I design mobile computers and I study brains.

我有兩個職業。我設計行動電腦，而且我研究大腦。

Today's talk is about brains and -- (Audience member cheers)

今天的演講與大腦有關，

Yay! I have a brain fan out there.

耶，看來今天聽眾中有人是大腦迷。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

If I could have my first slide,

如果我的投影片已經準備好了，

you'll see the title of my talk and my two affiliations.

你將會看到今天的演講主題及我的兩個所屬機構，

So what I'm going to talk about is why we don't have a good brain theory,

今天我將要談的是 — 為什麼我們沒有一個好的大腦理論，

why it is important that we should develop one

為什麼發展大腦理論如此重要，還有，我們能利用這個理論做什麼？

and what we can do about it.

我將會嘗試在廿分鐘內完成全部的主題。我參與兩家公司。

I'll try to do all that in 20 minutes.

你們大多數是因為我在 Palm 及 Handspring 的工作而認識我的，

I have two affiliations.

但是我同時也經營一個非營利性的科學研究機構

Most of you know me from my Palm and Handspring days,

它位於加州門洛帕克，叫做「紅木神經科學研究所」，

but I also run a nonprofit scientific research institute

我們專攻理論神經科學相關的研究，

called the Redwood Neuroscience Institute in Menlo Park.

我們對研究大腦新皮層如何運作有興趣。

We study theoretical neuroscience and how the neocortex works.

我將談談這一方面。

I'm going to talk all about that.

我將我的另一個生活面（電腦生活）做成了一張投影片，你現在可以看到。

I have one slide on my other life, the computer life,

我在過去的廿年間參與了一些產品的開發，

and that's this slide here.

從第一台筆記型電腦到首批平板電腦等等，

These are some of the products I've worked on over the last 20 years,

最新的一個產品是 Treo，

starting from the very original laptop

我們將會繼續電子產品的開發。

to some of the first tablet computers

我之所以會參與這一行主要是因為我相信行動運算

and so on, ending up most recently with the Treo,

是個人運算產品的未來，而我試著藉由開發這些產品

and we're continuing to do this.

來讓世界更美好。

I've done this because I believe mobile computing

但是我必須承認，這一切都是個意外。

is the future of personal computing,

我其實本來一點都沒有打算要開發這些產品

and I'm trying to make the world a little bit better

而且在我事業剛剛開始的時候我還決定

by working on these things.

我不要從事電腦相關產業。

But this was, I admit, all an accident.

但在我告訴你這個故事之前，我必須告訴你

I really didn't want to do any of these products.

我某天從網路上看到的一張關於 graffiti 輸入法照片的故事。

Very early in my career

當時我在網上尋找 graffiti 的照片，那是一種輸入法程式語言，

I decided I was not going to be in the computer industry.

然後我發現一個網站，它是為一群老師們所架設的，你知道的，

Before that, I just have to tell you

利用 script 來控制黑板上的跑馬燈，

about this picture of Graffiti I picked off the web the other day.

他們網站內容竟然包含 graffiti，我對此感到很抱歉。

I was looking for a picture for Graffiti that'll text input language.

（笑聲）

I found a website dedicated to teachers who want to make script-writing things

當我還年輕，剛剛從工學院畢業的時候，

across the top of their blackboard,

我是康乃爾 79 年畢業班，我決定去 Intel 工作。

and they had added Graffiti to it, and I'm sorry about that.

我在電腦業奮鬥了三個月之後，

(Laughter)

我愛上了另一個東西，我說：「我入錯行了」，

So what happened was,

因為我愛上了大腦。

when I was young and got out of engineering school at Cornell in '79,

這不是真的大腦。這是大腦的描繪圖。

I went to work for Intel and was in the computer industry,

我已經記不清當初是如何開始的了，

and three months into that, I fell in love with something else.

在我腦海中只有一個鮮明的回憶。

I said, "I made the wrong career choice here,"

1979 年九月，新一期的科學美國人出刊

and I fell in love with brains.

那是一期談論大腦的特刊。非常的棒。

This is not a real brain.

那是有史以來最棒的一期雜誌之一。那期刊物中談論神經、

This is a picture of one, a line drawing.

發育、疾病以及視力等等所有的

And I don't remember exactly how it happened,

跟大腦相關且你會感興趣的主題。真的非常令人印象深刻。

but I have one recollection, which was pretty strong in my mind.

