Mary lives in a black and white room,

Mary住在一個黑白的房間裡，

she only reads black and white books,

她只讀黑白的書

and her screens only display black and white.

電視螢幕只呈現黑白色

But even though she has never seen color, Mary is an expert in color vision

不過儘管她從沒看過色彩，Mary卻是個色彩視覺專家

and knows everything ever discovered about its physics and biology.

而且知道所有人類所發現的物體和生物

She knows how different wavelengths of light

她知道光線中不同的波長

stimulate three types of cone cells in the retina,

如何刺激視網膜中的三種椎狀細胞

and she knows how electrical signals

她還知道電子訊號

travel down the optic nerve into the brain.

如何由視覺神經傳送到大腦

There, they create patterns of neural activity

那個區域負責創造神經活動中

that correspond to the millions of colors most humans can distinguish.

與那些人類可辨別的上萬種顏色相符合的視覺影像

Now image that one day,

現在想像有一天

Mary's black and white screen malfunctions

Mary的黑白螢幕故障了

and an apple appears in color.

螢幕中的蘋果有了顏色

For the first time,

那是第一次

she can experience something that she's known about for years.

她可以感受到她早已知道的東西

Does she learn anything new?

那麼她有學習到甚麼新的東西嗎?

Is there anything about perceiving color that wasn't captured in all her knowledge?

瑪莉是否因為這次顏色感知的經驗而掌握到任何之前沒有的知識？

Philosopher Frank Jackson proposed this thought experiment,

1982年，哲學家 Frank Jackson提出了這個實驗

called Mary's room, in 1982.

稱為黑白瑪莉論證(用來對抗物理論)

He argued that if Mary already knew all the physical facts about color vision,

他說如果Mary已經知道所有色彩視覺的物理現象，

and experiencing color still teaches her something new,

她還可以得到新的關於色彩知覺的知識。

then mental states, like color perception,

這難道不是在告訴我們，有一些關於色彩知覺的精神層面

can't be completely described by physical facts.

不完全是物理性質可以解釋的？

The Mary's room thought experiment

黑白瑪莉論證的實驗

describes what philosophers call the knowledge argument,

陳述哲學家們所謂的知識論證

that there are non-physical properties and knowledge

對於非物理的資產和知識

which can only be discovered through conscious experience.

只能透過有意識感知的經驗來發覺

The knowledge argument contradicts the theory of physicalism,

知識論證( 黑白瑪莉論證)違背了物理論

which says that everything, including mental states,

物理論主張世界上所有的東西，包括精神層面

has a physical explanation.

是可以用物理性質解釋其存在的

To most people hearing Mary's story,

對於大部分聽過黑白瑪莉論證的人來說

it seems intuitively obvious that actually seeing color

直覺反應就是看到的顏色

will be totally different than learning about it.

跟學習根本是完全不同的兩回事

Therefore, there must be some quality of color vision

因此，一定有某個色彩視覺感知的質量

that transcends its physical description.

是超越物理性質的

The knowledge argument isn't just about color vision.

知識論證(黑白瑪莉論證)不只跟色彩視覺感知有關

Mary's room uses color vision to represent conscious experience.

它用色彩視覺感知表示了有意識的經驗

If physical science can't entirely explain color vision,

如果物理科學無法完整解釋色彩視覺感知

then maybe it can't entirely explain other conscious experiences either.

那麼或許它也無法完整解釋意識狀態

For instance, we could know every physical detail

例如，我們知道所有關於某人大腦結構和功能

about the structure and function of someone else's brain,

的物理知識

but still not understand what it feels like to be that person.

但仍然不了解身為那個人的感受

These ineffable experiences have properties called qualia,

這些無法形容的感覺稱做感質(哲學家提出的詞)

subjective qualities that you can't accurately describe or measure.

就是你無法精準描述或測量的主觀特質

Qualia are unique to the person experiencing them,

每個人感受的感質都是獨特的

like having an itch,

像是癢的感覺

being in love,

墜入情網

or feeling bored.

或是覺得無聊

Physical facts can't completely explain mental states like this.

物理論述無法完整解釋這些心理狀態

Philosophers interested in artificial intelligence

對人造智慧感興趣的哲學家們

have used the knowledge argument

利用知識論證(黑白瑪莉論證)

to theorize that recreating a physical state

推論: 重造一個物理狀態

won't necessarily recreate a corresponding mental state.

未必會重造一個相符合的心理狀態

In other words,

換句話說，

building a computer which mimicked the function of every single neuron of the human brain

製造一台可以控制人類大腦中每個神經元功能的的電腦

won't necessarily create a conscious computerized brain.

也未必能創造出一台有意識的「電」腦

Not all philosophers agree that the Mary's room experiment is useful.

不是所有哲學家都同意黑白瑪莉論證的實用性

Some argue that her extensive knowledge of color vision

有些人爭論: 她擁有顏色視覺感知的廣泛知識

would have allowed her to create the same mental state

可以讓她創造出

produced by actually seeing the color.

實際看到顏色時相同的心理狀態

The screen malfunction wouldn't show her anything new.

故障的螢幕並沒有傳達新的知識給她

Others say that her knowledge was never complete in the first place

還有人說她的知識在第一時間下永遠不會完整

because it was based only on those physical facts

因為那都只是基於

that can be conveyed in words.

那些可以用文字描述的物理性質

Years after he proposed it,

哲學家提出這個理論的幾年後

Jackson actually reversed his own stance on his thought experiment.

Jackson終於推翻了自己在這個實驗的立場

He decided that even Mary's experience of seeing red

他認為實驗中瑪莉看到紅色

still does correspond to a measurable physical event in the brain,

還是跟腦中可以測量到的物理性質有關

not unknowable qualia beyond physical explanation.

而不是無法形容的感質超越物理解釋

But there still isn't a definitive answer

但這依然沒有明確回答

to the question of whether Mary would learn anything new when she sees the apple.

當瑪莉看到蘋果時是否有學到新的知識

Could it be that there are fundamental limits to what we can know

對於無法感受到的東西，

about something we can't experience?

這會不會是在認知上一個主要的障礙呢?

And would this mean there are certain aspects of the universe

這是否意味著有某個特定的思想層面超越我們的理解範圍

that lie permanently beyond our comprehension?

而使我們永遠被蒙在鼓裡?

Or will science and philosophy allow us to overcome our mind's limitations?

科學和哲學將來是否能夠使我們突破思想上的侷限呢?