难，越来越难。好吧，那实际上是系统看起来工作的方式，一个问题是，为什么这被设计成那个方式？为什么那些模块被给予了更多的权利，在胜利之后？我是指，你能想象一个系统，它们只是轮流值班，你知道，理想的是，这个模块上次赢了，短期满足模块。现在更负责任的，眼光长远的模块这次将要赢，但是它不是这样工作的。现在，为什么是那样的？

succumbing to temptation：

13:49 Well, my own pet theory is that actually this is kind of a logical way for natural selection to have designed a modular system of motivation. because after all, if you imagine these modules are being built up over time and probably the short term gratification modules often existed in evolutionary time before some of the modules that looked farther into the future and worry about long-term consequences.

好吧，我自己的宠物理论是，实际上，这是一个有逻辑的方式，对自然选择来说，去设计一个动机模块系统。因为毕竟，如果你想象这些模块正建立在时间上，很可能短期满足模块，在某些模块，看未来得更远的模块，担心长期结果的模块之前，就已经存在于进化时间里。

So the modules are being stacked upon one another and if there is indeed not a chief executive self to adjudicate among them then there have to be rules for how power is allocated among the modules. And when you think about it, it does make sense that one rule would be that modules that succeed in achieving gratification are given more power next time around. So for example, if back during evolution there's a module that seeks short term sexual gratification, and you imagine where there's a situation where it's kind of saying yeah, yeah, go for it, approach her. And there's a module that's saying, no no, you'll be rejected, you'll be humiliated, people will make fun of you. Whatever.

所以模块被堆叠起来，一个堆一个，如果有实际上不是一个首席执行自我去在他们中间裁决，那么就必须有规则，对于力量怎么分配在这些模块上。当你思考它是，它确实说得通，一个规则将是，那个模块，在获得满足上成功的模块，被给予了更多的力量，在下一回合。所以例如，如果回到在进化期间，有模块寻求短期性满足，你想象，那里有这样一个情形：那里说，好，去吧，接近她。有一个模块说，不不，你会被拒绝的，你将被羞辱，人们会取笑你，什么的。

adjudicate：判决；裁决

15:16 Well, if indeed the module advocating advance prevails and you're not rebuffed and there is the sexual gratification. Then in natural selection's terms, that's success. So the gratification is evidence that this module's council（华佼注：应该是counsel吧？） was in the terms that natural selection cares about, this module's counsel was, you know, wise, so to speak. I mean, at least conducive to getting genes into the next generation.

好吧，如果实际上模块提倡更进一步的获胜，你不拒绝就有性满足。那么用自然选择的话来说，那是成功。所以满足是证据，这个模块的建议是在自然选择关心的条款里，这个模块的建议是，你知道，明智的，可以这么说。我是指，至少有助于去把基因传递到下一代。

prevails：（提议、原则、观点）占上风，占优势，获胜，被接受 rebuffed：拒绝;回绝 council：(组织的) counsel：劝告，忠告;建议 conducive：有助(于…)的;有益(于…)的

Similarly, to revisit an example we gave earlier in the course, if there is a module that's saying, yeah, you know, those trees off in the distance, I think I think they could have real fruit, let's make the effort, let's go. Well if you go and you get to the trees, there is fruit. You taste the fruit. It's good, it's sweet, it feels gratifying.

类似的，回到我们早先给的一个例子，在这堂课里，如果有一个模块说，你知道，那些树木离得很远，我认为，我想他们本可以有真的水果，让我们努力一把，让我们走吧。好吧，如果你走，你去到那些树里，有水果。你尝了水果。它很好，很甜，感到满足。

revisit：回到 off in the distance：离得很远

Well, then that module, it makes sense that that module would have more power next time around because it's got a good track record now. It was right this time, and so it makes sense to go with the past winter.

