Dr. Sam Harris: Using Meditation to Focus, View Consciousness & Expand Your Mind
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Welcome to the Huberman Lab podcast, where we discuss science and science-based tools for everyday life.
欢迎来到休伯曼实验室播客，我们在这里讨论科学和基于科学的日常生活工具。
I'm Andrew Huberman, and I'm a professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford School of Medicine.
我是安德鲁·胡伯曼，斯坦福大学医学院神经生物学和眼科教授。
Today, my guest is Dr. Sam Harris.
今天，我的客人是萨姆·哈里斯博士。
Dr. Sam Harris did his undergraduate training in philosophy at Stanford University and then went on to do his doctorate in neuroscience at the University of California, Los Angeles.
萨姆·哈里斯博士在斯坦福大学完成了哲学本科培训，然后在加州大学洛杉矶分校攻读了神经科学博士学位。
He is well known as an author who has written about everything from meditation to consciousness, free will, and he holds many strong political views that he's voiced on social media and in the content of various books as they relate to philosophy and neuroscience.
他是一位众所周知的作家，写过从冥想到意识、自由意志的一切内容，他持有许多强烈的政治观点，他在社交媒体和各种与哲学和神经科学相关的书籍内容中表达了这些观点。
During today's episode, I mainly talk to Dr. Harris about his views and practices related to meditation, consciousness, and free will.
今天的节目中，我主要和哈里斯博士谈论他对冥想、意识和自由意志的看法和实践。
In fact, he made several important points about what a proper meditation practice can accomplish.
事实上，他就正确的冥想练习可以实现什么目标提出了几个重要观点。
Prior to this episode, I thought that meditation was about deliberately changing one's conscious experience in order to achieve things such as deeper relaxation, a heightened sense of focus or ability to focus generally, elevated memory, and so on.
在这一集之前，我认为冥想是有意改变一个人的意识体验，以实现诸如更深层次的放松、增强的专注感或总体集中注意力的能力、提高记忆力等。
What Sam taught me, and what you'll soon learn as well, is that while meditation does indeed hold all of those valuable benefits, the main value of a meditation practice, or perhaps the greater value of a meditation practice, is that it doesn't just allow one to change their conscious experience, but it actually can allow a human being to view consciousness itself.
萨姆教给我的，也是你很快就会学到的，是，虽然冥想确实具有所有这些宝贵的好处，但冥想练习的主要价值，或者说冥想练习的更大价值，在于它不仅允许人们改变他们的意识体验，而且实际上可以让人类看待意识本身。
That is, to understand what the process of consciousness is.
也就是说，了解意识的过程是什么。
And in doing so, to profoundly shift the way that one engages with the world and with oneself in all practices, all environments, and at all times, both in sleep and in waking states.
这样做，可以深刻地改变一个人在所有实践、所有环境、任何时间、无论是在睡眠还是清醒状态下与世界和自己交往的方式。
And in that way, making meditation perhaps the most potent and important portal by which one can access novel ways of thinking and being and viewing one's life experience.
通过这种方式，冥想也许成为最有效、最重要的门户，通过它，人们可以获得新颖的思维方式、存在方式以及观察自己的生活经历。
We also discussed the so-called mind-body problem and issues of duality and free will, concepts from philosophy and neuroscience that fortunately, thanks to valuable experiments and deep thinking on the part of people like Dr. Sam Harris and others, is now leading people to understand really what free will is and isn't, where the locus of free will likely sits in the brain, if it indeed resides in the brain at all, and what it means to be a conscious being, and how we can modify our conscious states in ways that allow us to be more functional.
我们还讨更加实用。
We also discuss perception, both visual perception, auditory perception, and especially interesting to me, and I think as well, hopefully to you, time perception, which we know is very elastic in the brain.
我们还讨论感知，包括视觉感知、听觉感知，对我来说特别有趣的是，我想，希望对你来说，时间感知，我们知道时间感知在大脑中非常有弹性。
The literal frame rate by which we process our conscious experience can expand and contract dramatically depending on our state of mind and how conscious we are about our state of mind.
我们处理意识体验的字面帧速率可以根据我们的精神状态以及我们对精神状态的意识程度而急剧扩展和收缩。
So we went deep into that topic as well.
所以我们也深入探讨了这个话题。
Today's discussion was indeed an intellectual deep dive into all the topics that I mentioned a few moments ago, but it also included many practical tools.
今天的讨论确实是对我刚才提到的所有主题的智力深入探讨，但它也包括许多实用工具。
In fact, I pushed Sam to share with us what his specific practices are and how we can all arrive at a clearer and better understanding of a meditation practice that we can each and all apply so that we can derive these incredible benefits, not just the ones related to stress and focus and enhanced memory, but the ones that relate to our consciousness, that is, to our deeper sense of self and to others.
事实上，我敦促萨姆与我们分享他的具体练习是什么，以及我们如何才能对冥想练习有一个更清晰、更好的理解，我们每个人都可以应用它，这样我们就能获得这些令人难以置信的好处，不仅仅是与压力、注意力和增强记忆力有关的好处，而且与我们的意识有关的好处，即与我们更深层次的自我意识和他人意识有关的好处。
Several times during today's episode, I mentioned the Waking Up app.
在今天的节目中，我多次提到“Wake Up”应用程序。
The Waking Up app was developed by Sam Harris, but I want to emphasize that my mention of the app is in no way a paid promotional.
Waking Up 应用程序是由 Sam Harris 开发的，但我想强调的是，我提到的该应用程序绝不是付费促销。
Rather, the Waking Up app is one that I've used for some period of time now and find very, very useful.
相反，Wake Up 应用程序是我已经使用了一段时间并且发现非常非常有用的应用程序。
I have family members that also use it.
我的家人也使用它。
Other staff members here at the Huberman Lab podcast use it because we find it to be such a powerful tool.
Huberman 实验室播客的其他工作人员使用它是因为我们发现它是一个非常强大的工具。
Sam has generously offered Huberman Lab podcast listeners a 30-day completely free trial of the Waking Up app.
Sam 慷慨地为 Huberman Lab 播客听众提供了 30 天完全免费的 Waking Up 应用程序试用。
If any of you want to try it, you can simply go to wakingup.com/huberman to get that 30-day free trial.
如果您想尝试一下，只需访问 wakingup.com/huberman 即可获得 30 天免费试用。
During today's discussion, we didn't just talk about meditation, consciousness, and free will.
在今天的讨论中，我们不仅仅谈论冥想、意识和自由意志。
We also talked about psychedelics, both their therapeutic applications for the treatment of things like depression and PTSD, but also the use of psychedelics, and we discussed Sam's experiences with psychedelics as they relate to expanding one's consciousness.
我们还讨论了迷幻药，包括它们在治疗抑郁症和创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）等方面的治疗应用，还有迷幻药的使用，我们还讨论了山姆使用迷幻药的经历，因为它们与扩展一个人的意识有关。
I also asked Sam about his views and practices related to social media, prompted in no small part by his recent voluntary decision to close down his Twitter account.
我还向萨姆询问了他对社交媒体的看法和做法，这在很大程度上是由于他最近自愿决定关闭他的推特账户。
So we talked about his rationale for doing that, how he feels about doing that, and I think you'll find that to be very interesting as well.
所以我们讨论了他这样做的理由，他对此的感受，我想你也会发现这很有趣。
Before we begin, I'd like to emphasize that this podcast is separate from my teaching and research roles at Stanford.
在开始之前，我想强调一下，这个播客与我在斯坦福大学的教学和研究角色是分开的。
It is, however, part of my desire and effort to bring zero cost to consumer information about science and science-related tools to the general public.
然而，我的愿望和努力的一部分是向公众提供有关科学和科学相关工具的零成本消费者信息。
In keeping with that theme, I'd like to thank the sponsors of today's podcast.
为了与这个主题保持一致，我要感谢今天播客的赞助商。
And now for my discussion with Dr. Sam Harris.
现在我与萨姆·哈里斯博士进行讨论。
Dr. Sam Harris.
萨姆·哈里斯博士。
We were just talking about this.
我们刚才正在谈论这个。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yes, Doctor.
是的，医生。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
You are indeed a doctor in science.
您确实是一位科学博士。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
I cannot save your life, but I might save your nonexistent soul if we talk long enough.
我无法拯救你的生命，但如果我们聊得足够长，我可能会拯救你不存在的灵魂。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, neither of us are clinicians, but we are both brain explorers from the-
好吧，我们都不是临床医生，但我们都是大脑探索者——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
different perspectives, some overlapping.
不同的观点，有些重叠。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I'm really excited to have this conversation.
我很高兴能进行这次对话。
I've been listening to your voice for many years, learning from you for many years, and I'd be remiss if I didn't say that my father, who's also a scientist, is an enormous fan of your Waking Up app.
我听了你的声音很多年，向你学习了很多年，如果我不说我的父亲（也是一名科学家）是你的“Wake Up”应用程序的超级粉丝，那就是我的失职。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Nice.
不错。
That's great.
那太棒了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And has spent a lot of time over the last few years, he's in his late 70s, he's almost 80-
过去几年他花了很多时间，他已经70多岁了，快80岁了——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
he's a theoretical physicist, walking to the park near his apartment and spending time meditating with the app or sometimes separate from the app, but using the same sorts of meditations in his head.
他是一名理论物理学家，步行到公寓附近的公园，花时间使用该应用程序进行冥想，或者有时与应用程序分开，但在他的头脑中使用相同类型的冥想。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So he kind of toggles back and forth.
所以他有点来回切换。
And even, I shouldn't say even, but yes, even in his late 70s, has reported that it has Significantly shifted his awareness of self and his conscious experience of things happening in and around him.
甚至，我不应该说甚至，但是，是的，即使在他 70 多岁的时候，他也报告说，这已经显着改变了他的自我意识以及他对发生在他身上和周围的事情的有意识体验。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And he was somebody who I think already saw himself as a pretty aware person thinking about-
我认为他已经将自己视为一个非常清醒的人，正在思考——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
quantum mechanics and the rest.
量子力学等等。
So a thank you from him indirectly.
所以他间接地表达了谢意。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Oh, that's great.
哦，那太好了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
A thank you from me now directly.
我现在直接向您表示感谢。
And I really want to use that as a way to frame up what I think is one of the more interesting questions in not just science and philosophy and psychology, but all of life, which is, what is this thing that we call a self?
我真的想用它来构建我认为不仅在科学、哲学和心理学中而且在整个生活中更有趣的问题之一，即我们称之为自我的东西是什么？
As far as I know, we have not localized the region in the brain-
据我所知，我们还没有定位大脑中的这个区域——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
that can entirely account for our perception of self.
这完全可以解释我们对自我的看法。
There are areas, of course, that regulate proprioception, our awareness of where our limbs are in space, maybe even our awareness of where we are in physical space.
当然，有些区域可以调节本体感觉，即我们对四肢在空间中位置的意识，甚至可能是对我们在物理空间中位置的意识。
There are such circuits, as we both know.
我们都知道，存在这样的电路。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But when we talk about sense of self, I have to remember this kind of Neuroscience 101 thing that we always say.
但当我们谈论自我意识时，我必须记住我们经常说的神经科学101的东西。
When you teach memory, you say you wake up every morning and you remember who you are.
当你教授记忆时，你说你每天早上醒来都会记得你是谁。
You know who you are.
你知道你是谁。
Most people do.
大多数人都是这样。
Even if they lack memory systems in the brain for whatever reason-
即使他们出于某种原因大脑中缺乏记忆系统——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
pretty much everyone seems to know who they are.
几乎每个人似乎都知道他们是谁。
What are your thoughts on what that whole thing is about?
您对整件事有何看法？
And do we come into the world feeling that way?
我们来到这个世界上时也是这样感觉的吗？
I would appreciate answers from the perspective of any field-
我希望从任何领域的角度得到答案-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
including neuroscience, of course.
当然，包括神经科学。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Well, big question.
嗯，大问题。
The problem is we use the term self in so many different ways, right?
问题是我们以多种不同的方式使用“自我”这个词，对吧？
And there's one sense of that term which is the target of meditation and it's the target of deconstruction by the practice and by just any surrounding philosophy.
这个术语有一种含义，它是冥想的目标，也是实践和任何周围哲学解构的目标。
So you'll hear, and you'll hear it from me, that this self is an illusion, right?
所以你会听到，而且你会从我这里听到，这个自我是一个幻象，对吗？
And that there's a psychological freedom that can be experienced on the other side of discovering it to be an illusion.
在发现它是幻觉的另一面可以体验到一种心理上的自由。
And some people don't like that framing.
有些人不喜欢这种框架。
Some people would insist that it's not so much an illusion, but it's a construct, and it's not what it seems, right?
有些人会坚持认为，这与其说是一种幻觉，不如说是一种构造，而且并不像看上去的那样，对吧？
But it's not that every use of the term self is illegitimate, and there are certain types of selves that are not illusory.
但这并不是说“自我”这个词的每一次使用都是非法的，并且某些类型的自我并不是虚幻的。
I'm not saying that people are illusions.
我并不是说人们都是幻觉。
I'm not saying that you can't talk about yourself as distinct, yourself as the whole person and with psychological continuity with your past experience as being distinct from the person and psychological continuity of some other person, right?
我并不是说你不能把你自己说成是独特的，你自己是一个完整的人，并且与你过去的经历具有与其他人不同的人和心理连续性的心理连续性，对吗？
Obviously, we have to be able to conserve those data.
显然，我们必须能够保存这些数据。
It's not fundamentally mysterious that you're going to wake up tomorrow morning still being psychologically continuous with your past and not my past, right?
明天早上醒来时，你的心理上仍会继续你的过去，而不是我的过去，这从根本上来说并不神秘，对吧？
And if we swapped lives, that would demand some explanation.
如果我们交换了生活，那就需要一些解释。
So the illusoriness of the self doesn't cut against any of those obvious facts.
因此，自我的虚幻性并不违背任何这些明显的事实。
So the sense of self that is illusory, and again, we might want to talk about self in other modes because there's just a lot of interest there psychologically and ultimately scientifically.
因此，自我意识是虚幻的，而且，我们可能想以其他方式谈论自我，因为在心理上和最终在科学上都有很多兴趣。
The thing that doesn't exist, it certainly doesn't exist as it seems, and I would want to argue that it actually is just a proper illusion, is the sense that there is a subject interior to experience, in addition to experience.
不存在的东西，它肯定不像看起来那样存在，我想说它实际上只是一种适当的幻觉，是一种感觉，除了经验之外，还存在一个经验内部的主体。
So most people feel like they're having an experience of the world, and they're having an experience of their bodies in the world.
所以大多数人感觉他们正在体验这个世界，并且他们正在体验他们的身体在这个世界上的体验。
And in addition to that, they feel that they are a subject internal to the body, very likely in the head.
除此之外，他们觉得自己是身体内部的主体，很可能是在头脑中。
Most people feel like they're behind their face as a kind of locus of awareness and thought and intention and it's almost like you're a passenger inside your body.
大多数人感觉他们在自己的脸后面，作为一种意识、思想和意图的场所，几乎就像你是身体内的乘客一样。
Most people don't feel identical to their bodies, and they can imagine, and this is sort of the origin, the psychological origin, the folk psychological origin of a sense of that there might be a soul that could survive the death of the body.
大多数人对自己的身体感觉并不相同，他们可以想象，这就是一种感觉的起源，心理起源，民间心理起源，认为可能有一个灵魂可以在身体死亡后幸存下来。
Most people are what my friend Paul Bloom calls common sense dualists, right?
大多数人都是我的朋友保罗·布鲁姆所说的常识二元论者，对吧？
The default expectation seems to be that whatever the relationship between the mind and the body, there's some promise of separability there, right?
默认的期望似乎是，无论心灵和身体之间的关系如何，都存在一定的可分离性，对吧？
And whenever you really push hard on the science side and say, "Well, no, the mind is really just what the brain is doing", that begins to feel more and more counterintuitive to people, and there still seems some residual mystery that at death, maybe something is going to lift off the brain and go elsewhere, right?
每当你真正努力推动科学方面并说，“嗯，不，心灵实际上只是大脑在做的事情”，这对人们来说开始感觉越来越违反直觉，而且似乎仍然存在一些残留的谜团，在死亡时，也许有些东西会离开大脑并转移到其他地方，对吗？
So there's this sense of dualism that many people have, and obviously that's supported by many religious beliefs.
因此，许多人都有这种二元论意识，显然这得到了许多宗教信仰的支持。
But this feeling, it is a very peculiar starting point.
但这种感觉，却是一个非常奇特的起点。
People don't feel identical to their experience, right?
人们对自己的经历感觉并不相同，对吧？
As a matter of experience, they feel like they're on the edge of experience, somehow appropriating it from the side.
作为经验的问题，他们感觉自己处于经验的边缘，以某种方式从侧面挪用它。
You're kind of on the edge of the world, and the world is out there.