而人會得到一種錯誤的印象，那就是我們已經非常了解我們的大腦了。

In September of 1979,

但是那一期的最後一篇文章是由發現 DNA 結構而成名的法蘭西斯•克里克所撰寫。

Scientific American came out with a single-topic issue about the brain.

今天，如果我沒記錯的話，剛好是發現 DNA 結構五十週年紀念日。

It was one of their best issues ever.

他寫了一個故事，主要是告訴我們：

They talked about the neuron, development, disease, vision

這個嘛～這些研究都很棒，可是你知道嗎？

and all the things you might want to know about brains.

我們對大腦一點都不了解

It was really quite impressive.

沒有人知道大腦是如何運作的，

One might've had the impression we knew a lot about brains.

所以別相信其他人告訴你的事情。

But the last article in that issue was written by Francis Crick of DNA fame.

這是從文章中摘錄下來的一句話。他說：「這裡顯著缺乏的是，」

Today is, I think, the 50th anniversary of the discovery of DNA.

他是一個非常有禮的英國紳士，「我們會注意到可以用來解釋這些研究

And he wrote a story basically saying, this is all well and good,

的廣泛概念架構是明顯地不足的。」

but you know, we don't know diddly squat about brains,

我認為他用「架構」一詞用得非常洽當。

and no one has a clue how they work,

他並沒有說我們連一個理論都沒有。他所說得是，

so don't believe what anyone tells you.

我們連如何開始建立理論都不知道該如何下手 —

This is a quote from that article, he says:

我們連個架構都沒有。

"What is conspicuously lacking" -- he's a very proper British gentleman --

如果你想要引用湯瑪斯•孔恩的說法，我們處在一個前典範的時代。

"What is conspicuously lacking is a broad framework of ideas

因此我愛上這個領域了，然後說：看看，

in which to interpret these different approaches."

我們已經知道這麼多關於腦的知識。這會有多難？

I thought the word "framework" was great.

而且這是個可以一輩子鑽研的題目。我認為我能對世界做出一點貢獻，

He didn't say we didn't have a theory.

因此我嘗試著離開電腦業，轉行到腦科學研究領域。

He says we don't even know how to begin to think about it.

首先，我跑去麻省理工裡的一間人工智慧實驗室，

We don't even have a framework.

我說，嘿，我也想要建造智能機器，

We are in the pre-paradigm days, if you want to use Thomas Kuhn.

但是我覺得達到這個目標前必須要先能了解大腦是如何運作的。

So I fell in love with this.

然而他們說，喔，你並不需要知道那個。

I said, look: We have all this knowledge about brains -- how hard can it be?

我們只需要設計電腦程式，不需要做其他不相干的事。

It's something we can work on in my lifetime; I could make a difference.

我再說，不，你們真的應該研究大腦。他們說，喔，你知道嗎？

So I tried to get out of the computer business, into the brain business.

你錯了。然後我說，不，你才錯了，所以當然我沒被錄取。

First, I went to MIT, the AI lab was there.

（笑聲）

I said, I want to build intelligent machines too,

但我有點失望 — 因為我還年輕，但幾年以後我又嘗試了一次

but I want to study how brains work first.

這次是在加州，我跑去柏克萊。

And they said, "Oh, you don't need to do that.

然後我說，我要從生物方面開始著手。

You're just going to program computers, that's all.

所以我被錄取了，進入了生物物理博士班。然後我心想，太棒了，

I said, you really ought to study brains.

我現在開始研究大腦了，然後我說，好的，我想要鑽研理論。

They said, "No, you're wrong."

但他們告訴我，喔，不，你不能研究關於腦的理論。

I said, "No, you're wrong," and I didn't get in.

你不想做那個的。沒有人會給你經費支持你做這種研究。

(Laughter)

身為一個研究生，你不能這麼做。所以我又說了，我的老天，

I was a little disappointed -- pretty young --

我非常沮喪。我說，但我能在這方面有所成就。

but I went back again a few years later,

所以我唯一能做的是，我回到了電腦業

this time in California, and I went to Berkeley.

然後說，好吧，我將留下來工作一段時間，做出一番成就。

And I said, I'll go in from the biological side.

然後我就開始設計出所有這些電子產品。

So I got in the PhD program in biophysics.

（笑聲）

I was like, I'm studying brains now. Well, I want to study theory.