好吧，那么那个模块，下次将会有更多的力量，那说得通，因为那有一个好的记录，现在。这次，它是对的，所以它说得通，在过去的冬天里。

Now, in a modern environment these rules of the road, the rules that give more power to a module seeking short term sexual gratification if it achieves the gratification or more power to a module that seeks a fruit. If you get the sweet taste of fruit, these same rules can lead people to be addicted to pornography or addicted to junk food.

现在，在一个现代环境里，这些路上的规则，规则，给了更多力量，去给一个模块，寻求短期性满足，如果它获得满足，或者更多力量，对一个模块，寻找一个水果。如果你得到了水果的甜味，这些同样的规则能让人们变得上瘾，对色情文学或者对垃圾食物上瘾。

pornography：色情文学

But in the environment they were designed for, these rules actually made sense. And so too with things like alcoholism, various kinds of drug addiction. These are the result of novel features of the environment that allow people to intervene directly in the chemical reward system that back during evolution, it wasn't so easy to intervene directly on, directly in.

但是在那个他们被设计的环境里，这些规则实际上说得通。所以，因为这些东西，像酗酒，各种药物成瘾。这些是坏境的新特性的结果，让人们去直接地在化学奖励系统里干预，回到在进化期间，它不是这么容易去直接去干预。

intervene：干涉;干预;介入

So all of this drives home that self control can be a very important question and raises the question of how can we achieve it and can meditation in particular mindfulness meditation play a role in helping us get the system under better control?

所以所有这些阐明了自我控制能是一个非常重要的问题，提出了这个问题，我们怎么能达到它，能冥想，特别是正念冥想发挥作用，在帮助我们得到在更好控制之下的系统。

17:52 Well there's somebody who, who has really looked into that and it's somebody we've already seen Judson Brewer who as you may recall did an important study a brain scan study showing that the default mode network does get quieter, during meditation. It turns out he also does work using mindfulness meditation to help people overcome chemical addictions such as smoking.

好吧，有某些人，谁，有真的查看那个，这是某人我们已经见过的，Judson Brewer，你可能回忆起来，做了一个非常重要的研究，一个大脑扫描研究，显示默认模式网络确实变得更安静，在冥想期间。结果发现，他也做了研究，使用正念冥想，去帮助人们克服化学成瘾，比如吸烟。

work：研究；对…作调查

18:21 And Judd Brewer recently explained to me how this works. You get them to view the craving differently, is that they key? >> Yes, so we use an acronym with smokers in particular, we use this acronym RAIN where the have to recognize what craving feels like and they have to allow it to be there. So often, we push away unpleasant things and craving's unpleasant so we try to push it away. And so we don't allow it to be in our body and if we can't allow it to be there, we can't really investigate it, we can't really allow it to do it's thing and come up do it's stance and go away. So the A is to allow, the I is for investigate and I think of this as really getting curious. What is craving feel like in body right now?

Judd Brewer最近给我解释了这个怎么工作的。你让他们不一样的看渴望，这是关键吗？>> 是的，所以我们给吸烟者特别使用了首字母缩略词，我们使用者首字母缩略词RAIN，那里不得不辨别什么渴望的感觉像，他们不得不允许它在那里。所以常常，我们推开不愉快的东西，渴望的不愉快，所以我们试着推开它。所以我们不允许它在我们的身体里，如果我们不能允许它在那里，我们能真的调查它，我们不能真的允许它去做它的事情，提出做它的态度，走开。所以A将被允许，I是为了调查，我认为这个是真的变得奇怪。现在身体里渴望的感觉像什么？

craving：渴望;热望 acronym：首字母缩略词 stance：态度;立场

19:11 And, it can even, when you're really curious about something, that actually flips the valence from unpleasant to pleasant because the craving which was unpleasant, flips the curiosity, which is pleasant, and it can help us kind of stay with the object. And for the end we use a noting practice. So this is simple Mahasi style noting where people can note craving as it comes and goes of tightness, tension, clenching, burning, rising, you know as the craving comes and goes away. So we use this other people use this idea of urge surfing, where you can ride out your urges. The RAIN acronym very much helps people get on top of that wave and ride it instead of getting sucked into the craving they're using. >> So whereas normally, Pete, you would have the feeling that if you got a craving, you've got to either succumb to it, surrender to it, or push it away. What you're saying is actually you can do neither. You can sit there and by observing it, in effect weaken it.