你有点处于世界的边缘，而世界就在那里。
Your body is in some sense an object in the world.
从某种意义上说，你的身体是世界上的一个物体。
It's different from the world.
这与世间不同。
The boundary of your skin is still meaningful.
你皮肤的边界仍然是有意义的。
You can sort of loosely control your body.
你可以宽松地控制你的身体。
You can control your gross and subtle voluntary motor movements, but you're not controlling everything your body is doing.
你可以控制你的粗大和微妙的自愿运动，但你无法控制你身体所做的一切。
You're not controlling your heartbeat and your hormonal secretions and all of that.
你无法控制你的心跳和荷尔蒙分泌等等。
And so there's a lot that's going on that is in the dark for you and- Then you give someone an instruction to meditate, say, and you say, "Okay, well, let's examine all of this from the first person's side.
因此，有很多事情对你来说是在黑暗中发生的，然后你给某人一个冥想的指示，比如说，你说，“好吧，好吧，让我们从第一个人的角度来检查所有这些。
Let's look for this thing you're calling I." And again, I is not identical to the body.
我们去找找你叫我的这个东西吧。”再说一次，我与身体并不相同。
People feel like their hands are out there, and if they're going to meditate, they're going to close their eyes very likely.
人们感觉他们的手就在那里，如果他们要冥想，他们很可能会闭上眼睛。
And now they're going to pay attention to something.
现在他们要注意一些事情。
They're going to pay attention to the breath or to sounds.
他们会注意呼吸或声音。
And it's from the point of view of being a locus of attention that is now aiming attention strategically at an object, like the breath, that there's this dualism that is set up.
正是从注意力焦点的角度来看，注意力现在战略性地将注意力集中在一个物体上，比如呼吸，这种二元论就被建立了。
And ultimately, the ultimate promise of meditation, there are really two levels at which you could be interested in meditation.
最终，冥想的最终承诺，实际上有两个层次你可能会对冥想感兴趣。
One is very straightforward and remedial and non-paradoxical and very well-subscribed, and it's the usual set of claims about all the benefits you're going to get from meditation.
一种是非常直接、具有治疗作用、不矛盾、非常受欢迎的说法，它是关于你将从冥想中获得的所有好处的常见主张。
So you're going to lower your stress, and you're going to increase your focus, and you're going to stave off cortical thinning, and there's all kinds of good things that science is saying meditation will give you.
所以你会减轻你的压力，你会增加你的注意力，你会避免皮质变薄，科学表明冥想会给你带来各种各样的好处。
And none of that entails really drilling down on this paradoxical claim that the self is an illusion or anything else of that sort.
所有这些都不需要真正深入探讨自我是一种幻觉或其他类似事物的自相矛盾的主张。
But from my point of view, the real purpose of meditation and its real promise is not in this long list of benefits.
但从我的角度来看，冥想的真正目的及其真正的承诺并不在这一长串的好处中。
And I'm not discounting any of those, though the science for many of them is quite provisional.
我不会轻视其中任何一个，尽管其中许多的科学依据都是相当临时的。
It's in this deeper claim that if you look for this thing you're calling I, if you look for the sense that there's a thinker in addition to the mere arising of the next thought, say, you won't find that thing.
正是在这个更深层次的主张中，如果你寻找这个你称之为“我”的东西，如果你寻找除了下一个想法的纯粹出现之外还有一个思考者的感觉，比如说，你将找不到那个东西。
And what's more, you cannot find it in a way that's conclusive, and that matters.
更重要的是，你无法以一种决定性的、重要的方式找到它。
There's a host of benefits that follow from that discovery, which are quite a bit deeper and more interesting than engaging meditation on the side of its benefits, de-stressing, increasing focus, and all the rest.
这一发现带来了许多好处，这些好处比冥想的好处、减压、增强注意力等等更深入、更有趣。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I have a number of questions related-
我有很多相关问题 -
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Sure
当然可以
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
to what you just said.
就你刚才所说的。
And first of all, I agree that the evidence that meditation can improve focus, reduce stress, et cetera, it's there.
首先，我同意冥想可以提高注意力、减轻压力等等的证据，它是存在的。
It's not an enormous pile of evidence, but it's growing.
这不是一大堆证据，但它正在增长。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I think that especially for some of the shorter meditations, which I these days view more as perceptual exercises.
我认为尤其是对于一些较短的冥想，我现在将其更多地视为感知练习。
Talked about this on the podcast before, but for those that haven't heard it before about perception, you can have exteroception extending to things beyond the confines of your skin, interoception, which I think also includes the surfaces of the skin, but everything inward.
之前在播客上谈到过这一点，但对于那些以前没有听说过感知的人来说，你可以将外感受延伸到皮肤范围之外的事物，内感受，我认为这也包括皮肤的表面，但一切都是内在的。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And meditation through eyes closed typically involving some sort of attentional spotlighting, something we'll get into to more interoceptive versus exteroceptive events, et cetera, including thoughts.
通过闭眼进行冥想通常涉及某种注意力聚焦，我们将讨论更多的内感受与外感受事件，等等，包括思想。
And so I think of at a basic level, meditation as somewhat of a perceptual exercise.
因此，我认为从根本上来说，冥想是一种感知练习。
You can tell me where you disagree there, and I would expect and hope that you would.
你可以告诉我你不同意的地方，我期待并希望你会这么做。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But I would like to just touch on this idea that you brought up because it's such an interesting one of this idea that our bodies are containers and that we somehow view ourselves as passengers within those containers.
但我想谈谈你提出的这个想法，因为这个想法非常有趣，我们的身体是容器，我们以某种方式将自己视为这些容器中的乘客。
That's certainly been my experience.
这当然是我的经历。
And the image that I have is of, as you say that, is of myself or of people out there that sit a few centimeters below the surface or that sit entirely in their head.
正如你所说，我所拥有的图像是我自己的图像，或者是位于地表以下几厘米处的人们的图像，或者完全位于他们头脑中的图像。
And of course, the brain and body are connected through the nervous system.
当然，大脑和身体通过神经系统相连。
I think sometimes a brain is used to replace nervous system, and that can get us into trouble in terms of coming up with real directions and definitions.
我认为有时大脑被用来代替神经系统，这可能会给我们带来真正的方向和定义方面的麻烦。
But the point is that there is something special about the real estate in the head.
但重点是，头脑中的房地产有一些特别之处。
I think for as much as my laboratory and many other scientists are really interested in brain-body connections through the nervous system and other organ systems that the nervous system binds, that if you cut off all my limbs, I'm going to be different, but I'm fundamentally still Andrew.
我认为，尽管我的实验室和许多其他科学家对神经系统和神经系统结合的其他器官系统之间的脑体连接非常感兴趣，但如果你砍掉我所有的四肢，我就会有所不同，但从根本上来说我仍然是安德鲁。
Whereas if-
而如果-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
we were to lesion a couple square millimeters out of my parietal cortex, it's an open question as to whether or not I would still seem as much like Andrew to other people and to myself even.
我们要从我的顶叶皮层损伤几平方毫米，这是一个悬而未决的问题，我是否在其他人甚至我自己看来仍然像安德鲁一样。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And so there is something fundamentally different about the real estate in the cranial vault.
因此，颅顶内的物质存在着根本的不同。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
You could even remove both of my eyes, I'd still be Andrew, and those are two pieces of my central nervous system that are fundamental to my daily life, but I'd still be me.
你甚至可以摘掉我的双眼，我仍然是安德鲁，这是我的中枢神经系统的两个部分，对我的日常生活至关重要，但我仍然是我。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And this doesn't, I think, just apply to memory systems.
我认为这不仅仅适用于内存系统。
I think there are regions of the frontal cortex that when destroyed have been shown to modify personality and self-perception in dramatic ways.
我认为额叶皮层的某些区域在被破坏时会以戏剧性的方式改变个性和自我认知。
So it's a sort of obvious point once it's made, but I do think it's worth highlighting because there does seem to be something special about being in the head.
因此，一旦提出，这就是一个显而易见的观点，但我确实认为值得强调，因为在头脑中似乎确实有一些特别的东西。
The other thing is that sitting a few centimeters below the surface or riding in this container makes sense to me, except I wonder if you've ever experienced a shift as I have when something very extreme happens.
另一件事是，坐在水面以下几厘米处或乘坐在这个容器中对我来说很有意义，但我想知道当发生非常极端的事情时，您是否经历过像我一样的转变。
Let's use the negative example of all of a sudden you're in a fear state.
让我们使用突然处于恐惧状态的反面例子。
All of a sudden, it feels as if your entire body is you or is me.
突然间，感觉好像你的整个身体就是你或者就是我。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And now I need to get this thing, the whole container and me, to some place of safety in whatever form.
现在我需要以任何形式把这个东西、整个容器和我带到某个安全的地方。
This is also true, I think, in ecstatic states.
我认为，在欣喜若狂的状态下也是如此。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Where you can feel really, when people say embodied, I wonder whether or not we normally oscillate below the surface of our body.
当人们说体现时，你能真正感受到的地方，我想知道我们通常是否在身体表面以下振荡。
And when I say oscillate, I mean in neural terms.
当我说振荡时，我指的是神经术语。
Maybe our sensory experience is not truly at the bodily surface but sits below the bodily surface more at the level of organ systems and within our head.
也许我们的感官体验并不真正存在于身体表面，而是位于身体表面以下，更多的是在器官系统层面和我们的大脑内。
And then certain things that jolt us, our autonomic nervous system into heightened states-
然后某些事情会让我们的自主神经系统进入高度状态——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
bring us into states of, bring us closer to the surface and therefore include all of us.
让我们进入状态，让我们更接近表面，因此包括我们所有人。
Again, I don't want to take us down a mechanistic description of something that doesn't exist, but does any of that resonate In terms of how you are thinking about or describing the self
再说一次，我不想让我们对不存在的事物进行机械描述，但是就你如何思考或描述自我而言，这些描述是否会引起共鸣？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
There's a lot there.
那里有很多东西。
First on the point of the brain being the locus of what we are as minds.
首先，大脑是我们心灵的所在地。
Yeah, there are people who will insist that the whole nervous system has to be thought of as the ability-- When you're talking about our emotional life and the insula's connection to the gut and the sense of self extends beyond the brain.
是的，有些人坚持认为整个神经系统必须被视为一种能力——当你谈论我们的情感生活、脑岛与肠道的联系以及超越大脑的自我意识时。
But I totally take your point that a brain transplant is a coherent idea, and you would expect to go with the brain rather than with the viscera.
但我完全同意你的观点，即大脑移植是一个连贯的想法，你会期望移植大脑而不是内脏。
And so in that sense, we really are the old philosophical thought experiment of being a brain in a vat.
所以从这个意义上说，我们确实是古老的哲学思想实验，是缸中之脑。
We essentially are already.
我们基本上已经是了。
The vat is our skull, and we're virtually in that situation.
缸就是我们的头骨，我们实际上就处于这种情况。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Horrible movie.
可怕的电影。
I'm sorry, I can't help but interrupt.
抱歉，我忍不住打断一下。
When I was a teenager, my sister and I used to go to the movies every once in a while, and we'd trade off who could pick the movie.
当我十几岁的时候，我和姐姐经常去看电影，我们会权衡谁可以选择电影。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And she took me to see once the movie Boxing Helena, the-
她带我去看了一次电影《拳击海伦娜》，那-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
David Lynch film where-
大卫·林奇的电影里——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
I never saw that.
我从来没有看到过。
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
where he amputates the limbs of a woman who he's obsessed by and keeps her.
在那里，他截掉了一个他所迷恋的女人的四肢并保留了她。
It's a really horrible-
这实在是太可怕了——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
film.
电影。
And about 20 minutes into it, my sister just turned to me and said, "I'm so sorry."
大约 20 分钟后，我姐姐转向我说：“我很抱歉。”
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And the question then was whether or not two siblings should actually persist in a movie like that.
接下来的问题是，两兄弟是否真的应该坚持拍这样的电影。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And we decided to persist in the movie so that we could laugh about it later.
我们决定继续拍这部电影，这样我们以后就能笑起来。
But it was rather disturbing.
但这是相当令人不安的。
I don't recommend the movie, nor do I recommend seeing it with a sibling.
我不推荐这部电影，也不建议和兄弟姐妹一起看。
But in that movie, the woman, he takes her as a container and restricts her movement, right?
但那部电影里，那个女人，他把她当作容器，限制她的行动吧？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Quite sadistic and horrible thing, really.
真的，这是一件非常虐待狂和可怕的事情。
David Lynch.
大卫·林奇.
Interesting mind, perhaps.
也许是有趣的想法。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But the idea was to question how much of the person persists in the absence of their ability to move, et cetera.
但这个想法是要质疑一个人在缺乏移动能力等情况下有多少能力坚持下来。
Could there be love?
还能有爱情吗？
Could there be these other affections?
还会有其他的感情吗？
Anyway, a rather extreme example, but one that still haunts me-
无论如何，这是一个相当极端的例子，但仍然困扰着我——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and I suppose I'm thinking about still now.
我想我现在仍在思考。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Well, so just to follow that point, there's a lot about us that we don't have access to unless we enact it physically.
好吧，为了遵循这一点，我们有很多东西是我们无法接触到的，除非我们亲自实施。
Like if I ask you, do you still know how to ride a bike, right?
就像我问你，你还会骑自行车吗？
There's no place in your memory where you can inspect by you just sitting in your chair that you've retained the knowledge of how to ride a bike, right?
在你的记忆中，没有任何地方可以通过你坐在椅子上检查你是否保留了如何骑自行车的知识，对吗？
Procedural memory is different from semantic or episodic memory.
程序记忆不同于语义记忆或情景记忆。
If I asked you, do you know your address?
如果我问你，你知道你的地址吗？
Yes, you can recall your address just sitting there.
是的，您坐在那里就能回忆起您的地址。
But if you had had a microstroke that neatly dissected out your ability to ride a bike and left everything else intact, you might think you could ride a bike, but suddenly you stand up next to one, and you have no idea what to do with it.
但如果你发生了一次微中风，彻底破坏了你骑自行车的能力，而其他一切都完好无损，你可能会认为你可以骑自行车，但突然你站在一辆自行车旁边，你不知道该怎么办。
And that would be a discovery that would only happen if you were motorically engaged with that object.
只有当你对那个物体进行机动性的参与时，这个发现才会发生。
And I'm sure we could probably come up with 100 things about us that really seem core to us and are not separable from our personhood, which seem to only get invoked when we're out there moving in the world and we have limbs, et cetera.
我相信我们可能会想出 100 件关于我们的事情，这些事情对我们来说确实是核心，并且与我们的人格密不可分，这些事情似乎只有当我们在世界上移动并且我们有四肢等等时才会被调用。
But yeah, no, the seat of consciousness.
但是，是的，不，意识所在。
The right framework to talk about all of this from my point of view is consciousness and its contents, right?
从我的角度来看，谈论所有这些的正确框架是意识及其内容，对吧？
So we have consciousness, the fact that there's something that is like to be us, right?
所以我们有意识，事实上有一些东西就像我们一样，对吗？
The fact that the world and our internal experience is illuminated, that it has a qualitative character.
事实上，世界和我们的内在经验是被阐明的，它具有定性特征。
And then there's the question of what is that qualitative character?
那么问题来了，这种品质特征是什么？
What kinds of information do we have access to?
我们可以访问哪些类型的信息？
What does it feel like to be us?
成为我们感觉如何？
How do different states of arousal change that?
不同的唤醒状态如何改变这一点？
So you talked about fear.
所以你谈到了恐惧。
Yeah, fear can change a lot of things.
是的，恐惧可以改变很多事情。
And various neurological deficits, or you can add drugs to the mix, you add psychedelics that radically transform the contents of consciousness.
各种神经系统缺陷，或者你可以添加药物，你添加迷幻药，从根本上改变意识的内容。
From my point of view, consciousness itself is simply the cognizance, the awareness that is the floodlights by which any of that stuff appears, right?
从我的角度来看，意识本身只是认知，意识是任何这些东西出现的泛光灯，对吗？
So consciousness doesn't change, but its contents change.
所以意识不会改变，但它的内容会改变。
And to come back to meditation for a second, many people think meditation is about changing the contents of consciousness.
回到冥想上来，许多人认为冥想就是改变意识的内容。
There's some contents you want to get rid of, like anxiety.
有些内容你想摆脱，比如焦虑。
Other contents you want to encourage, like calm and unconditional love or some other classically pleasant prosocial emotion.
您想要鼓励的其他内容，例如平静和无条件的爱或其他一些经典的令人愉快的亲社会情感。
And that's all fine.
一切都很好。
That's all possible.
这都是有可能的。
But the real wisdom, the 2,000-year-old wisdom of meditation that really is the chewy center of the Tootsie Pop is a recognition of what consciousness itself is always already like, regardless of the contents and the changes in contents.
