The perspective adopted in this book contains a hypothesis that is not universally liked, let alone accepted—namely, the idea that mental states and brain states are essentially equivalent. The reasons for the reluctance in endorsing such a hypothesis deserve a hearing.
本书采用的视角中包含了一个假设，认为心理状态与大脑状态其实是等价的。这是一种未得到普遍青睐的假说，更不要说被人们接受了。值得一提的是人们不接纳这一假说的原因。
In the physical world, of which the brain is unequivocally a part, equivalence and identity are defined by physical attributes such as mass, dimensions, movement, charge, and so forth. Those who reject the identity between physical states and mental states suggest that while a brain map that corresponds to a particular physical object can be discussed in physical terms, it would be absurd to discuss the respective mental pattern in physical terms. The reason given is that to date science has not been able to determine the physical attributes of mental patterns, and if science cannot do so, then the mental cannot be identified with the physical. I fear, however, that this reasoning may not be sound. Let me explain why I think so.
毫无疑问，大脑也是物理世界的一部分。在物理世界中，我们可以通过质量、尺寸、运动、电荷等物理属性来定义等价性与一致性。有人认为物理状态与心理状态不具有一致性，他们指出，虽然与特定物质客体对应的大脑映射能够从物理方面进行探讨，但如果要从物理方面来探讨不同的心理模式的话，就是一件荒唐的事情了，理由是科学迄今为止还未能确定心理模式的物理属性，而如果科学无法做到这一点，那么心理就无法等同于物理。但我认为，这恐怕并不是一个充分的理由。
First, we need to consider how we determine that nonmental states are physical. In the case of objects out in the world, we proceed by perceiving them with our peripheral sensory probes and by using varied instruments to execute measurements. In the case of mental events, however, we cannot do the same. This is not because mental events are not equivalent to neural states but because, given their place of occurrence—the interior of the brain—mental states are simply not available for measurement. In fact, mental events can be perceived only by part of the very same process that includes them—the mind, that is. The situation is unfortunate but says nothing whatsoever about the physicality of the mind or lack thereof. The situation does impose major qualifications on the intuitions that can emerge from it, however, and it is thus prudent to doubt the traditional view that asserts that mental states cannot be equivalent to physical states. It is unreasonable to endorse such a view purely on the basis of introspective observations. The personal perspective should be used and enjoyed for what it gives us directly: experience that can be made conscious, and that can help guide our life, provided extensive reflective analysis conducted offline—which includes scientific scrutiny—validates its counsel.
我们首先需要考虑的是如何确定非心理状态就是物理的。我们利用了周围感觉探测器来感知外界的客体，并利用各种手段进行测量。然而，对于心理活动，我们无法做到这一点。这并不是因为心理活动与神经状态不等价，而是因为它们发生的位置在大脑内部，是无法测量的。事实上，这些心理活动只能通过心智来感知，而心智和这些心理活动一样，属于同一种加工。这种情形令人感到遗憾，但并未提供有关心智是否具有物理性的任何信息。 然而，这一情形的确给由此产生的直觉施加了重要的限制，因此，怀疑心理状态无法等价于物理状态这一传统观点才是明智的。仅仅基于内省观察就认同这种观点是不合理的。我们应该好好利用个人视角直接提供的经验，它能产生意识、帮助引导生活，并通过离线加工提供丰富的反思性分析，其中也包括科学研究，经验提供的忠告正是通过科学研究来验证的。
The fact that neural maps and the corresponding images are found inside the brain, accessible only to the brain’s owner, is a hurdle. But where else would the maps/images be found but within a private, secluded sector of the brain, given that they are formed inside the brain to begin with? What would be surprising would be to find them outside the brain, given that brain anatomy is not designed to externalize them.
神经映射及其对应的表象存在于大脑内部，只有大脑的主人能够使用，这是一个障碍。但是，由于映射和表象一开始就是在大脑内形成的，如果它们不存在于私密的、与世隔绝的大脑内部，又会出现在哪里呢？大脑的解剖构造并不是为了将映射和表象外化而设计的，因此，如果我们在大脑外发现了它们的存在，那才奇怪呢。
For the time being, the mental state/brain state equivalence should be regarded as a useful hypothesis rather than a certainty. It will take a continued accrual of evidence to lend it support, and for that we need an additional perspective, informed by evidence from evolutionary neurobiology aligned with varied neuroscience evidence.
目前，我们可以把心理状态和大脑状态的等价看作一种有用的假说，而不是定论。要找到更多支持性的证据，我们还需要继续搜集和积累，而为了达到这一目标，我们需要利用另一种视角，演化神经生物学与各种神经科学证据向我们提供了这一视角。
Some may question the need for an additional perspective to make sense of mental events, but there are good justifications for an added perspective. The facts that mental events are correlated with brain events—and no one disputes that fact—and that the latter exist inside the brain, inaccessible to direct measurement, justify a special approach. Also, given that mental/brain events are certainly the product of a long history of biological evolution, it makes sense that evolutionary evidence be included in their consideration. Last, given that mental/brain events are possibly the most complex phenomena in nature, the need for special treatment should not be regarded as exceptional.