它甚至能，当你真的好奇某事，实际上跳过了心理效价，从不愉快到愉快，因为不愉快的效应，跳过了愉快的好奇，它能帮助我们和对象呆在一起。最后我们使用注意练习。所以这是简单的马哈希形式的注意，人们能注意到渴望，当紧张来的时候，去的时候。紧张，紧握，燃烧，升起，你知道当渴望来和去。所以我们使用这个，其他人使用这个冲动冲浪的观点，那里你能克服你的冲动。RAIN首字母缩略词非常帮助人们到达波浪的顶端，驾驭它，而不是被它们使用的渴望堵住。>> 所以但是通常，Pete，你将有那个感觉，如果你有一个渴望，你会或者向它屈服，向它投降，或者推开它。你说的是，实际上，你两者都不能做。你能坐在那里，通过观察它，事实上是在削弱它。

valence：（化合）价，原子价； （心理）效价； tension：紧张 clenching：紧握 urge surfing：冲动冲浪 ride out：克服 urges：强烈的欲望，冲动，迫切的要求 whereas： (表示对比)但是，然而 surrender：投降;屈服 succumb：屈从于，屈服于，抵挡不住(诱惑或压力) 拉玛那·马哈希：是一位印度教上师。

20:17 ·>> Yes. And you weaken it because you don't feed it. So it's interesting in the language of the Buddhist time, the dependent origination where craving is this key link and this feeling tone comes up. You crave something, you act on it, and by acting on it, you kind of reify a self concept which, then, spins back around and kind of changes the way you interact with future situations that are similar.

·>> 是的，你削弱了它，因为你没有喂养它。所以它很有趣，在佛教徒的时间的语言，依赖源头，那里渴望是这个关键的连接，这个感觉基调出现了。你渴望某些东西，你对它行动，通过行动，你有点儿具体化一个自我概念，那时，它又旋转回来，改变了你和未来类似情况交互的方式。*（华佼注：值得记住的观点。）

feed：养;喂;饲养 origination：源头 reify：是具体化 spins： (使)旋转

And they actually describe clinging what another translation of which is translated as clinging is also sustenance or fuel. So, in an essence you're fueling that fire every time you act on craving. And so what we teach people to do is just be with the craving. Notice that it's physical sensations in their body and mental restlessness or whatever. And that if they don't act on it, they don't fuel it and they don't feed it. And when you don't feed it eventually, if it's a stray cat, if you stop feeding the stray cat, it doesn't come to your house anymore. If you stop adding fuel to a fire, it eventually burns off.

他们实际上描述了紧抓，另一个被翻译为紧抓，也是养料或者燃料。所以，本质上，你在点燃那个火，每次你对渴望反应。所以我们教人们做的是，只是跟渴望在一起。注意，它是身体的感觉，在他们身体里，精神上坐立不安或者什么。那个，如果他们不对它反应，（华佼注：这个反应就好像按下打火机。）他们不会点燃它，他们不会喂养它。当你最终不会喂养它，如果它是一个无主的猫，如果你停止喂养那个无主的猫，它不会再到你的房子里来。如果你停止给火添加燃料（华佼注：抽烟，喝酒，服用毒品，暴饮暴食都是添加燃料。），它最终会灭掉。

sustenance：食物;营养;养料 restlessness：坐立不安的;不安宁的 stray： (狗、猫)走失的，迷路的，无主的

·>> Okay, so the cat keeps coming to your door. Now that's an interesting metaphor to a psychologist, because it suggests the dynamic of what psychologists call operant conditioning. The classic example of that is just a rat that presses the bar, food comes out so the rat keeps pressing the bar. Now, if you quit giving the rat food in response to pressing the bar, then eventually, the behavior is, as psychologists say, extinguished, and the rat no longer presses the bar. Well, the prospect being raised here is that maybe,