但真正的智慧，2000年前的冥想智慧，确实是Tootsie Pop的耐嚼中心，是对意识本身始终已经是什么样子的认识，无论其内容和内容如何变化。
And this is why, and we might talk about this, but this is why they're mutually compatible.
这就是为什么，我们可能会讨论这一点，但这就是为什么它们相互兼容。
Psychedelics and meditation for me are somewhat orthogonal because psychedelics is all about making wholesale changes to the contents of consciousness.
对我来说，迷幻药和冥想有些正交，因为迷幻药就是对意识内容进行大规模的改变。
And there's some wonderful consequences of doing that.
这样做会产生一些奇妙的后果。
There can be some harrowing and terrifying consequences of doing that.
这样做可能会产生一些令人痛苦和可怕的后果。
But generally speaking, I think used wisely, they can be incredibly valuable and the therapeutic potential there is enormous.
但总的来说，我认为如果使用得当，它们可能非常有价值，并且治疗潜力巨大。
But the crucial disjunction here is that there really is something to recognize about ordinary waking consciousness.
但这里的关键区别在于，对于普通的清醒意识确实有一些值得认识的地方。
The consciousness that's compatible with my driving a car to get here on time, right?
这种意识与我开车准时到达这里是相适应的，对吗？
You don't have to have the pyrotechnics of being on LSD to see the To transcend the central illusion that I'm saying is the thing to be transcended, which is this sense that there is a duality between subject and object in every moment of experience.
你不必像服用LSD那样烟火般地看到“超越中心幻觉”，我所说的是要超越的事情，即在每一个经历的时刻，主体和客体之间都存在着二元性。
And to take it back to something you said about just all of our different modes in ordinary life, the interesting thing is I think people are constantly losing their sense of self and they're not aware of it.
回到你所说的关于我们日常生活中所有不同模式的事情，有趣的是我认为人们不断地失去自我意识，而他们却没有意识到这一点。
And there's probably an analogy to the visual system here, which is to visual saccades, which perhaps you've spoken about at some point on your podcast.
这里可能有一个与视觉系统的类比，即视觉扫视，您可能在播客中的某个时候谈到过。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Not enough, so please.
还不够，所以请。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
So, what happens with our-- Every time we move our eyes, this is called a saccade, and we do that about three times a second or so just normally.
那么，我们的每次移动眼睛时会发生什么，这被称为扫视，我们通常每秒大约这样做 3 次。
The region of motor cortex that affects that movement sends what's called an efferent copy of that motor movement, which is used as information that propagates back to visual cortex that suppresses the data of vision while the eyes are moving.
影响该运动的运动皮层区域发送所谓的运动运动的传出副本，该副本被用作传播回视觉皮层的信息，视觉皮层在眼睛移动时抑制视觉数据。
Because otherwise, if you weren't doing that, every time you moved your eyes, it would seem like the visual scene itself was lurching around.
因为否则的话，如果你不这样做，每次你移动眼睛时，视觉场景本身就会显得摇摇欲坠。
And people can experience this for themselves if they just touch one of their eyeballs on the side, not all that hard and kind of jiggle it.
人们只要触摸一侧的眼球，就可以亲身体验到这一点，而不是那么用力或摇晃它。
And then you can roll it around, you can jiggle it from side to side.
然后你可以滚动它，你可以左右摇动它。
You can see that a movement of the eyeball that's not governed by your ocular motor system delivers a jiggling of the world because your brain is not anticipating it in the same way, and you're not producing that same predictive copy of the movement.
您可以看到，不受眼球运动系统控制的眼球运动会导致世界摇晃，因为您的大脑不会以相同的方式预测它，并且您不会产生相同的运动预测副本。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's a little bit like, we have some action sports filmers on our staff here, the gimbal that holds an iPhone, like you see the kids-
这有点像，我们这里有一些极限运动摄影师，拿着 iPhone 的万向节，就像你看到的孩子们一样 -
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
on surfboards or skateboards or something.
在冲浪板或滑板或其他东西上。
They hold a phone while moving around, or the people who are the vloggers.
他们在走动时拿着手机，或者是视频博主。
Does anyone even still use that phrase, vlogger?
现在还有人用这个词吗，vlogger？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
I guess.
我猜。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Moving around and it's image stabilization, essentially-
四处移动，它的图像稳定性，本质上是-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
that keeps the camera steady.
使相机保持稳定。
And these are more than cameras, of course.
当然，这些不仅仅是相机。
For those listening, I'm pointing at my eyes, but they do far more than just what a camera would do.
对于那些倾听的人，我指着我的眼睛，但它们的作用远远超出了相机的作用。
But yeah, this internal system of image stabilization.
但是，是的，这个内部图像稳定系统。
Yeah, I can see perhaps where you're going with this, that it allows us to remain in a self-referencing scheme as opposed to sort of paying attention to just how confusing it is to track the visual world at some level.
是的，我也许能明白你的意思，它允许我们保持自我引用的方案，而不是关注在某种程度上跟踪视觉世界是多么令人困惑。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Well, actually, where I'm going is that so people are having this suppression of vision three times a second on average, and they're not experiencing it.
嗯，实际上，我想说的是，人们平均每秒会遭受三次视力抑制，但他们却没有经历过。
So literally, you're effectively going blind and you're not noticing it and-
所以从字面上看，你实际上已经失明了，而且你没有注意到它——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's very fast.
速度非常快。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yes, it's very fast.
是的，速度非常快。
Now, there's an analogous suppression, I would say, of the sense of self that occurs every time attention gets absorbed significantly in its object.
现在，我想说，每次注意力集中在其对象上时，都会发生类似的自我意识抑制。
So we even have this concept of losing yourself in your work or losing your-- The classic flow experiences have this quality where there's, and this tends to be why they're so rewarding, where there's just if you're in some athletic activity or an aesthetic one, or you could be having sex, or you could be whatever it is, some peak experience, its peakness usually entails there being some brief period where there was no distance between you and the experience.
所以我们甚至有这样的概念：在工作中迷失自己或失去你的——经典的心流体验就具有这种品质，这往往就是它们如此有益的原因，只要你正在进行某种体育活动或审美活动，或者你可能正在做爱，或者你可能是什么，某种巅峰体验，它的巅峰通常意味着有一段短暂的时期，在这段时间内你和体验之间没有距离。
For that moment, you were no longer looking over your own shoulder, or anticipating the next moment, or trying to get somewhere where you weren't, or micromanaging errors.
在那一刻，你不再审视自己，不再期待下一刻，不再试图到达你没有到达的地方，也不再对错误进行微观管理。
There's just the flow of unity with whatever the experience is.
无论经历是什么，都会有统一的流动。
A surfer on the wave.
海浪上的冲浪者。
And we love those experiences.
我们喜欢这些经历。
And then we are continually abstracted away from them by our thinking about them.
然后我们就会因为对它们的思考而不断地脱离它们。
We'll think, "Oh my God, that was so good," or, "How do I get back to that?" Or you're looking at a sunset, it's the most beautiful sunset you've ever seen, and then you're continually interrupting the experience of merely seeing it with a commentary about how amazing this is, and, "I wonder what are real estate prices are here?
我们会想，“天哪，那太好了”，或者“我该如何回到那个状态呢？”或者你正在看日落，这是你见过的最美丽的日落，然后你不断地打断仅仅观看它的体验，并评论这是多么令人惊奇，并且，“我想知道这里的房地产价格是多少？
Is it possible to actually we could move here?" And your mind is just continually narrating a conversation you're having with yourself, however paradoxically.
我们真的可以搬到这里吗？”而你的大脑只是不断地叙述你与自己的对话，无论多么矛盾。
You're telling yourself things that you already know as though there were two of you rather often.
你经常告诉自己一些你已经知道的事情，就好像你们两个人一样。
You're just, "I'm looking for-- Which is the water?" And I say, "Oh, there it is." But I'm the one seeing it.
你只是，“我在寻找——哪一个是水？”我说：“哦，就在那里。”但我是看到它的人。
Who am I saying, "Oh, there it is," to, as though there's someone else who needs to be informed about the thing I already saw?
我在对谁说“哦，就在那里”，好像还有其他人需要了解我已经看到的东西一样？
So there's something about our internal dialogue that is paradoxical.
所以我们的内部对话有些矛盾。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Is there any neurologic condition, coloselectomy or anything like that, where somehow people feel more unified with the self on a continual basis?
是否有任何神经系统疾病、结肠切除术或类似的疾病，可以让人们在持续的基础上感觉与自我更加统一？
The observer and the actor within.
观察者和其中的演员。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
State more as a complete sentence.
将 more 作为一个完整的句子陈述。
Is there any known neurological syndrome, makes it sound like a bad thing, but it could be a good thing, whereby people feel that the actor and the observer within them are unified continually?
是否有任何已知的神经综合症，使它听起来像是一件坏事，但它可能是一件好事，使人们感觉演员和观察者在他们之中不断地统一？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
There's not a pathological one.
不存在病理性的。
Some of the work on the default mode network suggests that that's at least part of the story.
默认模式网络上的一些工作表明这至少是故事的一部分。
So the default mode network- Which has been talked about a lot of late because it has come up both in the meditation literature and in the psychedelic literature.
所以默认模式网络 - 最近已经被谈论了很多，因为它在冥想文献和迷幻文献中都出现了。
But its original discovery was that, and the reason why it was called the default mode, was that in virtually every neuroimaging experiment ever run, they found that between tasks, when the brain was just in its default state, these midline structures would increase their activity, and then they would reliably diminish whenever the person in the scanner was on task.
但它最初的发现是，它被称为默认模式的原因是，在几乎所有进行的神经成像实验中，他们发现在任务之间，当大脑处于默认状态时，这些中线结构会增加其活动，然后每当扫描仪中的人执行任务时，它们就会可靠地减少。
And usually, that meant some kind of outward-looking visual discrimination task.
通常，这意味着某种外向的视觉辨别任务。
It could be visual, it could be semantic.
它可以是视觉的，也可以是语义的。
It tends to be their eyes are open and they're paying attention to something that's being broadcast to them through monitor goggles, or they're looking at a mirror that's showing them a computer monitor.
他们的眼睛往往是睁着的，他们正在注意通过显示器护目镜向他们广播的内容，或者他们正在看着向他们展示电脑显示器的镜子。
So the general insight was there are these midline structures in the brain that seem to be increasing their activity when the brain is just idling between tasks, waiting for something to happen.
因此，普遍的看法是，当大脑在任务之间闲置、等待某些事情发生时，大脑中的这些中线结构似乎会增加其活动。
And then further experiments found tasks that actually upregulated activity there beyond baseline.
然后进一步的实验发现任务实际上使那里的活动超出了基线。
And those tasks seem to be self-referential, so that when you ask people, you give them a list of words and you say, "Well, do any of these apply to you?" Or you ask people to think about, actually in one experiment I did, when you're challenging people's beliefs that have more of a personal significance, like political or religious beliefs, you get an upregulation in these regions, as opposed to just generic beliefs about you're in Los Angeles, this is a table.
这些任务似乎是自我参照的，因此当你询问人们时，你会给他们一个单词列表，然后你说：“好吧，这些任务中的任何一个适用于你吗？”或者你让人们思考，实际上在我做过的一个实验中，当你挑战人们更具个人意义的信仰时，比如政治或宗教信仰，你会在这些地区得到上调，而不是仅仅关于你在洛杉矶的一般信仰，这是一张桌子。
There's something to which people are not holding fast as a matter of identity.
出于身份认同的原因，有些东西人们并没有坚持下去。
So anyway, both meditation and psychedelics seem to suppress activity in these regions, which we know are associated with both self-talk, mind-wandering, and explicit acts of self-representation.
所以无论如何，冥想和迷幻药似乎都会抑制这些区域的活动，我们知道这些区域与自言自语、走神和明确的自我表现行为有关。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Could we say that they are somewhat autobiographical because they access memory systems?
我们是否可以说它们在某种程度上是自传体的，因为它们访问的是记忆系统？
And in the way you're describing them and in the way that a colleague of mine who's been a guest on this podcast, I don't know if you've interacted with him before, but I think you'd very much enjoy whatever interaction you would have, is David Spiegel.
从你描述他们的方式以及我的一位同事（他是这个播客的嘉宾）的方式来看，我不知道你以前是否与他互动过，但我认为你会非常享受任何互动，他就是大卫·斯皮格尔。
He's our associate chair of psychiatry.
他是我们的精神病学副主任。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Uh-huh.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
He and his father, actually, his father, then he founded hypnosis as a valid clinical practice in psychiatry.
他和他的父亲，实际上是他的父亲，然后他创立了催眠术作为精神病学的有效临床实践。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And hypnosis, which is obviously a heightened sense of attention with deep relaxation, is known to dramatically suppress the default mode network.
众所周知，催眠是一种高度放松的高度注意力，可以极大地抑制默认模式网络。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
He talks about this a lot, and I always wonder as we take down activity within the default mode network, what surfaces in its place and is what surfaces in its place, does that somehow reflect that the two are normally in a push-pull?
他谈论了很多这个问题，我总是想知道，当我们取消默认模式网络内的活动时，在其位置上出现什么表面以及在其位置上出现什么表面，这是否以某种方式反映了两者通常处于推拉状态？
Because that's not necessarily the case, right?
因为情况不一定如此，对吗？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
When I fall asleep, I can hallucinate, but that doesn't mean that during the day, the fact that I'm looking at objects is what's preventing me from hallucinating.
当我入睡时，我可能会产生幻觉，但这并不意味着在白天，我正在看物体这一事实可以阻止我产生幻觉。
If I close my eyes, I can get imagery.
如果我闭上眼睛，我就能看到图像。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But there's this kind of a different illusion, the illusion of antagonistic circuitry sometimes.
但有一种不同的错觉，有时是对抗性电路的错觉。
I don't want to take us off course, but the default mode network seems to "want to be there", quote unquote.
我不想让我们偏离路线，但默认模式网络似乎“想要在那里”，引用不引用。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It seems to be fighting for our attention unless we give ourselves a visual target or an auditory target or some salient experience of some kind, it sounds like.
听起来，除非我们给自己一个视觉目标或听觉目标或某种显着的体验，否则它似乎正在争夺我们的注意力。
And then I'm surprised to hear that meditation reduces activity in the default mode network at some level because meditation, to me, oftentimes involves paying attention to some sort of perceptual target.
然后我很惊讶地听到冥想在某种程度上减少了默认模式网络的活动，因为对我来说，冥想通常涉及关注某种感知目标。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Maybe you could eventually explain as to how it might do that or why it might.
也许您最终可以解释它如何做到这一点或为什么这样做。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
And I don't think it's the whole story because obviously outward-going attention is not, even if you're having the kind of egoic saccade that I'm talking about, where you're actually not clearly aware of yourself, you're not clearly defining yourself as separate from experience for the moment of paying attention, so you are sort of losing yourself in your work.
我不认为这就是全部故事，因为显然外向注意力不是，即使你正在经历我所说的那种自我扫视，你实际上并没有清楚地意识到自己，你也没有清楚地将自己定义为与关注时刻的经验分离，所以你有点在工作中迷失了自己。
That's not the same thing as having the clear meditative insight of selflessness that I'm claiming is the goal of meditation.
这与我所说的冥想目标是获得无私的清晰冥想洞察不是一回事。
To wind back to the original point I was making and the reason why I drew the analogy to visual saccades, I do think there's a continuous interruption in our sense of self that goes unrecognized.
回到我最初提出的观点以及我为什么将其与视觉扫视进行类比的原因，我确实认为我们的自我意识中存在着未被认识到的持续中断。
But the conscious acquisition of the understanding that the self is an illusion is a different experience.
但有意识地认识到自我是一种幻觉，则是一种不同的体验。
Because you're then focusing on this absence.
因为你会专注于这种缺席。
Actually, there's another analogy to the visual system that applies here, which is to the optic blind spot.
实际上，这里还有一个与视觉系统类似的类比，那就是光学盲点。
Which is a good analogy for me because it cuts through a bunch of false assumption as to where you would look for this or how this relates to ordinary experience.
这对我来说是一个很好的类比，因为它消除了一堆错误的假设，比如你会在哪里寻找这个或者它与普通经验的关系。
So as many people know that in both eyes, we have what's called the blind spot, which is a consequence of the optic nerve transiting through the retina.
很多人都知道，我们的双眼都有所谓的盲点，这是视神经穿过视网膜的结果。
Unlike cephalopods, I think.
我认为与头足类动物不同。
I think cephalopods have their optic nerve as an omniscient being would have engineered it, connecting the retina from the back And therefore, there is no area of blindness associated with its transit back through the retina.
我认为头足类动物有视神经，就像全知的生物会设计它一样，从后面连接视网膜，因此，不存在与它通过视网膜传输回来相关的失明区域。
But our sort of-
但我们的那种——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Photoreceptors on the outside.
光感受器在外面。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Exactly.