我告訴自己，我在這邊待四年，賺些錢，

They said, "You can't study theory about brains.

我會成家，變得更成熟些，

You can't get funded for that.

同時也許神經科學領域也會發展得成熟一點。

And as a graduate student, you can't do that."

好吧，我花了超過四年的時間。時光飛逝，已經 16 年了。

So I said, oh my gosh.

但是我終於在研究大腦了，而我將會跟你們談談我的研究。

I was depressed; I said, but I can make a difference in this field.

為什麼我們應該要有一個好的大腦理論？

I went back in the computer industry

人們為了千百種不同的理由研究科學。

and said, I'll have to work here for a while.

其中一個理由 — 最基本的理由 — 是我們想要了解事物。

That's when I designed all those computer products.

人類是好奇的，我們只是想要獲取新知而已，你了解嗎？

(Laughter)

為什麼我們要研究螞蟻？不為什麼，只因為它很有趣。

I said, I want to do this for four years, make some money,

也許我們能從中學到新知，但是研究本身既有趣又吸引人。

I was having a family, and I would mature a bit,

但有時，科學有一些其他的屬性

and maybe the business of neuroscience would mature a bit.

而這些屬性會讓它額外的吸引人。

Well, it took longer than four years. It's been about 16 years.

有時候科學能夠讓我們更加認識自己，

But I'm doing it now, and I'm going to tell you about it.

它會讓我們知道我們是誰。

So why should we have a good brain theory?

雖然這極少發生，如你所知演化學說是一例，哥白尼也做到了，

Well, there's lots of reasons people do science.

它們徹底地改變了我們對自己身份地位上的認知。

The most basic one is, people like to know things.

但是最基本的，我們代表著我們的大腦。我的大腦正在和你的交談著。

We're curious, and we go out and get knowledge.

雖然我們的身體隨時陪伴著我們，但是是我的腦在和你的腦交談。

Why do we study ants? It's interesting.

所以如果我們想要了解我們到底是誰，我們是如何感覺、理解事物，

Maybe we'll learn something useful, but it's interesting and fascinating.

我們真的需要了解大腦是什麼。

But sometimes a science has other attributes

另一方面，有時科學

which makes it really interesting.

能對社會利益、科技、

Sometimes a science will tell something about ourselves;

商業，各式各樣領域做出極大的貢獻。這也是其中之一，

it'll tell us who we are.

因為當我們了解大腦是如何運作之後，我們將能夠

Evolution did this and Copernicus did this,

建造智慧機器，我相信整體來說，這會是件好事，

where we have a new understanding of who we are.

這將會對社會有極大助益

And after all, we are our brains. My brain is talking to your brain.

就如同基礎科技一般。

Our bodies are hanging along for the ride,

所以，為什麼我們沒有一個好的大腦理論？

but my brain is talking to your brain.

而且人們研究大腦的歷史已經有百來年了。

And if we want to understand who we are and how we feel and perceive,

那麼，讓我們先來看看普通科學領域的狀況。

we need to understand brains.

這是普通科學領域。

Another thing is sometimes science leads to big societal benefits, technologies,

普通科學領域中的理論與實作家呈現一個良好的平衡。

or businesses or whatever.

因此當理論學者說，嗯，我認為事情是這般這般，

This is one, too, because when we understand how brains work,

然後實驗科學家說，不，你錯了。

we'll be able to build intelligent machines.

然後就像這樣一直反覆來回，對吧？

That's a good thing on the whole,

這方法對物理適用。對地理適用。但這些是普通科學領域，

with tremendous benefits to society,

神經科學看起來是什麼樣子？這就是神經科學的狀況。

just like a fundamental technology.

我們的數據累積得比山還高，解剖學、生理學和行為學的數據。

So why don't we have a good theory of brains?

你無法想像我們對大腦的枝微末節了解得如何透徹。

People have been working on it for 100 years.

今年 (2003) 的神經科學研討會共有 28,000 人參加，

Let's first take a look at what normal science looks like.

每一個都在研究大腦。

This is normal science.

太多資訊。但沒有理論。在上層的這一塊是如此的微小，搖搖欲墜。

Normal science is a nice balance between theory and experimentalists.

而且理論在神經科學中尚未扮演任何重要的角色。

The theorist guy says, "I think this is what's going on,"

這真可恥。為什麼會這樣？

the experimentalist says, "You're wrong."