·>> 好吧，所以猫一直来你的门口。现在那是一个有趣的比喻，对一个心理学家，因为它暗示着，相互作用，心理学家称为操作性条件反射。关于这个的经典例子是，只是一个老鼠，按金属棒，食物就出来了，所以老鼠继续按金属棒。现在，如果你停止在按金属棒之后给那个老鼠食物，那么最终，行为是，像心理学家说的，绝迹了。那个老鼠不再按金属棒。好的，那个可能，这里被提出来的，是，可能，

operant conditioning：操作性条件反射 dynamic：相互作用;动态 bar：金属条；金属棒

22:06 basically the dynamics of operant condition work with cravings so that when you kind of look at a craving mindfully, that's like the rat pressing the bar without the food coming out. Because if you look at it mindfully, it doesn't get a grip on you, you don't follow it. You don't smoke the cigarette, or have the drink.

基本上，操作条件的动态和渴望一起起作用，所以当你专注地看一个渴望，那就像那个老鼠按金属条却没有食物出来。（华佼注：绝妙的比喻。）因为如果你专注地看它，你不会抓住你，你不会跟随它。你不会抽烟，或者喝酒。

22:28 Or whatever. And I guess in this metaphor then kind of just pushing, pushing the craving away would be more like, you know, not letting the rat anywhere near the bar in the first place. And you know that could work, that could be an effective self control. I would imagine that it winds up having different properties. From the mindfulness therapy that Judd Brewer is talking about. And it may be that if you just keep pushing the craving away, then when the craving does arise in full bodied form, maybe you're less capable of resisting it. I don't know, it's an empirical question. But one, one other interesting question related to this is whether you could view a lot of other

或者什么的。我猜，在这个比喻里，然后有点像把渴望推开，将更像，你知道，第一时间不让老鼠在金属条的附近。你知道那会起作用。那将是一个有效的自我控制。我将会想象，它最终有不同的特性。从正念疗法，Judd Brewer谈论的。它可能，如果你只是继续把渴望推开，那么当渴望确实出现的时候，以完整的形式，也许你更少能力去抵抗它。我不知道，它是一个经验主义的问题。但是另一个有趣的问题，跟这个相关的，是你是否把许多其他

therapy：疗法 empirical：经验主义的;以经验为依据的

23:18 exercises of mindfulness as basically operant conditioning. So for example, when you feel rage if you pound your desk and yell at someone, which after all, feels kind of good when you're in a rage,

正念的练习也看作是基本的操作性条件反射。所以例如，当你感到愤怒，如果你拍桌子，朝某人吼叫，毕竟，当你在愤怒时，那样做感觉很好。

23:35 is that the reward that reinforces the behavior, you know. Is that, in other words, has the module been deemed successful. If you scream and nothing bad happens, nobody retaliates.

那是巩固行为的奖励吗？（华佼注：这个观点值得记住。）你知道的。那是，换句话说，有模块被认为成功。如果你尖叫，没有什么坏事发生，没人反击。

retaliates：报复，反击

23:48 Is that defined as success in natural selection's terms? Or, if you feel hatred, and as a result, you go around talking in very unfavorable terms about the person you hate, Which after all, feels good, right? I mean especially if it turns out the person you're talking to shares the opinion, or you feel you persuaded them that this person you hate is a bad person. Well is that, is the talking about the person you hate, a reward for the behavior?

在自然选择的条款里，那是被定义为成功吗？或者，如果你感到憎恨，结果，你来回谈论，用不利的语言，关于那个人，你恨的，毕竟，感觉很好，对吗？我的意思是，如果结果发现那个人，你在交谈的，向他们诉说那个观点，或者你感觉你说服他们，你讨厌的这个人是个坏人。那是，谈论那个你讨厌的人，是行为的奖励吗？（华佼注：值得记住的观点。）

term：用…术语;用…语言;用…字眼 share：向…诉说,与…分享(想法、消息等)

unfavorable terms：不利的条款

And by design, again, is the idea that the module that generates the behavior or the hatred has succeeded in natural selection's terms if it leads you to successfully kind of denounce the person. That, to me, is a very interesting question. It's a speculative question, for sure. But I do think it's possible that yes, it makes sense to think of modules, in a not quite literal sense, as kind of organisms that operate according to the principles of operant conditioning.