正是如此。
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Humans, for whatever reason, put photorecep-- Well-
人类，无论出于何种原因，都会放置感光——好吧——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
I always say I wasn't consulted in the design phase.
我总是说在设计阶段没有征求我的意见。
Something put photoreceptors, a combination of things, put photoreceptors in the back, and so you actually have to send the highway of information-
有些东西放置了感光器，一些东西的组合，将感光器放在后面，所以你实际上必须发送信息高速公路-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
You need the cables.
你需要电缆。
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
through the pixel center of the eye.
通过眼睛的像素中心。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Exactly, yeah.
没错，是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah, cephalopods and Drosophila.
是的，头足类动物和果蝇。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Uh-huh
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Basically, invertebrates.
基本上是无脊椎动物。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
The design is more, at its face, logical.
从表面上看，该设计更具逻辑性。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mammals, very illogical design, at least as far as-
哺乳动物，非常不合逻辑的设计，至少——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
our judgments go.
我们的判断继续下去。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
But it gives me a good analogy, so I'll take it.
但这给了我一个很好的类比，所以我会接受它。
So in any case, we have this blind spot which you can, I think most people learn this in school, although my daughters had not been taught this in school.
所以无论如何，我们都有这个盲点，我认为大多数人在学校都学到了这一点，尽管我的女儿们在学校里没有学到这一点。
I just showed them this for the first time a month ago.
一个月前我第一次向他们展示了这个。
And they were briefly fascinated, and then they want to return to their screen time.
他们短暂地着迷，然后他们想回到屏幕时间。
But anyway, you can take a piece of paper and you make two marks on it, and then you cover one eye, and you fixate on one mark.
但无论如何，你可以拿一张纸，在上面做两个标记，然后遮住一只眼睛，盯着一个标记。
You can look this up online if you need details about how to do this.
如果您需要有关如何执行此操作的详细信息，可以在线查找。
And while staring at one fixation point, you move the paper back and forth, and you can get it to a place where the other mark disappears.
当你盯着一个固定点时，你来回移动纸张，你可以把它移动到另一个标记消失的地方。
And you can run this experiment long enough to satisfy yourself that there is, in fact, a blind spot in your visual field, which with one eye closed, you don't normally notice.
你可以进行这个实验足够长的时间，让自己确信你的视野中确实存在一个盲点，闭上一只眼睛时，你通常不会注意到这个盲点。
The reason why you have to cover one eye is because each eye compensates for the blind spot of the other.
之所以必须遮住一只眼睛，是因为每只眼睛都会补偿另一只眼睛的盲点。
So, which is to say that if you close one eye and survey the visual scene, something really is missing, whatever you're looking at.
所以，也就是说，如果你闭上一只眼睛观察视觉场景，无论你在看什么，都会发现确实缺少了一些东西。
If you're looking at a crowd of people, somebody is missing a head, and you're not noticing it.
如果你看着一群人，就会发现有人缺了一个头，而你却没有注意到。
And it's not easy to notice because the brain doesn't tend to vividly represent the absence of information.
这并不容易被注意到，因为大脑不会生动地表示信息的缺失。
It's just part of the game that's not being rendered.
这只是游戏中未渲染的一部分。
It's not showing up as a break in the visual field.
它并不表现为视野中断。
It's just not there, and people have argued that there's a kind of filling in phenomenon that happens.
它只是不存在，人们认为存在一种填充现象。
But I think that can be misunderstood or exaggerated.
但我认为这可能会被误解或夸大。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But the eye movements themselves that you described before, I guess I should say that the saccade analogy about transiently and repetitively erasing the self-
但是你之前描述的眼球运动本身，我想我应该说，关于短暂和重复地擦除自我的扫视类比
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
works perfectly here because indeed, microsaccades, little smaller saccades that occur all the time, also prevent our eyes from fixating at one location-
在这里效果很好，因为事实上，微扫视，一直发生的更小的扫视，也会阻止我们的眼睛注视在一个位置 -
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Exactly.
正是如此。
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
for long enough to observe our blind spot, even if one eye is closed.
即使闭上一只眼睛，也需要足够长的时间来观察我们的盲点。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So if the experiment's done with paralytics to essentially lock eyes at one location, basically things just start disappearing.
因此，如果实验是用麻痹者将眼睛锁定在一个位置上，基本上东西就会开始消失。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
It just fades away.
它就这样消失了。
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
We'd love to think that we start hallucinating, but actually, we start going blind.
我们很乐意认为我们开始产生幻觉，但实际上，我们开始失明。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And those experiments have been done and on humans, I hear they're quite terrifying.
这些实验已经在人类身上完成了，我听说它们非常可怕。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
But you can do that for yourself, too.
但你也可以为自己做到这一点。
It begins to just all-
它开始只是所有-
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Melt away
融化掉
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
...
...
melt away in a warm glow.
融化在温暖的光芒中。
No psychedelics required.
不需要迷幻药。
But the interesting point there is that when you ask yourself, as a consequence of the eye's anatomy, there's this thing you can see that is absent from your experience.
但有趣的是，当你问自己时，由于眼睛的解剖结构，你会发现有一个东西你可以看到，但你的经验中却没有。
But the question is, where is that in relationship to the rest of you, to your mind?
但问题是，这与你其他人、你的思想有何关系？
Is that deep within, or is that, in some sense, right on the surface of experience?
这是内在的深处，还是在某种意义上，就在经验的表面？
And there's an expectation that people have, again, I think conflating meditation with a search for changes in the contents of consciousness.
我认为人们再次期望将冥想与寻找意识内容的变化混为一谈。
They're looking for much more subtle things to notice about the mind or much vaster things to notice.
他们正在寻找关于心灵的更微妙的事情来注意，或者更广泛的事情来注意。
Psychedelics sets up this expectation that you do a massive dose of mushrooms or LSD and everything changes.
迷幻药让人产生这样的期望：你服用大量蘑菇或迷幻药，一切都会改变。
You just get this full beatific vision, and you get not only visual changes, but emotional changes and you get synesthesia, where you have much more mind in so many ways.
你就会得到这种完整的美好愿景，你不仅会得到视觉上的变化，还会得到情感上的变化，你会得到联觉，在很多方面你都会有更多的头脑。
So having these experiences or reading the mystical literature, you begin to think, okay, well then freedom is really elsewhere or it's deep within.
因此，有了这些经历或阅读神秘文学，你开始思考，好吧，那么自由真的在别处，或者在内心深处。
It's not coincident with the ordinary awareness that can see this coffee cup clearly and that can just transition attention to reading an email with the full sobriety of just ordinary waking consciousness.
这与普通意识并不重合，普通意识可以清楚地看到这个咖啡杯，并且可以将注意力转移到以普通清醒意识的完全清醒状态阅读电子邮件。
But the truth is, this insight into selflessness, this insight into the non-duality of subject and object, is as close to ordinary consciousness as this insight into the optic blind spot.
但事实是，这种对无我的洞察，这种对主体与客体非二元性的洞察，就像对视觉盲点的洞察一样接近普通意识。
Where do you have to go to have this insight into the blind spot?
您必须去哪里才能洞察盲点？
No, you don't have to go anywhere.
不，你不必去任何地方。
You just have to set up the experiment correctly such that you can see the data, but the data's right on the surface.
您只需正确设置实验，以便可以看到数据，但数据就在表面上。
It's almost too close to you to notice.
它离你太近了，几乎难以察觉。
If it's at all hard to notice, it's because it's so close rather than it's deep within or far away.
如果它很难被注意到，那是因为它离得很近，而不是在深处或很远。
And there are other analogies like, I don't know if you remember those mind's eye pieces of artwork that were those random dot stereograms-
还有其他类比，比如，我不知道你是否还记得那些随机点立体图的艺术品——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Oh, yeah
哦，是的
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
...
...
where you have an image that pops out.
您会弹出一个图像。
I always find it very difficult to see those because I have a-
我总是发现很难看到那些，因为我有-
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Like paintings
喜欢画作
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
...
...
very dominant eye.
非常占主导地位的眼睛。
But some people can see-
但有些人却看得出来——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
If people can't see those, these are these images that used to be at the touristy shops.
如果人们看不到这些，这些就是以前在旅游商店里看到的图像。
People would say, "Oh, there it is, the whale." And I was thinking, "I don't see it."
人们会说：“哦，那就是鲸鱼。”我当时想：“我没看到。”
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Kids that swim a lot when they're younger and they tend to breathe just to one side.
年轻时经常游泳的孩子往往只向一侧呼吸。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I don't know if this was you.
我不知道这是不是你。
This was definitely me.
这绝对是我。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
No.
不。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
They tend to keep one eye closed.
他们往往睁一只眼闭一只眼。
You set up a pretty strong ocular dominance Biasing your vision to one or the other eye early in life-
你在生命早期就建立了相当强的视觉优势，将你的视力偏向一只或另一只眼睛-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
whether or not you're learning how to be a bow hunter, or you're learning how to throw darts, or shoot billiards, or anything that involves selectively viewing the world through one eye for even a couple of hours, can set up a permanent-
无论你是在学习如何成为一名弓箭手，还是在学习如何投飞镖、打台球，或者任何涉及有选择地用一只眼睛观察世界的事情，哪怕是几个小时，都可以建立一个永久的——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Huh
呵呵
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
asymmetry in the weighting of visual flow.
视觉流权重的不对称。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Of flow of visual information from the eye to the brain.
视觉信息从眼睛到大脑的流动。
It's reversible, but only through the reverse gymnastics of covering up the other eye intentionally.
这是可逆的，但只能通过有意遮盖另一只眼睛的反向体操来实现。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Right.
正确的。
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So I had to be reverse patched for a while because I was seeing double because I lost binocular vision.
所以我不得不进行一段时间的反向修补，因为我看到了重影，因为我失去了双眼视力。
I don't stand a chance in hell of seeing an image pop out of a random-
我根本没有机会看到随机出现的图像-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
dot stereogram.
点立体图。
Which is kind of ironic because I did my PhD on binocular circuitry.
这有点讽刺，因为我在双目电路方面获得了博士学位。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But nonetheless, if people can see these, or if they can't, I think they provide a really terrific example of what you're talking about as a larger theme, which is that perceptually you see a bunch of dots and then all of a sudden-
但尽管如此，如果人们可以看到这些，或者如果他们看不到，我认为他们提供了一个非常好的例子，说明了你所说的一个更大的主题，那就是，你在感知上看到了一堆点，然后突然——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
what you thought wasn't there is suddenly there but can disappear again.
你以为不存在的东西突然就存在了，但可能会再次消失。
Or there are certain visual illusions, if we were to include others, that once you see them you cannot unsee them.
或者存在某些视觉错觉，如果我们要包括其他视觉错觉，一旦你看到它们，你就无法看不见它们。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So there's the faces/vases, figure ground type stuff.
所以有面孔/花瓶、人物地面类型的东西。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Very-
非常-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Is a bit bistable percepts, yeah.
是的，有点双稳态感知。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah, bistable percepts.
是的，双稳态感知。
And then there's sort of ocular competition.
然后就是视觉竞争。
You show two different images to each of the two eyes-
你向两只眼睛各展示两个不同的图像——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and it is near impossible for people to perceive them both simultaneously.
人们几乎不可能同时感知到它们。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So it's a little bit of what you're describing.
所以这只是你所描述的一点点。
These seem to be fundamental features about the way the neural circuits are organized, that they don't want to stay fixated on any one thing for very long.
这些似乎是神经回路组织方式的基本特征，它们不想长时间专注于任何一件事。
To do so either takes training, intense interest, intense fear, intense excitement.
要做到这一点，要么需要训练，要么需要强烈的兴趣、强烈的恐惧、强烈的兴奋。
When I say intense, I guess I come back to this idea that the autonomic nervous system is somehow governing our ability to spotlight at any one location for very long.
当我说强烈时，我想我又回到了这个想法，即自主神经系统以某种方式控制着我们长时间聚焦在任何一个位置的能力。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Is that a useful framework or is that going to take us down a different path?
这是一个有用的框架还是会带我们走上一条不同的道路？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Well, it's sort of a different path for this.
嗯，这是一条不同的道路。
The only point I was making is that the seemingly paradoxical claim that something can be right on the surface, and yet hard to see.
我想说的唯一一点是，看似自相矛盾的主张，即某些东西可能表面上是正确的，但很难看到。
Right?
正确的？
And again, this seems to justify the expectation held by, I would think, the vast majority of people who get interested in these spiritual things, for lack of a better word, that the truth must somehow be deep within.
而且，我认为，这似乎证明了绝大多数对这些精神事物感兴趣的人所持有的期望是合理的，因为没有更好的词来形容，真理一定是在内心深处的。
Right?
正确的？
There's some distance between the one who is looking and the thing that has to be found.
正在寻找的人和必须找到的东西之间存在着一定的距离。
Right?
正确的？
And that you have to go through this long evolution of changes.
而且你必须经历这个长期的变化演变。
There are many metaphors that set this up.
有很多比喻可以说明这一点。
It's like you're at the base of a mountain and you have to climb to the top.
就像你在山脚下，你必须爬到山顶。
And so you have to find the path, however circuitous, to get you there.
因此，无论多么迂回，你都必须找到到达目的地的路径。
But there really is a distance between your starting point and the goal.
但你的起点和目标之间确实有一段距离。
And what I'm arguing, and this is a kind of a non-dual, to use a term of jargon, this is a non-dual approach to meditation as opposed to a dualistic one.
我所争论的是，这是一种非二元的，用行话来说，这是一种非二元的冥想方法，而不是二元论的方法。
That the path and the goal are coincident.
道路和目标是一致的。
Right?
正确的？
That you have to unravel the logic by which you would seek something that's outside of the present moment's experience, i.e., really not available to you now.
你必须阐明你寻求当前经验之外的东西的逻辑，即你现在确实无法获得的东西。
Because so many things worth having, so many skills worth acquiring, really are not available to you now.
因为有那么多值得拥有的东西，有那么多值得掌握的技能，你现在确实无法获得。
If you want to be a pianist or if you want to speak Chinese, there's something you don't know, and then you want to learn that thing, and there's a whole process.
如果你想成为一名钢琴家，或者如果你想说中文，有些东西你不会，然后你想学习那个东西，这是一个完整的过程。
Right?
正确的？
And you might not be capable of doing it.
而你可能没有能力做到这一点。
Right?
正确的？
And real mastery is far away.
而真正的精通还很遥远。
Right?
正确的？
If you've never hit a golf ball and you want to hit a golf ball 300 yards straight, I can pretty much guarantee you're not going to do that initially, and you're not going to do it on day two, and you're not going to do it reliably for the longest time.
如果你从来没有打过高尔夫球，但你想打出 300 码直线，我几乎可以保证你一开始不会这么做，第二天你也不会这么做，而且在很长一段时间内你都不会可靠地做到这一点。
And there's real training in front of you to be able to do that reliably.
您需要接受真正的培训才能可靠地做到这一点。
And really the core insight, the insight that is the core of the Buddha's teaching, to take one historical example of this, really is available now, and granted it can be very hard-won for people.
举一个历史例子来说，真正的核心洞察力，即佛陀教义的核心洞察力，现在确实是可以获得的，并且理所当然地对人们来说是很难获得的。
I had probably spent a year on silent retreat in one-week to three-month increments before I sort of got the point I'm making now.
在我明白我现在所说的观点之前，我可能已经花了一年的时间以一周到三个月的增量进行静修。
Right?
正确的？
Literally, and these are retreats where you spend 12 to 18 hours a day just meditating, trying to unpack the kinds of claims I'm making now.
从字面上看，这些静修是你每天花 12 到 18 个小时冥想的地方，试图解开我现在提出的各种主张。
So it's possible to rigorously overlook this.
因此，严格忽略这一点是可能的。
It's possible to stand in front of the mind's eye image and stare in a way that is guaranteed not to give you pop-out.
你可以站在脑海中的图像前，以一种保证不会让你突然出现的方式凝视。
Right?
正确的？
And to be adept at staring in that way.
并且要善于以这种方式凝视。
So it's possible to be misled.
所以有可能被误导。
And so what I'm trying to argue here is that there's a fair amount of leverage you can get with better information, which can kind of cut the time course of your searching for this thing and kind of cancel your false expectations about just where this is in relation to your ordinary waking consciousness.
所以我在这里想说的是，你可以通过更好的信息获得相当大的影响力，这可以缩短你寻找这个东西的时间过程，并消除你对它与你平常清醒意识的关系的错误期望。
And it's possible to get that information and to have a bunch of experiences.
获得这些信息并获得大量经验是可能的。
You go and do an ayahuasca trip and it's incredibly valuable.
你去死藤水之旅，这是非常有价值的。
And it's valuable for all the ways in which it changed the contents of your consciousness in startling ways.
它的价值在于它以惊人的方式改变了你的意识内容。
And you had insights into your past and into your relationships and into why you're not as loving as you might be and there's lots to think about and you're like, "Okay, that's all great.