如果你問神經科學家，為什麼會是這種狀況？

It goes back and forth, this works in physics, this in geology.

一開始他們都會承認此事。但如果你接著問，他們會說，

But if this is normal science, what does neuroscience look like?

這個嘛，有很多的原因使我們沒有一個好的大腦理論。

This is what neuroscience looks like.

有些人會說，呃，我們還沒有足夠的數據，

We have this mountain of data,

我們還需要更多資訊，還有很多我們不知道的事。

which is anatomy, physiology and behavior.

我才剛剛告訴你們，我們有的數據多到你們的腦袋都裝不下。

You can't imagine how much detail we know about brains.

我們擁有如此多的資訊；我們不知道如何開始整理這些資訊。

There were 28,000 people who went to the neuroscience conference this year,

再有更多資訊又能怎樣？

and every one of them is doing research in brains.

也許我們會幸運的發現某些寶藏，但我不這麼認為。

A lot of data, but no theory.

這其實只是因為我們沒有理論這個事實所導致的症狀罷了。

There's a little wimpy box on top there.

我們不需要更多數據 — 我們需要一個好理論。

And theory has not played a role in any sort of grand way

有時候某些人會回答另一個說法，因為大腦是如此複雜，

in the neurosciences.

我們還需要 50 年的研究。

And it's a real shame.

我甚至好像聽到 Chris 昨天才說了類似的話。

Now, why has this come about?

我不確定你說了什麼，Chris，但好像是類似

If you ask neuroscientists why is this the state of affairs,

— 大腦是宇宙中最複雜的事物之一。這不是真的。

first, they'll admit it.

你比你的大腦還要複雜。腦只是你身體的一部分。

But if you ask them, they say,

並且，雖然大腦看起來非常複雜，

there's various reasons we don't have a good brain theory.

但是我們常認為我們所不了解的事物是複雜的。

Some say we still don't have enough data,

總是這樣子的。我們能夠說的只是，這個嘛，

we need more information, there's all these things we don't know.

我的新皮層，大腦中我感興趣的部份，有三百億個細胞。

Well, I just told you there's data coming out of your ears.

但你知道嗎？它非常、非常的規則。

We have so much information, we don't even know how to organize it.

事實上，它看起來像是同一個東西不斷的重複、重複再重複。

What good is more going to do?

它不像看起來般如此複雜。所以這不是問題。

Maybe we'll be lucky and discover some magic thing, but I don't think so.

某些人說，大腦無法了解大腦。

This is a symptom of the fact that we just don't have a theory.

非常具有禪意。呼，是吧 —

We don't need more data, we need a good theory.

（笑聲）

Another one is sometimes people say,

聽起來很有道理，但為什麼？我是說，真的有道理嗎？

"Brains are so complex, it'll take another 50 years."

大腦只不過是一堆細胞。你能了解你的肝臟呀。

I even think Chris said something like this yesterday, something like,

肝臟中也有很多細胞，對吧？

it's one of the most complicated things in the universe.

所以，你知道，我不覺得這有什麼問題。

That's not true -- you're more complicated than your brain.

最後，某些人會說，那麼，你知道，

You've got a brain.

我不覺得我是一堆細胞，你能理解嗎？我有意識。

And although the brain looks very complicated,

我能累積經驗，我生活在世界中，類似這些話。

things look complicated until you understand them.

我不可能只是一堆細胞。是的，你知道，

That's always been the case.

人們總是相信生物體內存在某種「生命力」，

So we can say, my neocortex, the part of the brain I'm interested in,

我們現在知道這一點都不是事實。

has 30 billion cells.

這一點都沒有事實根據，好吧，除了人們不想相信

But, you know what? It's very, very regular.

細胞可以做到人們平日在做的事情。

In fact, it looks like it's the same thing repeated over and over again.

因此，如果某些人們落入形而上學二元論的泥淖中，

It's not as complex as it looks. That's not the issue.

一些很聰明的人也不例外，但是我們可以駁斥他們的所有說法。

Some people say, brains can't understand brains.

（笑聲）

Very Zen-like. Woo.

不，我將要告訴你們還有別的，

(Laughter)

而且非常基本，就是我下面要說的這句話：

You know, it sounds good, but why? I mean, what's the point?

我們沒有一個好的大腦理論的另一個理由是，

It's just a bunch of cells. You understand your liver.