有人或许会质疑，理解心理活动是否需要另外一种视角，但我们有理由这样做。事实上，心理活动与大脑活动是相关的，这一点不存在争议，而大脑活动存在于大脑内部，无法直接测量，这就证明我们需要一种特殊的方法。此外，由于心理和大脑活动的确是生物演化的长期结果，将演化的证据纳入考量也是合情合理的。最后，由于心理和大脑活动可能是自然界中最复杂的现象，我们需要对其特别对待，这不应该被视为一种特例。
Even with the help of neuroscience techniques more powerful than are available today, we are unlikely ever to chart the full scope of neural phenomena associated with a mental state, even a simple one. What is possible and needed, for the time being, is a gradual theoretical approximation supported by new empirical evidence.
即便有比当今的神经科学技术更强大的技术，我们也不大可能记录下与某一心理活动有关的所有神经现象，哪怕是一个简单的心理活动都不可能。目前我们能做的，是在新的实证证据帮助下，逐步建立理论。
Accepting the hypothesized mental/neural equivalence is especially helpful with the vexing problem of downward causality. Mental states do exert their influence on behavior, as can be easily revealed by all manner of actions executed by the nervous system and the muscles at its command. The problem, some will say the mystery, has to do with how a phenomenon that is regarded as nonphysical—the mind—can exert its influence on the very physical nervous system that moves us to action. Once mental states and neural states are regarded as the two faces of the same process, one more Janus out to trick us, downward causality is less of a problem.
对心理神经等价假说的接纳尤其有助于解决下向因果性这一令人烦恼的问题。心理状态的确会影响行为，所有由神经系统及其所指挥的肌肉执行的行为都可以轻而易举地证明这一点。问题或者说谜题在于，被视为非物理现象的心智如何作用于令我们产生行为的物理神经系统。一旦我们把心理状态与神经状态视为同一加工过程的两面，如同古罗马神话中欺骗我们的两面神雅努斯，那么下向因果性就不再是那么严重的问题了。
On the other hand, rejecting mind/brain equivalence requires a problematic assumption: that somehow it would be less natural and plausible for neurons to create mappings of things, and for these mappings to be fully formed mental events, than it is for other cells in the organism to create, for example, the shapes of body parts or to execute body actions. When cells in the body proper are placed together in a particular spatial configuration, according to a plan, they constitute an object.
另一方面，如果要否定心脑等价假说，就需要采用一种有问题的假设：神经元产生对事物的映射，形成心理活动，要比机体内其他细胞形成躯体各部分的形态或执行躯体动作更加不自然，实现的可能性更低。当躯体细胞根据计划以特定空间构造排列在一起时，它们就形成了客体。
A hand is a good example. It is made of bones, muscles, tendons, connective tissue, a network of blood vessels and another of nerve pathways, and several layers of skin, all put into place according to a specific architectural pattern. When such a biological object moves in space, it performs an action, for example, your hand pointing to me. Both object and action are physical events in space and time. Now, when neurons arranged in a two-dimensional sheath are active or inactive according to the inputs they receive, they create a pattern. When the pattern corresponds to some object or action, it constitutes a map of something else, a map of that object or that action. Grounded as it is in the activity of physical cells, the pattern is just as physical as the objects or actions it corresponds to. The pattern is momentarily drawn in the brain, carved in the brain by its activity. Why would circuits of brain cells not create some sort of imagetic correspondence for things, provided the cells are properly wired, operate as they are supposed to operate, and become active when they should? Why would the resulting momentary activity patterns necessarily be any less physical than the objects and actions were in the first place?”
手就是一个很好的例子。它是由骨骼、肌肉、肌腱、结缔组织、血管网络、神经通路网络以及几层皮肤组成的，它们根据具体的构造模式组合在了一起。当这样一个生物性客体在空间内移动时，会执行动作，例如，你的手指向了我。客体与动作都是时空中的物理活动。现在，以平面鞘状结构分布的神经元根据收到的输入信息被激活或反激活，这就产生了模式。当模式与某些客体或动作相对应时，就构成了对客体或动作的映射。这一模式以生理细胞的活动为基础，与它所对应的客体或动作一样，具有物理性。它是暂时在大脑中绘制的，由大脑活动刻画而成。在细胞正常联结、正常运行并正常激活的条件下，为什么大脑细胞回路不会产生事物的某种图像呢？为什么这种暂时性活动模式的物理性就一定比客体和动作差呢？
maxresdefault