你对你的过去、对你的人际关系、对为什么你不像你可能的那样有爱有深入的了解，有很多事情需要思考，你会想，“好吧，那太好了。
That's all something that we can talk about." But It truly is orthogonal.
这就是我们可以谈论的一切。”但它确实是正交的。
If it makes a point of contact to what I'm talking about, it's really just at one point.
如果它与我正在谈论的内容有一个联系，那么它实际上只是在一个点上。
And it's at the point where this sense of subject-object division in consciousness is illusory and vulnerable to investigation.
正是在这一点上，意识中这种主客体划分的感觉是虚幻的，并且容易受到调查。
And if you investigate it at sort of the right plane of focus, you pick the analogy you want from whether it's setting up the optic blind spot experiment in just the right way so that you can see that actually the data is not there.
如果你在某种正确的焦点平面上研究它，你就会从它是否以正确的方式设置光学盲点实验中选择你想要的类比，这样你就可以看到数据实际上不在那里。
The bistable percept is great because when you see one of these images, like the vase face diagram or the Dalmatian, that looks like just a mess of dots, and then you see the image of a Dalmatian dog pop out.
双稳态感知很棒，因为当你看到其中一个图像时，比如花瓶脸图或达尔马提亚狗，它看起来只是一堆乱七八糟的点，然后你会看到达尔马提亚狗的图像突然出现。
Once you see it, you really can't unsee it.
一旦你看到它，你就真的无法忽视它。
Once you have the requisite conceptual anchor to it, then every time you look, you're going to find it again, and eventually it becomes effortless.
一旦你有了必要的概念锚点，那么每次你看时，你都会再次找到它，最终它会变得毫不费力。
And that's what ultimately meditation is.
这就是冥想的最终意义。
This kind of meditation.
这种冥想。
You ultimately learn to recognize that there's no separation between you and your experience, right?
你最终会认识到你和你的经历之间没有分离，对吗？
There's not the experience on the one hand and the self on the other.
一方面没有经验，另一方面也没有自我。
There's just experience, right?
只有经验，对吧？
There's just seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking, feeling, proprioception, add whatever channels of information you want to that.
只是看到、听到、闻到、尝到、触摸、思考、感觉、本体感觉，添加任何你想要的信息渠道。
But there's just the totality of the energy of consciousness and its contents.
但这只是意识能量及其内容的整体。
It's not that you're on the riverbank.
这并不是说你在河岸上。
And this is how it can seem in the beginning, even when you're practicing meditation fairly diligently.
这就是一开始的样子，即使你相当勤奋地练习冥想。
It can seem like you're on the riverbank watching the contents of consciousness flow by.
看起来你就像在河岸上看着意识的内容流过。
And meditation is the act of doing that more and more dispassionately.
冥想就是越来越冷静地这样做的行为。
So you're no longer grabbing at the pleasant or pushing the unpleasant away.
所以你不再抓住令人愉快的东西或把不愉快的东西推开。
You're just kind of relaxing and in the most non-judgmental frame of mind, just witnessing the flow, right?
你只是在放松，以最不评判的心态，只是见证流动，对吗？
But if you're doing that dualistically, you feel like the meditator.
但如果你以二元的方式这样做，你就会感觉自己像冥想者。
You feel like the subject aiming attention.
您感觉自己是吸引注意力的对象。
And so now you're on the riverbank watching everything go past.
现在你在河岸上看着一切过去。
But the truth is, you are the river, right?
但事实是，你就是河流，对吗？
Experience itself is that there is just experience itself.
体验本身就是体验本身。
You're not on the edge of experience.
你并没有处于经验的边缘。
And everything you can notice is part of the flow, right?
你能注意到的一切都是流程的一部分，对吗？
And there's no point from which to abstract yourself away from the flow to stand outside it and to say, "Okay, this is my life.
没有必要将自己从潮流中抽象出来，站在它之外说：“好吧，这就是我的生活。
This is my experience.
这是我的经验。
This is my body." Yes, you can do that.
这是我的身体。”是的，你可以这样做。
Those are all just thoughts, but that's more of the flow, right?
这些都只是想法，但这更多的是心流，对吧？
And so there is a process by which you would eventually recognize that there's no distance between you and your experience.
所以有一个过程，通过这个过程，你最终会认识到你和你的经历之间没有距离。
And again, you can wait for those moments in life where experience gets so good or so terrifying, or it's just so salient, right?
再说一遍，你可以等待生命中那些经历变得如此美好或如此可怕的时刻，或者它是如此显着，对吗？
Your amygdala is driving so hard.
你的杏仁核运转得太厉害了。
So you're in a war and you can't think about anything because the enemy's shooting at you, and this is the most thrilling video game you've ever played in your life, and your life is on the line.
所以你身处一场战争中，你无法思考任何事情，因为敌人向你射击，这是你一生中玩过的最惊心动魄的电子游戏，你的生命岌岌可危。
Or you're at the peak of some athletic event where you don't know how you're doing the things you're doing, but it's all happening automatically, right?
或者你正处于某项体育赛事的巅峰，你不知道自己是如何做你正在做的事情，但这一切都是自动发生的，对吗？
But those are 1/100 of 1% of one's life.
但那些只是一个人生命的1%的1/100。
And what I'm calling meditation is a way of simply understanding the mechanics of attention whereby you are denying yourself that unity of experience so much of the time and recognizing that it's based on a misperception of the way consciousness always already is.
我所说的冥想是一种简单地理解注意力机制的方法，通过这种方式，你在很多时候都在否认自己的经验统一性，并认识到它是基于对意识本来就存在的方式的误解。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, if there wasn't an incentive to learn how to meditate properly, that was one.
好吧，如果没有动力去学习如何正确冥想，那就是其中之一。
And I've been meditating a fair amount since I was in my teens.
从十几岁起我就开始进行大量的冥想。
But more along the lines of just paying attention to breath and recognize thought observer, open observer type meditation-
但更多的是关注呼吸并识别思想观察者，开放观察者类型的冥想-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
or focused attention.
或集中注意力。
I would suppose more of the focused attention type.
我认为更多的是集中注意力类型。
We'll get into these a little bit later.
我们稍后会讨论这些。
But I have a number of questions related to what you just said.
但我有一些与你刚才所说的相关的问题。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Sure.
当然。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I love the idea that this thing that we would all do well to understand, to observe consciousness itself as opposed to trying to alter the contents of consciousness, may sit much closer to us than one might think.
我喜欢这样的想法：我们都应该很好地理解、观察意识本身而不是试图改变意识的内容，它可能比人们想象的更接近我们。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And that because it sits so close to us, that that might be one of the reasons why we miss it.
因为它离我们很近，这可能是我们错过它的原因之一。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I go right to a visual system example.
我直接看一个视觉系统的例子。
If you're wearing corrective lenses and there's a speck on your lens, typically you're looking out through the lens-
如果您佩戴矫正镜片并且镜片上有一个斑点，通常您是通过镜片向外看 -
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and so you wouldn't observe that speck.
所以你不会观察到那个斑点。
Any number of different analogies could work here.
任何数量的不同类比都可以在这里发挥作用。
The fact that there are states, however few, positive and negative, extreme ecstasy and extreme fear being the two, I think, most obvious ones that seems like we agree on, that allow us to capture the sense of completeness of self or the unity of the observer and the actor.
事实上，有一些状态，不管有多少，积极的和消极的，极端的狂喜和极端的恐惧是这两种，我认为，最明显的是我们似乎同意的，这让我们能够捕捉到自我的完整性或观察者和行动者的统一感。
The fact that those are seldom for the non-trained, for the non-meditator, suggests to me two things.
事实上，对于未经训练的人、非冥想者来说，这些很少发生，这一事实向我表明了两件事。
I think one perhaps worth exploring more than the other.
我认为其中一个也许比另一个更值得探索。
But one is that what's really being revealed in the states where we can feel the unity of the observer and the actor is understanding something fundamental about the algorithm.
但其中之一是，在我们可以感受到观察者和参与者的团结的状态下，真正揭示的是理解算法的一些基本知识。
Not the online algorithm, but the algorithm that is our nervous system.
不是在线算法，而是我们神经系统的算法。
Just as you mentioned cephalopods, mantis shrimp see an enormous array of color hues that we don't, right?
正如您提到的头足类动物，螳螂虾可以看到我们看不到的大量色调，对吗？
Their maps and representations of the world are fundamentally different.
他们的地图和对世界的描述有着根本的不同。
Pit vipers see in the infrared.
响尾蛇能看到红外线。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
We're restricted to somewhat of a limited range within the color spectrum, but still more vast than that of dogs or cats.
我们的色谱范围有限，但仍然比狗或猫的范围更大。
Okay.
好的。
So understanding that for seeing what a pit viper can see for moments would be informative, perhaps.
因此，了解毒蛇暂时能看到什么可能会提供很多信息。
Sensing heat emissions as a human might be invasive, and then maybe that's why we don't do it.
作为人类来感知热排放可能是侵入性的，也许这就是我们不这样做的原因。
So the question is, to just make it straightforward is, why would the system be designed this way?
所以问题是，简单地说，为什么系统要这样设计？
Again, neither of us were consulted the design phase, but that brings me to perhaps the more tractable question which is about development.
同样，在设计阶段我们都没有被咨询，但这让我想到了一个更容易处理的问题，即有关开发的问题。
I'm a great believer that the neural circuits that encouraged healthy parent-child relations or unhealthy parent-child relations, as the case may be in childhood, stem from the initial demands of internal versus external states, which is exactly what we're talking about, which is that a young child feels anxious because it needs its diaper changed.
我坚信，促进健康的亲子关系或不健康的亲子关系（如童年时期的情况）的神经回路源于内部状态与外部状态的最初需求，这正是我们正在讨论的，即小孩子因为需要换尿布而感到焦虑。
It doesn't really know it needs its diaper changed, or it's cold, or it's uncomfortable, or it's hungry, or it's overly full, and so it vocalizes, and then some external source comes to us and relieves that, hopefully.
它并不真正知道它需要换尿布，或者它很冷，或者它不舒服，或者它饿了，或者它太饱了，所以它发出声音，然后一些外部来源来到我们身边并缓解这些问题，希望如此。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Right?
对吗？
And so the fundamental rule that we first learn is not that we have a self or that things fall down, not up, but is that when uncomfortable, externalize that discomfort and-
因此，我们首先学到的基本规则不是我们有自我，也不是事物会跌倒，而不是向上，而是当不舒服时，将这种不舒服外化，然后——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
it will be relieved by an outside player.
它将由外部球员来缓解。
And then, of course, there's a repurposing of that circuitry for adult romantic attachments.
然后，当然，这个电路会被重新利用以适应成人的浪漫依恋。
I don't think anyone doubts that, and that can explain a lot-
我认为没有人怀疑这一点，这可以解释很多事情——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
indeed, about attachment and so forth.
事实上，关于执着等等。
So something about our developmental wiring and the algorithms that these neural circuits run tend to bias most people, the non-practice meditators, to live a somewhat functional life, at least, without this awareness of actor and observer.
因此，我们的发育线路和这些神经回路运行的算法往往会使大多数人（非练习冥想者）产生偏见，至少在没有这种行动者和观察者的意识的情况下，过上某种功能性的生活。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And so what you're really talking about is a deliberate intervention to understand and resolve that gap in the algorithm.
所以你真正谈论的是一种有意的干预，以理解和解决算法中的差距。
Do I have that right?
我有这个权利吗？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'm more or less restating what you said in a way that I'm hoping will serve as a jumping-off point as to why questions are always very dangerous in biology-
我或多或少地重申了你所说的话，我希望这能作为一个起点，解释为什么问题在生物学中总是非常危险的——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
or any-
或任何-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
you know?
你知道吗？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Or in relationship, yeah.
或者在关系中，是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
What's that?
那是什么？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Or in relationship.
或者在关系中。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Or in relationship.
或者在关系中。
Right.
正确的。
Exactly.
确切地。
Although I think it all does really harken back-
虽然我认为这一切确实让人回想起——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
to this early developmental wiring, which of course is modifiable.
这种早期发育线路当然是可以修改的。
That's the beauty of the nervous system, is it's the one organ that seems to be able to change itself-
这就是神经系统的美妙之处，它是一个似乎能够自我改变的器官——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
at least to some degree.
至少在某种程度上。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So what are your thoughts about the organization of the circuitry to essentially, under normal conditions, to not reveal what seems to be one of its more important and profound and for, dare I say, enlightening features, right?
那么，您对电路的组织有何看法，在正常情况下，本质上不透露其更重要和更深刻的内容之一，并且我敢说，具有启发性的功能，对吧？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's almost as if we are potentially like mantis shrimp.
就好像我们有可能像螳螂虾一样。
We can see so many more colors than we actually see, and yet we don't.
我们可以看到比我们实际看到的更多的颜色，但我们却没有看到。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Most people opt not to, and I would argue that one of the great strengths of the Waking Up app, for instance, is that it essentially walks you through the process of being able to arrive at these things without having to go do one year or three-year long silent meditation retreats.
大多数人都选择不这样做，我认为，例如，Wake Up 应用程序的一大优点是，它本质上会引导您完成实现这些目标的过程，而无需进行一年或三年的静默冥想静修。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So if you could just elaborate for a moment before we move on about what are your thoughts about how the circuitry is arranged by default and what that means for there to be an intervention, that we have to intervene in the self in order to reveal the self?
那么，在我们继续讨论之前，您能否详细说明一下您对默认电路的排列方式有何看法，以及这对干预意味着什么，我们必须干预自我才能揭示自我？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Well, so there are two big questions there.
那么，这里有两个大问题。
One about evolution, one about development.
一篇关于进化，一篇关于发展。
So with respect to evolution, it's important to recognize that evolution doesn't see our deepest concerns about human flourishing and human wellbeing.
因此，就进化而言，重要的是要认识到进化并没有看到我们对人类繁荣和人类福祉最深切的关注。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's all about the offspring.
一切都是为了后代。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
We are set up to spawn and to survive long enough to help our progeny spawn if we can do that, and that's it.
如果我们能做到的话，我们就准备好产卵并存活足够长的时间来帮助我们的后代产卵，仅此而已。
Right?
正确的？
And so anything that was good for that, including tribalism and xenophobia and all kinds of hardware and software flaws that reveal themselves to be flaws in the present time when we're trying to build a viable global civilization.
因此，任何对此有利的事情，包括部落主义和仇外心理以及各种硬件和软件缺陷，在我们试图建立一个可行的全球文明的当下，这些缺陷都暴露出自己的缺陷。
But they redounded to the advantage of our ancestors somehow, or there are things about us that we're simply not selected for.
但它们以某种方式为我们的祖先带来了优势，或者我们的某些事情根本没有被选中。
They just came along for the ride.
他们只是来凑热闹的。
What Stephen Jay Gould called a spandrel.
斯蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德称之为拱肩。
So we are not set up by evolution to be as happy as we possibly can be, and to do almost anything that interests us well.
因此，进化并没有让我们尽可能快乐，也没有做任何我们感兴趣的事情。
We're not set up by evolution to be mathematicians or musicians or to create democracies that are healthy.
进化并没有让我们成为数学家或音乐家，也没有创造健康的民主国家。
Evolution can see none of this, and we are doing these things based on cognitive and emotional hardware that we are leveraging in new directions, right?
进化看不到这些，而我们做这些事情是基于认知和情感硬件，我们正在新的方向上利用这些硬件，对吗？
We are primates, and we're communicating with small mouth noises.
我们是灵长类动物，我们用小嘴的声音进行交流。
We're language-using primates, and all of that is clearly evolved.
我们是使用语言的灵长类动物，所有这些显然都是进化而来的。
And we're doing these amazing things, including science however improbably we're actually able to almost entirely with language understand reality at a scale that exceeds us in both directions.
我们正在做这些令人惊奇的事情，包括科学，但我们实际上几乎完全能够用语言来理解现实，其规模在两个方向上都超过了我们。
The very vast and the very small and also temporally, the very old.
非常巨大和非常小，以及暂时的、非常古老的。
We have visions of the far future.
我们对遥远的未来抱有憧憬。
We can figure out where an asteroid is going to cross Earth's orbit a thousand years from now if we just do the math, and it's amazing that we can do all of those things, but evolution is blind to all of that, right?
只要我们做数学计算，我们就可以算出一千年后小行星将在哪里穿过地球轨道，令人惊奇的是我们可以做所有这些事情，但进化对所有这些都视而不见，对吗？
And so we have- In terms of what we care about, and certainly in terms of what's going to ensure our survival as a species, we have flown the perch that was created for us by evolution.
所以我们——就我们关心的事情而言，当然也就确保我们作为一个物种的生存而言，我们已经飞上了进化为我们创造的栖息地。
It's not just the primate things.