我們被一種直觀的、根深蒂固的

It's got a lot of cells in it too, right?

但是錯誤的假設所蒙蔽，因此一直無法找到問題的答案。

So, you know, I don't think there's anything to that.

我們所相信的某些事情，雖然表面上很顯而易見，但是它是錯的。

And finally, some people say,

事實上，科學界的歷史中已經發生過同樣的事情，而在我告訴你以前，

"I don't feel like a bunch of cells -- I'm conscious.

我要先跟你談談科學界的歷史。

I've got this experience, I'm in the world.

你們看看其他的科學革命，

I can't be just a bunch of cells."

這邊，我們來談談太陽系，那是哥白尼的貢獻，

Well, people used to believe there was a life force to be living,

達爾文的演化還有魏格納的板塊構造論。

and we now know that's really not true at all.

他們都與大腦科學有很多共通之處。

And there's really no evidence,

首先，他們有很多無法解釋的數據，一堆數據。

other than that people just disbelieve that cells can do what they do.

但是當他們有了理論之後，這些數據變得容易處理的多。

So some people have fallen into the pit of metaphysical dualism,

偉大的心靈總是會遭遇許多困難，那些極端、極端聰明的人們。

some really smart people, too, but we can reject all that.

我們現在並不比他們當時聰明。

(Laughter)

思考問題是極端困難的，

No, there's something else,

但一旦你想通了，事情就會得容易理解得多。

something really fundamental, and it is:

我女兒能夠了解這三個理論

another reason why we don't have a good brain theory

至少了解他們的基本架構，而那時她只是個幼稚園學童而已。

is because we have an intuitive, strongly held but incorrect assumption

因此，這並沒有這麼難，就像這樣，這是蘋果，這是柳丁，

that has prevented us from seeing the answer.

你知道的，地球在公轉，類似的這種東西。

There's something we believe that just, it's obvious, but it's wrong.

最後，另一件事是答案始終在那邊，

Now, there's a history of this in science and before I tell you what it is,

但是我們卻因為錯誤而明顯的假設而忽略了它，這就是問題所在。

I'll tell you about the history of it in science.

問題就是這個直觀且根深蒂固的認知是錯的。

Look at other scientific revolutions --

拿太陽系的例子來說，地球自轉的概念

the solar system, that's Copernicus,

還有地球表面以每小時幾千英哩的速度在轉動著，

Darwin's evolution, and tectonic plates, that's Wegener.

不用說還有地球本身以幾百萬英哩的時速在太陽系中移動著。

They all have a lot in common with brain science.

這真是瘋了。我們都知道地球並沒有在動。

First, they had a lot of unexplained data. A lot of it.

你覺得你有在以千哩的時速移動嗎？

But it got more manageable once they had a theory.

當然沒有。你知道，當有人說，

The best minds were stumped -- really smart people.

地球在太空中自轉，而太空是如此之大，

We're not smarter now than they were then;

然後他們會把你關起來，這就是當時他們所做的事。

it just turns out it's really hard to think of things,

（笑聲）

but once you've thought of them, it's easy to understand.

所以這是直觀且顯而易見的。現在，我們談談演化…

My daughters understood these three theories,

發生在演化上的情形是一樣的。我們教導孩子，嗯，聖經上說，

in their basic framework, in kindergarten.

你知道的，上帝創造了所有生命，貓是貓，狗是狗，

It's not that hard -- here's the apple, here's the orange,

人是人，樹木是樹木，他們是不變的。

the Earth goes around, that kind of stuff.

諾亞奉命將他們放到方舟內，如此這般。而且，你知道，

Another thing is the answer was there all along,

事實上，如果你相信演化，我們都來自同一個祖先，

but we kind of ignored it because of this obvious thing.

則我們和大廳裡那些植物有共同的祖先。

It was an intuitive, strongly held belief that was wrong.

這是演化告訴我們的。並且它是真的。儘管有點難令人相信。

In the case of the solar system,

板塊構造論也遭遇類似情形，不是嗎？

the idea that the Earth is spinning,

所有的山嶽與大陸都飄浮在地球的表面，

the surface is going a thousand miles an hour,

你相信嗎？這真的一點都不合邏輯。

and it's going through the solar system at a million miles an hour --

所以什麼是我說的關於大腦直觀但是不正確的假設，

this is lunacy; we all know the Earth isn't moving.

並使我們不能真正的了解大腦？