通过设计，再次，是那个观点，模块产生行为，或者憎恨成功了，在自然选择的条款里，如果它把你导向了成功地谴责那个人。那个，对我，是个非常有趣的问题。它是一个猜测性的问题，当然。但是我确实认为，它可能，是的，它说得通，去思考模块，在一个不太完全真实的意义上，像有机物，根据操作性条件反射的原则运作。

denounce：谴责;痛斥 speculative： (表情)带着疑问的，好奇的；(信息)推测性的，猜测性的；投机性的 literal：字面上的；原义的 organisms：有机物，生物

And to think that when we exercise mindfulness, we may have the ability to alter their behavior via the principles of operant conditioning. So that when we look at a feeling like hatred or rage mindfully, and so it doesn't translate Into the behavior that it would normally translate into. Then we are draining the kind of long-term power from that module rather than letting it amass more and more power.

想想，当我们练习正念，我们可能有能力去改变他们的行为，通过操作性条件反射的原则。所以当我们看待感觉，像憎恨或者愤怒，专注地，然后它不会翻译到它通常将翻译到的行为。然后，我们在消耗长期的力量，从那个模块，而不是让它积累越来越多的力量。

draining： (使)流干;(使)排干；（使）（水分）滤去，滤干；用尽;耗尽;用完； (使)(精力)耗尽

amass：积累

Okay, so so far in this lecture we've seen three kinds of connections between mindfulness meditation and the modular view of the mind. First of all, the default mode network that gets quiet during mindfulness meditation, and for that matter during other kinds of meditation, can be viewed as, and maybe is best viewed as, different modules kind of vying for your attention.

好吧，到目前为止，这个课程，我们已经看见三种联系，在正念冥想和大脑的模块化观点之间。默认模式网络，得到了安静，在正念冥想期间，关于那一点，在其他种的冥想期间，能被看作，可能是最好被看作，不同的模块，争夺你的注意力。

for that matter：就那件事而论， 关于那一点； vying：（为某事物）激烈竞争，争夺某事物( vie的现在分词 )；

Okay, second, by being mindful of feelings we can, in principle, determine which modules are and are not allowed to kind of take over the mind. And then third, by exercising this mindfulness we can affect the long-term power that different modules have. We can drain power from some modules, and maybe empower other modules.

好吧，第二，通过专注于感觉，我们能，原则上，决定哪个模块是，或不被允许，到掌管大脑。然后第三，通过练习这个正念，我们能影响长期的力量，不同模块有的，我们能消耗力量从一些模块，可能给予了其他模块力量。

empower：给予…力量；使有能力(实现…)

Okay, now let's turn to what is, in some ways, a deeper connection between meditation and the modular view of the mind. In the final segment of this lecture, we're going to hear from some people who have had meditative experiences that convinced them that the self does not exist. And we're going to look at those experiences in light of the modular view of the mind, and see if that tells us anything about what's going on in their minds when they have these experiences. And even whether these are kind of valid experiences of insight.

好吧，现在让我们转向，什么是，在某种方式上，一个更深的联系，在冥想和大脑的模块化观点之间。在这个课程的最后一节，我们将会听到一些人，有冥想经验的人，确信他们，自我不存在。我们将要看那些经验，根据大脑的模块化观点，看是否那个告诉我们，任何事情，关于在他们的大脑里进行的，当他们有这些经验时。甚至是否这些是洞察力的有效经验。

Source： https://www.coursera.org/learn/science-of-meditation/lecture/qGxbn/self-control