这不仅仅是灵长类动物的事情。
And so it is with learning how to regulate our emotions and punch through to a self-concept or beyond a self-concept that is more normative psychologically, that allows us to not be terrorized by our apish genes as fully as we seem to be, even in the presence of more and more destructive technology.
因此，学习如何调节我们的情绪并突破自我概念或超越心理上更规范的自我概念，使我们不会像我们看起来那样完全被我们的猿基因吓倒，即使是在越来越具有破坏性的技术存在的情况下。
We're still practically chimpanzees armed with nuclear weapons, right?
我们实际上仍然是配备核武器的黑猩猩，对吗？
And that is increasingly dysfunctional.
而且这种情况越来越不正常。
And very soon, we're going to be in the presence of minds or apparent minds that we have built that are as intelligent as we are.
很快，我们将面临我们所建立的与我们一样聪明的思想或表面思想。
And very quickly, probably 15 minutes after that, far more intelligent than we are.
而且很快，大概 15 分钟后，就比我们聪明得多了。
And so what we do with all of that is, again, something that we have to figure out based on the minds we have, the minds we can build, the minds we can change.
因此，我们必须根据我们拥有的思想、我们可以建立的思想、我们可以改变的思想来弄清楚我们如何处理这一切。
We can meddle with our own genomes now, and that will produce its own consequences in ourselves and in future generations if we meddle with the germline.
我们现在可以干预我们自己的基因组，如果我们干预种系，这将对我们自己和子孙后代产生影响。
And again, evolution is just sort of the womb we came out of, but it didn't anticipate any of that, right?
再说一次，进化只是我们从子宫里出来的过程，但它并没有预见到这一切，对吗？
So Mother Nature has simply not had our best interests at heart, right?
所以大自然根本就没有把我们的最大利益放在心上，对吗？
And we might die off, and from the point of view of Mother Nature, that's fine because 99% of every species dies off.
我们可能会灭绝，从大自然的角度来看，这很好，因为每个物种 99% 都会灭绝。
So there's that.
所以就是这样。
But when you're talking about the individual developmentally, so we all come into this world, again, as a fairly hairless primate that needs a tremendous amount of care by others, and the logic of that is that the reason why we're not a gazelle that can run 45 minutes later and then basically do all the gazelle things perfectly soon thereafter, the reason why we have this time of immaturity, and that has become functional for us, is that we're far more flexible and we can learn based on the needs of an environment to do so much more than a gazelle can.
但是，当你谈论个体的发展时，我们再次来到这个世界时，都是作为一种相当无毛的灵长类动物，需要他人的大量照顾，其逻辑是，我们不是羚羊，可以在 45 分钟后跑步，然后基本上很快就能完美地完成所有羚羊的事情，我们之所以有这段不成熟的时期，这对我们来说已经变得有用，是因为我们更加灵活，我们可以根据需要学习一个比瞪羚能做更多事情的环境。
And language is a part of that, and in the last 10,000 years or so, culture increasingly has been more and more a part of that, and there's probably a layer at which we can plausibly talk about cultural evolution, and cultural evolution interacting with biological evolution to change us.
语言是其中的一部分，在过去一万年左右的时间里，文化越来越成为其中的一部分，并且可能有一个层面，我们可以在其中合理地谈论文化进化，以及文化进化与生物进化相互作用以改变我们。
But when you're talking about the development of an individual, each of us comes into this world, I think, not recognizing ourselves in any sense that would make sense to reify.
但是，当你谈论个人的发展时，我认为，我们每个人来到这个世界时，都没有在任何意义上认识到自己，这对具体化来说是有意义的。
It's not that there's nothing there.
并不是说那里什么都没有。
There could be some kind of proto-self differentiation, but I think it takes a long while, and there is very likely a coincidence between really recognizing others.
可能存在某种原始自我分化，但我认为这需要很长时间，而且真正认识他人之间很可能存在巧合。
We recognize others first, and we're certainly in relationship immediately, and we orient to human faces, and we even detect other humans as good and bad moral actors very early.
我们首先认出他人，我们当然会立即建立关系，我们以人的面孔为导向，我们甚至很早就发现其他人是道德行为者的好人和坏人。
Certainly long before we recognize ourselves in a mirror.
当然，早在我们在镜子中认出自己之前。
The experiments run, again, this is Paul Bloom and colleagues, experiments run on kind of the moral hardware and software of developing toddlers.
再次进行实验，这是保罗·布鲁姆和他的同事，实验是在幼儿发育的道德硬件和软件上进行的。
But I think at this point, they push it down all the way to six months of age, where you'll get these infants staring at a puppet show, and they'll show a greater interest in classically good actors versus bad actors, cooperators versus defectors in various puppet show games.
但我认为在这一点上，他们把它一直推到六个月大，在那里你会让这些婴儿盯着木偶戏，他们会对各种木偶戏游戏中的经典好演员与坏演员、合作者与叛逃者表现出更大的兴趣。
So it's not that we have no mind and no proto-awareness of others and of self, but what eventually happens, certainly as we become at all facile with language use, is that we become aware that not only are we in relationship to others, but we are an object in the world for them, right?
因此，这并不是说我们没有思想，也没有对他人和自我的原始意识，而是最终发生的事情，当然，当我们变得能够轻松地使用语言时，我们会意识到，我们不仅与他人有关系，而且对他们来说，我们是世界上的一个物体，对吗？
So we have enough people pointing at us in our cribs, right?
所以我们的婴儿床上有足够多的人指着我们，对吗？
And impinging upon our experience, right?
并影响我们的经验，对吧？
You're being physically moved and prodded and touched and consoled or not consoled, and just imagine you're on the receiving end of 10,000 interventions, right?
你被身体移动、刺激、触摸、安慰或没有安慰，想象一下你正在接受 10,000 次干预，对吗？
And you're completely helpless for the longest time.
而你在最长的时间里是完全无助的。
And all of that attention, you have all of these people coming up to the crib and making faces at you.
所有这些关注，所有这些人都来到婴儿床前，对你做鬼脸。
Cheering for you.
为你加油。
Yeah.
是的。
And it's all pointed at you, right?
而且这一切都是针对你的，对吗？
So there's a classic magical narcissism that gets constructed there if you take the psychological literature, at least a certain strand of it, seriously.
因此，如果你认真对待心理学文献，至少是其中的某一部分，就会在那里构建出一种经典的神奇自恋。
And I think it's largely apt to think of a child at that age as there is a kind of narcissistic structure there, where it's all kind of going inward, and at a certain point you realize, okay, I'm the center of all of this, right?
我认为人们很容易想到那个年龄段的孩子，因为那里有一种自恋结构，一切都向内走，在某个时刻你意识到，好吧，我是这一切的中心，对吧？
It's not just a movie that you're completely absorbed in And you've lost your sense of self.
这不仅仅是一部让你全神贯注的电影，而且你已经失去了自我意识。
To talk of yet another example of what it's like as a grownup to lose our sense of self, and one of the things I think we find so fascinating about television and film is that when we get totally absorbed in it, we're in this very unusual circumstance where our brain is basically reading it as we're in the classic social circumstance.
说到另一个成年人失去自我意识的例子，我认为我们对电视和电影如此着迷的一件事是，当我们完全沉浸在其中时，我们就处于一种非常不寻常的环境中，我们的大脑基本上就像我们处于经典的社交环境中一样在阅读它。
We're presented with the facial displays of other people.
我们看到的是其他人的面部表情。
In fact, sometimes these people are 10 feet tall.
事实上，有时这些人有 10 英尺高。
Or their faces are 10 feet tall, you have a close-up in a movie theater.
或者他们的脸有 10 英尺高，你在电影院里有一个特写镜头。
So it's like this super stimulus in terms of evolution.
所以这就像进化方面的超级刺激。
And they could be making direct eye contact with a camera.
他们可能会与摄像机进行直接的目光接触。
So you have this gigantic face staring at you, and yet you're totally implicated socially.
所以你有这张巨大的脸盯着你，但你却完全融入了社交。
You can't be seen.
你看不见。
And something about you, you know you can't be seen, and so you completely lose self-consciousness, and yet you're able to examine with completely free attention, again, because you're totally implicated, the facial minutia and the mimetic facial play of people at a very close range.
而关于你的一些东西，你知道你不能被看到，所以你完全失去了自我意识，但你却能够以完全自由的注意力来检查，再次，因为你完全被牵连，面部细节和模仿的面部表情在非常近距离的范围内。
You'd have to be physically just about to kiss your spouse, that's what a close-up is in a film.
你必须在身体上正要亲吻你的配偶，这就是电影中的特写镜头。
You never get that close to people, right?
你永远不会与人走得那么近，对吧？
And yet here you're in a situation where you're unobserved, and you know that.
然而在这里，你处于一种不被观察到的境地，你知道这一点。
And so, this is a bit of a tangent, but it's the other side of what's happening developmentally for a kid.
所以，这有点离题，但这是孩子发育过程中发生的事情的另一面。
When you're in a movie theater watching a movie, you are truly invisible, and yet you're right there seeing, however harrowing the human drama is, you're seeing it play out and you're seeing it up close.
当你在电影院看电影时，你确实是隐形的，但你却亲眼所见，无论人类的戏剧有多么痛苦，你都会看到它上演，而且你会近距离地看到它。
And it is in principle a social encounter that your genes are ready for, but they're not ready for you to be invisible.
原则上，你的基因已经准备好迎接这种社交遭遇，但还没有准备好让你隐形。
And so that's what's so magical about it.
这就是它的神奇之处。
But what happens developmentally for a kid is that you're not invisible.
但对于孩子来说，成长过程中发生的事情是你并不是隐形的。
You are an object that is constantly being overrun.
你是一个不断被超越的物体。
The boundaries of your sensory engagement with the world are constantly being impinged upon by others.
你与世界的感官接触的界限不断地受到他人的冲击。
And at a certain point, you recognize, okay, I am at the center of this.
在某个时刻，你意识到，好吧，我是这件事的中心。
And the way this gets enshrined as a self, I think is probably coincident with our learning the language game we learn to play with others.
我认为这种被奉为自我的方式可能与我们学习与他人一起玩的语言游戏是一致的。
We're talking to others, people are talking to us, and at a certain point, we're talking to ourselves even when the other people leave the room.
我们在与他人交谈，人们也在与我们交谈，在某个时刻，即使其他人离开房间，我们也在自言自语。
If you ever have been with a toddler when they're externalizing their self-talk, you hear them talking to themselves.
如果你曾经和一个蹒跚学步的孩子在一起，当他们将自言自语外化时，你会听到他们自言自语。
They're playing, and they're having a conversation.
他们一边玩耍，一边聊天。
They were talking to you, the parent, but then you left the room, and they're still talking.
他们正在和你，家长说话，但你离开房间后，他们还在说话。
You come back in, and they're still talking.
你回来了，他们还在说话。
And what happens to us, strangely, and this comes back to the logic of evolution, we never stop because evolution never thought to build us an off switch for this.
奇怪的是，发生在我们身上的事情，这又回到了进化的逻辑，我们永远不会停止，因为进化从未想过为此建立一个关闭开关。
Language is so useful, and it gets tuned up so strongly for us.
语言是如此有用，它对我们来说是如此强烈。
And there was never a reason to shut it off.
而且从来没有理由将其关闭。
There was never a reason to give you this ability to say, "Oh, wouldn't it be nice to have four hours of quiet now?
从来没有理由让你有能力说：“哦，现在安静四个小时不是很好吗？
Like no self-talk?" And so for most of us, I think there are people who, for whatever neurological reason or idiosyncratic reason, undoubtedly, there'd be a neurological reason for it, don't have any self-talk.
就像没有自言自语一样？”因此，对于我们大多数人来说，我认为有些人，无论出于神经学原因还是特殊原因，毫无疑问，都会有神经学原因，没有任何自言自语。
But for most of us, we are covertly talking basically all the time.
但对于我们大多数人来说，我们基本上一直在秘密地交谈。
And there's an imagistic component of this for many people.
对于很多人来说，这其中有一个想象的成分。
You're visualizing things as well.
你也在想象事物。
But there's just a ton of white noise in the mind that feels a certain way.
但脑子里却有大量的白噪音，有某种特定的感觉。
And what you discover in meditation, ultimately, is that the self is what it feels like to be thinking without knowing that you're thinking.
最终，你在冥想中发现的是，自我就是在不知道自己在思考的情况下思考的感觉。
A thought arises uninspected and seems to just become you.
一个想法未经检验地出现，似乎就成了你。
So like you and I are talking now, and people are listening to us.
就像你和我现在正在讲话一样，人们正在倾听我们的讲话。
They're struggling to follow the train of this conversation because it is competing with the conversation that's happening in their heads.
他们正在努力跟上这场对话的节奏，因为它正在与他们脑海中发生的对话竞争。
So I'll be saying something, and a person listening will say, "Well, what does that mean?" Or, "Oh, but wait a minute, he just contradicted himself." And there's a voice in your head that is also vying for your attention much of the time.
所以我会说一些话，听的人会说：“嗯，这是什么意思？”或者，“哦，但等一下，他只是自相矛盾。”而且你脑子里有一个声音，很多时候也在争夺你的注意力。
And so the first discovery people make in meditation is that it's just so hard to pay attention to anything, the breath or a mantra or a sound, whatever it is, because you're thinking.
因此，人们在冥想中的第一个发现是，很难注意到任何事物，呼吸、咒语或声音，无论是什么，因为你在思考。
You're thinking about the thing you need to do in an hour and, "Oh, it's so good that I downloaded this app.
您正在思考一个小时内需要做的事情，然后说：“哦，太好了，我下载了这个应用程序。
This is really good.
这真是太好了。
This is going to be good for me." But that chatter isn't showing up.
这对我来说有好处。”但那种喋喋不休并没有出现。
You're not far back enough in the theater of consciousness so as to see it emerge.
你在意识剧场中还没有回到足够远的地方来看到它的出现。
It is just sneaking up behind you, and it feels like me again.
它只是悄悄靠近你，感觉又像我了。
When someone is thinking the thought, "Well, what the hell does that mean?" They're not seeing it as an emerging object in consciousness.
当有人思考“好吧，这到底是什么意思？”时他们并没有将其视为意识中正在出现的物体。
It just feels like me.
感觉就像我一样。
Subjectively, it's like the mind contracts around this appearance in consciousness, and it's just a sound with the voice of the mind.
主观上，就像心在意识中围绕着这个显现收缩一样，它只是心的声音的声音。
If you actually can inspect it, it is deeply inscrutable that we ever feel identified with our thoughts.
如果你真的能够检查一下，就会发现我们是否曾对自己的想法感到认同，这是非常难以理解的。
How is it that we could be a thought?
我们怎么可能成为一个思想呢？
A thought just arises and passes away, and when you go to inspect it It unravels.
一个念头会生起又消失，当你去审视它时，它就会解开。
It's the least substantial possible thing, but yet it could be a thought of self-hatred.
这是最不重要的事情，但它可能是一种自我憎恨的想法。
It could be a thought that unrecognized totally defines your mood.
这可能是一个未被认识到的想法完全定义了你的心情。
Again, this all can seem kind of abstract but-
再说一次，这一切看起来有点抽象，但是——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, no, but I think it's extremely concrete from the perspective of the neural circuits that we'll return to maybe in a few minutes.
嗯，不，但我认为从神经回路的角度来看，这是非常具体的，我们可能会在几分钟后返回。
If you could elaborate a bit on this notion of internal chatter and external stimuli-
如果你能详细说明一下内部喋喋不休和外部刺激的概念——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Hmm
嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and the bridge between them, because I think that for some people, that might be intuitive.
以及它们之间的桥梁，因为我认为对于某些人来说，这可能是直观的。
I think for others, it's not so obvious that language is ongoing-
我认为对于其他人来说，语言的持续性并不是那么明显——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
in the backdrop.
在背景中。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Because sometimes I think some people are more tuned into that language.
因为有时我认为有些人更适合那种语言。
For some people, it's louder volume.
对于某些人来说，音量更大。
For some people, it's more structured.
对于某些人来说，它更加结构化。
I have a colleague at Stanford who's been on this podcast, Karl Deisseroth who's one of the preeminent-
我在斯坦福大学的一位同事卡尔·戴瑟罗斯 (Karl Deisseroth) 曾参加过这个播客，他是一位杰出的——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
bioengineers.
生物工程师。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
He's also a psychiatrist, and he doesn't call it a meditative practice, but he has a practice where each evening after his five kids are put down-
他也是一名精神病学家，他并不称其为冥想练习，但他有一种练习，每天晚上在他的五个孩子被安乐死后-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
to sleep.
睡觉。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
They're older now.
他们现在年纪大了。
And in the quiet of the late hours of the night, early morning, he sits and forces himself to think in complete sentences with punctuation for an hour.
在夜深人静的清晨，他坐下来强迫自己用一个小时的时间思考带有标点符号的完整句子。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Hmm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
This is the way that he has taught himself to structure his thinking-
这就是他自学构建思维的方式——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
because of the very fact that you're describing, which is that ordinarily there is an underlying structure to what's internal, but it's disrupted by external events and typically it's not coherent enough to really make meaning from.
因为你所描述的事实是，内部通常有一个底层结构，但它会被外部事件打乱，而且通常不够连贯，无法真正从中理解意义。
So it's almost like somebody sitting down to write in complete sentences, but forcing-
所以这几乎就像有人坐下来写完整的句子，但强迫-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
himself to do it in his head.
他自己在脑子里做这件事。
But for many people, including myself, that's a foreign experience, and we only experience structure through our interactions with the world and other people.
但对于包括我自己在内的许多人来说，这是一种陌生的经历，我们只能通过与世界和其他人的互动来体验结构。
That if I've taken the time to try and explore ideas with eyes closed, and I've been able to do that.
如果我花时间闭着眼睛尝试探索想法，我就能够做到这一点。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Hmm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
There are certain pharmacologic states that we could talk about that facilitate that, and no, those are not amphetamines.
我们可以谈论某些药理学状态可以促进这一点，但不，这些不是安非他明。
Those do-
那些做-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
exactly the opposite, by the way .
顺便说一句，恰恰相反。
But, I think people exist in varying degrees of structured and unstructured internal dialogue and in varying depths of recognition of that internal dialogue.
但是，我认为人们存在不同程度的结构化和非结构化内部对话，并且对内部对话的认识深度也不同。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And so the question I suppose is, is just the recognition that there's a dialogue ongoing internally, is that itself valuable?
所以我想的问题是，只是承认内部正在进行对话，这本身有价值吗？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah, and that also can take some time.
是的，这也可能需要一些时间。
So here's a claim I would make that some people might find surprising, but I think this is an objectively true claim about the subjectivity of most people, which is that unless you have a fair amount of training, unless you just happen to be some kind of savant in this area, which most people by definition aren't, or you have a remarkable amount of training in what's called concentration practice in meditation.
所以我要提出的一个观点可能会让一些人感到惊讶，但我认为这是关于大多数人的主观性的客观正确的观点，也就是说，除非你接受过相当多的训练，除非你恰好是这个领域的某种专家，而大多数人在定义上并不是这样，或者你在所谓的冥想集中练习方面接受了大量的训练。
I believe this is a true claim that if we just put a stopwatch on this table and people could just watch 30 seconds elapse, and I set all of our listeners or your viewers the task, for the next 30 seconds, just pay attention to anything, your breath, or the sight of your hand, or the sight of the clock, or any object, without getting lost in thought, without getting momentarily distracted by this conversation you're having with yourself.
我相信这是一个真实的主张，如果我们在这张桌子上放一个秒表，人们就可以看到 30 秒的过去，我给我们所有的听众或你的观众设定了任务，在接下来的 30 秒里，只要注意任何事情，你的呼吸，或你的手的视线，或时钟的视线，或任何物体，而不会陷入沉思，不会因你与自己的对话而暂时分心。
A couple of things would happen.
会发生一些事情。
One is no one would be able to do it, right?
一是没有人能做到，对吗？
And this is not just a superficial inability.
而这不仅仅是表面上的无能。
If your life depended on it, you wouldn't be able to do it.
如果你的生命依赖于它，你就无法做到这一点。
If the fate of civilization depended on it, none of our listeners would be able to do this.
如果文明的命运取决于它，那么我们的听众将无法做到这一点。
And yet some percentage of them are so distracted by thought that they will actually try this experiment and think they succeeded, right?
然而，他们中的一部分人却因为思想而分心，以至于他们实际上会尝试这个实验并认为他们成功了，对吗？
And for these people, what happens is you put them on a meditation retreat and you have them spend 12 hours a day in silence doing nothing but this, right?
对于这些人来说，会发生什么，你让他们进行冥想静修，让他们每天安静地度过 12 个小时，除了这个什么都不做，对吗？
So the practice is just pay attention to the breath when they're sitting, and then eventually you incorporate everything, sounds and other sensations.
所以练习的时候只是注意他们坐着时的呼吸，然后最终你将所有的东西、声音和其他感觉结合起来。
And then you interleave that with walking meditation, where they're paying attention just to the sensations of lifting and moving and placing their feet.
然后你将其与步行冥想交织在一起，在步行冥想中，他们只注意抬起、移动和放置脚的感觉。
And then, once the practice is going, you incorporate sounds and sights and everything.
然后，一旦练习开始，你就会将声音、景象和一切结合起来。
So you can pay attention to everything, but the goal is for every moment, you are going to cultivate this faculty of mind, which increasingly is known as mindfulness, right?
所以你可以关注一切，但目标是每时每刻，你都要培养这种心智能力，这种能力越来越被称为正念，对吗？
And mindfulness is nothing other than this very careful attention to the contents of consciousness.
正念无非是对意识内容的非常仔细的关注。
But the crucial piece is it is not a moment of being lost in thought, right?
但关键是这不是陷入沉思的时刻，对吗？
You're not blocking thoughts.
你没有阻挡思想。
Thoughts themselves can arise, but in those moments of being truly mindful, you're noticing thoughts as thoughts, whether it's language in the mind or images.
想法本身可能会出现，但在那些真正正念的时刻，你会注意到想法就是想法，无论是头脑中的语言还是图像。
You're noticing those, too, as spontaneous appearances in consciousness.
你也会注意到这些，作为意识中自发的表现。
So if most people, certainly anyone who thinks they can do the experiment successfully that I just suggested, pay attention to something for 30 seconds without being lost in thought, you put those people on a meditation retreat, what they're going to experience is on the first day, they're going to feel like, oh, yeah, I was with the breath, or I was with the sensations of walking And I'd be there for five minutes solid, and then I would get lost in thought, then I'd come back.
所以，如果大多数人，当然是任何认为自己可以成功完成我刚才建议的实验的人，集中注意力30秒而不陷入沉思，你让这些人进行冥想静修，他们将在第一天体验到，他们会感觉，哦，是的，我与呼吸一起，或者我与行走的感觉一起，我会在那里呆上五分钟，然后我会陷入沉思，然后我会回来。
And five more minutes, I'd be lost in thought, then get back.
再过五分钟，我就会陷入沉思，然后回来。
But as the days progressed, even 10 days into a silent meditation retreat, they're going to experience more and more distraction.
但随着时间的推移，即使是静修静修十天，他们也会经历越来越多的干扰。
It's going to seem like, okay, wait a minute, now I can't pay attention to anything for more than five seconds, right?
看起来好像是，好吧，等一下，现在我注意力不能超过五秒钟，对吧？
That is progress, right?
这就是进步，对吗？
Because what they're discovering is just how distractible they are, right?
因为他们发现自己是多么容易分心，对吗？
And so for some people, that will be immediately obvious.
因此，对于某些人来说，这将是显而易见的。
For some people, it'll actually take a lot of practice to realize just how distracted they are.
对于某些人来说，实际上需要大量练习才能意识到他们的注意力有多么分散。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
What you just said, which was that at some point, we can start noticing our thoughts.
你刚才说的是，在某个时刻，我们可以开始注意到我们的想法。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I can notice my thoughts.
我能注意到我的想法。
But what you're talking about is as a goal state is not being distracted by thoughts, but actually seeing the relationship between thoughts, self, and other types of perceptions.
但你所说的目标状态并不是被想法分散注意力，而是真正看到想法、自我和其他类型的感知之间的关系。
And here, I think recognizing and seeing thoughts is a form of perception.
在这里，我认为识别和看到想法是一种感知形式。
It's just an-
这只是一个——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
internally directed perception.
内在导向的感知。
This raises a topic that I'm also obsessed by, which I think neuroscience can somewhat explain, but still incompletely, that the circuits and mechanics, et cetera, are not yet known, which is about time perception.
这就提出了一个我也很着迷的话题，我认为神经科学可以在一定程度上解释，但仍然不完整，电路和力学等尚不清楚，这是关于时间感知的。
And a simple analogy would be that there are a lot of small objects flying around in the space that we happen to be having this discussion, but they're moving so fast that I can't perceive them.
一个简单的类比是，我们碰巧正在讨论的空间中有很多小物体在飞来飞去，但它们移动得如此之快，以至于我无法感知它们。
Or they're entirely stationary, so I can't perceive them-
或者它们完全静止，所以我无法感知它们-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
because of the reasons we talked about before in the visual system.
因为我们之前讲过视觉系统的原因。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
My eyes are moving in perfect concert with these small object movements, and therefore, I am blind to them.
我的眼睛与这些小物体的运动完全一致，因此，我对它们视而不见。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
A slight shift in time perception.
时间观念略有转变。
Think of this perhaps as a change in the frame rate, right?
也许可以将其视为帧速率的变化，对吗？
Camera frame rates.
相机帧速率。
Faster frame rate, you can capture slow motion.
更快的帧速率，可以捕捉慢动作。
Slower frame rate, you're going to get more of a strobe type effect if the frame rate is low enough.
帧速率较慢，如果帧速率足够低，您将获得更多的频闪类型效果。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Right?
对吗？
Could it be that our time perception is not one thing, but we have one rate of perceiving time for external objects at a given distance, which we know is true, another frame rate for objects that are up close, we know this to be true, even if those objects are moving at the exact same speed, right?
难道我们的时间感知不是一回事，而是我们对给定距离的外部物体有一种感知时间的速率，我们知道这是正确的，而对于近距离的物体我们有另一种感知时间的速率，我们知道这是正确的，即使这些物体以完全相同的速度移动，对吗？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
This would be the sitting on a train, the rungs on the fence seem to be going by very, very fast, but the ones in the distance seem to be moving slowly.
这就像坐在火车上，栅栏上的梯级似乎走得非常非常快，但远处的梯级似乎移动得很慢。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
This is the way the visual system and time perception interconnect at some level.
这是视觉系统和时间感知在某种程度上相互联系的方式。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
You're up on a skyscraper, the little ants of cars and people down below.
你在摩天大楼上，下面是汽车和人的小蚂蚁。
You know they're moving much faster than you perceive them to move-
你知道他们的移动速度比你想象的要快得多-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
but it's a distance effect.
但这是距离效应。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
You see a plane, it could be going 300 miles an hour.
你看一架飞机，它的飞行速度可能是每小时 300 英里。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Exactly.
正是如此。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And it's not because of the lack of resolution.
这并不是因为缺乏决心。
The lack of resolution is incidental.
缺乏解决方案是偶然的。
We know this because in animals such as hawks that have twice the degree of acuity, as far as we know, they have the same distance-associated shifts in time perception.
我们之所以知道这一点，是因为据我们所知，在鹰等具有两倍敏锐度的动物中，它们在时间感知方面具有相同的与距离相关的变化。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So could it be that we are running multiple streams of time perception, multiple cones of attention, that include cones of attention to our thoughts, and that somehow through meditation, we start to align the frame rate for these different streams of attention so that they all fall into the same movie, if you will, although it's not just a movie with visual content.
那么，我们是否可能正在运行多个时间感知流、多个注意力锥，其中包括对我们思想的注意力锥，并且以某种方式通过冥想，我们开始调整这些不同注意力流的帧速率，以便它们都落入同一部电影，如果你愿意的话，尽管它不仅仅是一部具有视觉内容的电影。
What I'm doing here is clearly I'm becoming a lumper rather than a splitter.
我在这里所做的显然是我正在成为一个集大成者而不是分裂者。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Right.
正确的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'm sure this violates certain rules of time perception and neural circuitry, but I'm not sure that it's entirely untrue either.
我确信这违反了时间感知和神经回路的某些规则，但我也不确定这是否完全不真实。
And does it survive at all as a possible model for what you're describing?
它是否可以作为您所描述的模型存在？
And if the answer is no, I'm perfectly comfortable with that.
如果答案是否定的，我对此也非常满意。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Well, it's dependent on what you mean by meditation.
嗯，这取决于你所说的冥想是什么意思。
This is where the particularities of what one is doing with one's attention under the frame of meditation really matter.
这就是在冥想框架下一个人的注意力所做的事情的特殊性真正重要的地方。
Because there are ways to practice mindfulness, in particular, where the frame rate really does seem to go way, way up, right?
因为有很多方法可以练习正念，特别是在帧速率似乎确实大幅提高的情况下，对吗？
And there's actually been some research done on this where you take people before and after a three-month silent meditation retreat, and you give them some kind of visual discrimination task where they have to detect, I think they used a tachistoscope.
实际上已经做了一些这方面的研究，你让人们在为期三个月的静默冥想静修之前和之后，你给他们某种视觉辨别任务，他们必须检测，我认为他们使用了速度镜。
Is that the tool?
是那个工具吗？
Something that presents very quick pulses of light.
呈现非常快的光脉冲的东西。
And in any case, you can discriminate in any sensory channel, I would imagine.
无论如何，我想你可以在任何感官通道中进行区分。
You can make finer grain discriminations if you're practicing mindfulness in a very specific way, which is to be making these fine grain discriminations more and more and do nothing else for three months, which is a way of practicing.
如果你以一种非常具体的方式练习正念，你可以做出更细粒度的辨别，那就是越来越多地进行这些细粒度的辨别，并且三个月内不做任何其他事情，这是一种修行的方式。
So the classic mindfulness practice in what's called Vipassana meditation is to pay scrupulous attention to seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching in a way that breaks everything down into this kind of microscopic sensory moments.
因此，所谓内观冥想中的经典正念练习就是严格注意看、听、闻、尝、触，将一切分解为这种微观的感官时刻。
So rather than feel your hands pressing together, what you're trying to feel with your attention and you're feeling more and more is all of the micro sensations of pressure and temperature and movement, such that the feeling of hands completely disappears.
因此，你不再感觉双手压在一起，而是试图用注意力去感受，并且你越来越感觉到的是压力、温度和运动的所有微观感觉，这样手的感觉就完全消失了。
You realize that a hand is a concept, and all you have is this cloud of punctate and very brief sensations.
你意识到手是一个概念，而你所拥有的只是这一团点状且非常短暂的感觉。
And so anything you think you have as a datum of experience, as you bore into it with your attention It resolves into this kind of diaphanous cloud of changing sensation.
因此，任何你认为你拥有的经验数据，当你用注意力钻研它时，它都会分解成这种变化感觉的透明云。
And that can be even something that is as captivating as a serious pain in your body.
这甚至可以是像身体剧烈疼痛一样令人着迷的事情。
You could have injured your neck, and so you have some excruciating pain in your neck.
您的颈部可能受伤，因此您的颈部会感到剧烈疼痛。
If you just are willing to pay attention to it, and just pay 100% attention to it, a couple things happen.
如果你愿意关注它，并且百分百关注它，就会发生一些事情。
One is your resistance to feeling it goes away by definition because now your goal is to just pay attention to it.
一是你拒绝感觉它按照定义消失，因为现在你的目标只是关注它。
And you recognize that so much of the suffering associated with the pain was born of the resistance to feeling it.
你认识到，与疼痛相关的许多痛苦都是由于对感受的抗拒而产生的。
You're bracing against it.
你正准备反对它。
And all of your thinking about it, you're thinking like, "Well, why did I do this to myself?" Or, "Should I see an orthopedist?" Or, "How long is this going to last?" And, "Maybe I herniated a disc." All of that self-talk is producing anxiety, and I'm not saying there's never anything to think about there, but either you can do something about it in the moment or you can't.
你所有的想法都是这样想的：“好吧，我为什么要这样对自己？”或者，“我应该去看骨科医生吗？”或者，“这会持续多久？”而且，“也许我椎间盘突出了。”所有这些自言自语都会产生焦虑，我并不是说那里永远不需要考虑任何事情，但你要么可以立即采取行动，要么不能。
And so much of our suffering in the presence of pain is the result of resisting it, worrying about it.
我们在痛苦面前所受的许多痛苦都是由于抗拒它、担心它而造成的。
It is just everything we're doing with our minds but just feeling it.
这只是我们用头脑所做的一切，但只是感觉而已。
Right?
正确的？
So when you just feel it, again, it breaks apart into this ever-shifting collection of different sensations.
因此，当你再次感受到它时，它就会分解成不断变化的不同感觉的集合。
And it's not one thing, and it never stays the same.
这不是一件事，而且永远不会保持不变。
So two things happen there.
所以那里发生了两件事。
One is there can be a tremendous amount of relief that happens there, where you can achieve a level of equanimity, even in the presence of really unpleasant physical sensation.
一是那里可以发生巨大的缓解，即使存在真正不愉快的身体感觉，您也可以达到一定程度的平静。
And this is true of mental sensation as well as this is true of emotions, the classically negative emotions like anger or depression or fear.
精神感觉和情绪都是如此，典型的负面情绪如愤怒、抑郁或恐惧。
The moment you become willing to just feel them in all of their punctate and changeable qualities, they cease to be what they were a moment ago.
一旦你愿意去感受它们所有点状和多变的品质，它们就不再是刚才的样子了。
And when you're talking about emotional states, they cease to map back onto you and your self-concept as meaningful in the same way.
当你谈论情绪状态时，它们不再以同样的方式映射回你和你的自我概念。
So that suddenly, the anxiety you feel, let's say, before going out on stage to give a talk, a moment ago, it had psychological meaning.
所以突然间，你感到的焦虑，比如说，在上台演讲之前，刚才，它具有心理意义。
It felt like, "Oh, okay, I'm anxious.
感觉就像是，“哦，好吧，我很焦虑。
How do I get rid of this?
我该如何摆脱这个？
Why am I this sort of person?
为什么我是这样的人？
Should I have taken a beta blocker?" This is the conversation you're having with yourself.
我应该服用β受体阻滞剂吗？”这是你与自己的对话。
The moment you just become willing to feel it as the pure energy of the physiology of cortisol release, it ceases to have any meaning.
一旦你愿意感受到它是皮质醇释放生理学的纯粹能量，它就不再具有任何意义。
It ceases to be a problem in that moment because it no more maps onto the kind of person you are than a feeling of indigestion or a pain in your knee maps onto the kind of person you are.
在那一刻，它不再是一个问题，因为它不再映射到你是什么样的人，就像消化不良的感觉或膝盖疼痛映射到你是什么样的人一样。
It's just sensation.
这只是感觉。
Anyway, but back to the main point here, which is that if you train your attention in this way to notice the particularities of sensory experience and emotional experience, you're looking for the atoms of experience.
不管怎样，回到这里的要点，那就是，如果你以这种方式训练你的注意力来注意到感官体验和情感体验的特殊性，你就是在寻找体验的原子。
You get better and better at that, and certain things happen.
你在这方面做得越来越好，某些事情就会发生。
But one thing that I really do think happens is there's a kind of frame rate change in the data stream where you really are just noticing much, much more.
但我确实认为发生的一件事是数据流中存在一种帧速率变化，您实际上只是注意到了很多很多。
All of that is a very interesting way of training.
所有这些都是一种非常有趣的培训方式。
It's not what I tend to recommend now.
这不是我现在推荐的。
It's a great preliminary practice for what I do recommend because it really teaches you the difference between being lost in thought and not.
对于我所推荐的内容来说，这是一个很好的初步练习，因为它确实教会了你陷入沉思和不陷入沉思之间的区别。
It really teaches you what mindfulness is.
它真正教会你什么是正念。
But it tends to be done by 99.9% of people in a dualistic way, which, again, you're set up to think, "Okay, I'm over here as the locus of attention, and I'm continually getting distracted by thought, and the project is to not do that anymore and actually pay attention to the breath and sounds and sensations.
但这往往是由 99.9% 的人以二元的方式完成的，这又会让你想，“好吧，我在这里是注意力的焦点，我不断地被思想分散注意力，项目是不再这样做，而是真正关注呼吸、声音和感觉。
And every time I get lost in thought, I'm going to go back to here." But this whole dance of, I'm lost in thought, now I'm strategically directing my attention again.
每次当我陷入沉思时，我都会回到这里。”但这整个舞蹈，我陷入了沉思，现在我再次战略性地引导我的注意力。
All of this seems to ramify this sense of self, the sense of there's one to be doing this.
所有这一切似乎都影响了这种自我意识，即有人在做这件事的感觉。
There's somebody holding the spotlight of attention and getting better at coming back to the object of meditation.
有人占据了注意力的聚光灯，并且越来越擅长回到冥想的对象上。
Again, it's inevitable that 99.9% of people are going to start there and stay there for some considerable period of time.
同样，99.9% 的人不可避免地会从那里开始并在那里停留相当长的一段时间。
But the thing I like to do when I talk about all of this is undercut the false assumptions that are anchoring all of that as early as possible.
但当我谈论这一切时，我喜欢做的事情是尽早削弱那些支撑所有这些的错误假设。
Because where I think you want to be is recognizing that there is no place from which to aim attention.
因为我认为你想要的地方是认识到没有地方可以集中注意力。
Right?
正确的？
This whole dualistic setup of subject and object is the thing that is already not there.
主体和客体的整个二元设置已经不存在了。
And it's not that it's there and you meditate it out of existence successfully.
并不是说它就在那里，你成功地冥想它就消失了。
It's really not there.
它真的不在那里。
And if you learn how to look for it, you can see that it's not there and feel that it's not there, and it no longer seems to be there.
如果你学会如何寻找它，你就会发现它不在那儿，感觉到它不在那儿，而且它似乎不再在那儿。
Right?
正确的？
And it becomes, again, like a bistable percept where you looked at it long enough and you thought, "Okay, now I see the vase and the face, and I can't unsee it.
它再次变得像一种双稳态感知，你看着它足够长的时间，你想，“好吧，现在我看到了花瓶和脸，我无法忽视它。
And every time I look, it's there again." Right?
每次我看时，它都会再次出现。”正确的？
And so, yeah.
所以，是的。
So to come back to the example you gave with your colleague at Stanford, whose book I know I have.
回到你和你在斯坦福大学的同事举的例子，我知道我有他的书。
I haven't read it.
我还没读过。
He wrote a book, "Projections," right?
他写了一本书，《预测》，对吗？
Yeah.
是的。
Desarath.
迪萨拉特。
Yeah.
是的。
So it's on my stack to read.
所以它就在我的书堆里可供阅读。
But It's the opposite.
但事实恰恰相反。
What I'm recommending is essentially the opposite end of the continuum of the internal exercise he was doing.
我所推荐的本质上是他正在进行的内部练习的连续体的相反端。
So he's doing something very deliberate and controlled, and he is deliberately thinking in complete sentences and kind of commandeering the machinery of thought and attention in a way that I would imagine, I mean, I'd be interested to talk to him about it, but I would imagine he really feels like he's doing that.
所以他正在做一些非常深思熟虑和受控的事情，他故意用完整的句子思考，并以一种我想象的方式控制思想和注意力的机制，我的意思是，我有兴趣和他谈论这件事，但我想象他真的感觉他正在这样做。
Right?
正确的？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, he's an engineer.
嗯，他是一名工程师。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
As you describe it in this way, it reminds me, he's a physician, but he's also an engineer.
正如你这样描述的，这让我想起，他是一名医生，但他也是一名工程师。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So it's really about taking the raw materials of thought and engineering something structured from it, I think.
所以我认为，这实际上是关于获取思想的原材料并从中构建一些东西。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I haven't been in Carl's mind.
卡尔心里并没有我的想法。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
But if we got him talking on that-
但如果我们让他谈论这个——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah
是啊
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
...
...
I'm sure we would get a sense of what it is.
我确信我们会明白它是什么。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yes.
是的。
We'll do that conversation at some point.
我们将在某个时候进行这样的对话。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
But the-
但是——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So it's the exact opposite of what you're describing
所以这与你所描述的完全相反
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
...
...
the exact opposite would be to recognize that the sense of control is a total illusion.
恰恰相反，认识到控制感完全是一种幻觉。
Because you don't know what you're going to think next.
因为你不知道接下来你会怎么想。
And even he, in the most laborious way, he could just get as muscular as he wants with it, he still doesn't know what he's going to think next.
即使他以最费力的方式，他可以随心所欲地变得肌肉发达，但他仍然不知道下一步他会想什么。
Because thoughts simply arise.
因为念头就这么产生了。
You can run this experiment for yourself, and this connects up to the topic of free will, which we might want to touch.
你可以自己进行这个实验，这与我们可能想要触及的自由意志的主题有关。
But just think of any category of thing.
但只要想一想任何类别的事物即可。
If I asked you to think of the names of cities or of friends you have or of famous people you can remember exist or think of nouns or anything, and just watch what comes percolating into consciousness.
如果我让你想想城市的名字、你的朋友的名字、或者你能记得的名人的名字，或者想想名词或任何东西，然后观察什么渗透到你的意识中。
Right?
正确的？
Now, there are things you can't think of, or there are things you don't know the name of.
现在，有些东西你想不到，或者有些东西你不知道名字。
There are languages you don't speak.
有些语言是你不会说的。
There are famous people you've never seen or never heard of.
有一些你从未见过或从未听说过的名人。
So you have no control over that part.
所以你无法控制那部分。
Those names and faces are not going to suddenly come streaming into consciousness.
这些名字和面孔不会突然进入意识。
But of the totality of facts and figures and faces and names that you do know, only some will come vying for inclusion.
但在你所知道的所有事实、数字、面孔和名字中，只有一些会争夺其中。
We could make a guess, and we know something about the neurology of this, but depending on what channel you're waiting for thoughts in, it's going to be different if it's visual or semantic or episodic memory.
我们可以做出猜测，并且我们对神经学有所了解，但是根据您等待思想的渠道，如果是视觉记忆、语义记忆或情景记忆，情况将会有所不同。
All of these things are different.
所有这些事情都是不同的。
But wherever you point your inner gaze of attention and wait for the next face or name, certain things are going to come and certain things aren't going to come.
但无论你将内心的注意力集中在哪里，等待下一张面孔或名字，某些事情将会发生，而某些事情不会发生。
And how you land on one, there'll be this process, if you're paying attention, you might think, let's say we go with names of cities.
你如何找到一个，会有这个过程，如果你注意的话，你可能会想，假设我们选择城市名称。
So you'll think of Paris, you'll think of London, you'll think of Rome, you'll think of Sedona.
所以你会想到巴黎，你会想到伦敦，你会想到罗马，你会想到塞多纳。
These names will come and if I ask you to just say one, so just-
这些名字将会出现，如果我让你只说一个，那么就——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Minneapolis is what came to mind.
我想到的是明尼阿波利斯。
For me, it was very straightforward.
对我来说，这非常简单。
It was Minneapolis, the famous person was Joe Strummer, and I can give you reasons why I think those came to mind.
那是明尼阿波利斯，名人是乔·斯特鲁默（Joe Strummer），我可以告诉你我为什么会想到这些。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Recent conversations.
最近的谈话。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Okay.
好的。
So we know a fair bit about much of this.
所以我们对其中的大部分内容都了解很多。
So one, we know that your reasons obviously could be right or wrong.
因此，我们知道您的理由显然可能是对的，也可能是错的。
They're very likely to be wrong because we have this sort of confabulatory storytelling mechanism, even in an intact brain, where we all seem to never lack for the reasons why something came to mind.
他们很可能是错的，因为我们有这种随意讲故事的机制，即使在完整的大脑中，我们似乎也从不缺乏想到某件事的原因。
And we know we can manipulate people in ways that prove that people are just reliably wrong and confidently so about the reasons why they thought of things or did things.
我们知道，我们可以通过某种方式操纵人们，证明人们确实是错误的，并且对他们思考或做事的原因充满信心。
But leaving that aside, even if you're completely accurate, there are people's names who you know, and cities' names that you know, that inexplicably just didn't come to mind.
但抛开这一点不谈，即使你完全准确，有些你认识的人名、你认识的城市名称，却莫名其妙地没有出现在你的脑海中。
And if we ran this experiment again and again and again, they wouldn't come to mind if your brain was in precisely the state it was in a moment ago.
如果我们一次又一次地进行这个实验，如果你的大脑正好处于刚才的状态，它们就不会出现在你的脑海中。
If we could return your brain to the state it was in a moment ago, correcting for all the deterministic changes and all the random changes that would have to be corrected for to just get all the synapses and the synaptic weights and everything in the state it was in to produce Joe Strummer and Minneapolis.
如果我们能让你的大脑恢复到刚才的状态，纠正所有的确定性变化和所有随机变化，这些变化必须被纠正，才能得到所有的突触和突触权重，以及产生乔·斯特鲁默和明尼阿波利斯的状态。
If we rewind that part of the movie of your life, you're going to say Joe Strummer and Minneapolis a trillion times in a row.
如果我们倒带你生活中电影的那一部分，你会连续念叨乔·斯特鲁默和明尼阿波利斯一万亿次。
So this is why, in my view, the notion of free will makes absolutely no sense.
因此，在我看来，这就是为什么自由意志的概念完全没有意义。
And you can add as much randomness to that process as you want, it still doesn't get you the freedom people think they have.
你可以根据需要在这个过程中添加任意多的随机性，但它仍然无法给你带来人们认为他们拥有的自由。
There's another conversation to have about why none of that matters and why things only get better once you admit to yourself that free will is an illusion.
还有另一场谈话要讨论为什么这些都不重要，以及为什么只有当你承认自由意志是一种幻觉时事情才会变得更好。
And yes, you can get in shape and you can diet and you can do all the things you want to do, and you don't have to think about free will.
是的，你可以保持身材，你可以节食，你可以做所有你想做的事情，而且你不必考虑自由意志。
But from a contemplative, meditative point of view, the thing to notice is that everything is just springing into view.
但从沉思、冥想的角度来看，值得注意的是，一切都只是浮现在眼前。
There's no place from which you are authoring your next thought because you would have to think it before you think it.
你没有地方可以创作你的下一个想法，因为你必须在思考之前思考它。
There is just this fundamental mystery at our backs that is disgorging everything that we experience.
我们背后有一个根本性的谜团，它正在吐出我们所经历的一切。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
What if I'm speaking?
如果我说话呢？
So if I'm talking about something and I have some command of that information, I can often sense what I'm going to say next and then find myself saying it.
因此，如果我正在谈论某件事并且我对该信息有一定的掌握，我通常可以感觉到我接下来要说什么，然后发现自己在说。
Hopefully, that's what I'm saying, not something else.
希望这就是我要说的，而不是别的。
I've certainly said things I didn't intend to say or never thought I would say in life, but when engaged in speech or action It at least gives us the illusion, I think, that we somehow have more command over our thoughts.
我当然说过一些我不想说或从未想过我会在生活中说的话，但当我从事言语或行动时，我认为它至少给我们一种错觉，我们以某种方式对我们的思想有更多的控制。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Well, you have a script.
好吧，你有一个剧本。
There are things you know a lot about and you've talked about them a lot, and you know you have the things you want to say about those things and the things you don't want to say or you wouldn't want to say.
有些事情你知道很多，你也谈论过很多，你知道你对这些事情有想说的话，也有不想说或不愿意说的事情。
And it still is a bit of a high wire act because you can misspeak or you can fail to get to the end of a sentence in a grammatically correct way.
这仍然是一个有点高调的行为，因为你可能会说错，或者你可能无法以语法正确的方式到达句子的末尾。
And again, all of this subjectively, this whole process is mysterious to you.
再说一次，所有这一切主观上，整个过程对你来说都是神秘的。
You don't know how you follow the rules of English grammar.
你不知道如何遵循英语语法规则。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Not one bit.
一点也没有。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Your tongue is doing it somehow, and when it fails, it fails and you're just as surprised as the next guy that it failed.
你的舌头以某种方式做到了这一点，当它失败时，它就失败了，你和下一个失败的人一样惊讶。
And you mispronounce a word and okay, I don't know what happened there, but if it keeps happening, I'm going to worry I had a stroke and if it stops, I'm not going to worry about it.
你念错了一个单词，好吧，我不知道那里发生了什么，但如果它继续发生，我会担心我中风，如果它停止，我就不会担心它。
So it's still mysterious, even when you're doing it in a very rote, deliberative, and repetitive way.
所以它仍然是神秘的，即使你以一种非常死记硬背、深思熟虑和重复的方式来做。
But when you're talking about something you've talked about a lot and you sort of know where you're going to go.
但当你谈论一些你已经谈论过很多次的事情时，你就知道你要去哪里。
We have many conversations like this.
我们有很多这样的对话。
It is somewhat analogous to a golf swing, where it's like you know how you want to do it.
这有点类似于高尔夫挥杆，就好像您知道自己想怎么做一样。
There's going to be all kinds of errors that are going to creep into your execution of it in real time, but you basically have a pattern, and so you have certain linguistic patterns which you're following.
实时执行过程中可能会出现各种各样的错误，但基本上你有一个模式，所以你有一定的语言模式可以遵循。
Again, none of this is a proof of free will, but I will grant you that phenomenologically it feels different than just waiting for the next thought to come.
再说一遍，这些都不是自由意志的证明，但我承认，从现象学角度来看，这与等待下一个想法的到来感觉不同。
But my point is that even if you're...
但我的观点是，即使你...
You can trim it down to the simplest possible thing.
您可以将其精简为尽可能简单的内容。
You take two things you like to drink.
你带两件你喜欢喝的东西。
You like coffee and you like tea, and you're deciding which to have.
您喜欢咖啡，也喜欢茶，您正在决定喝哪一种。
Both are on offer.
两者均提供。
You've got two cups in front of you, and the question is, here I've got water and I've got coffee, which am I going to drink next?
你面前有两个杯子，问题是，这里有水，还有咖啡，接下来我要喝哪一个？
It's the simplest possible decision, and no matter how long I make this decision process, I could literally sit for an hour trying to figure out which to reach for next, and I could have my reasons why, and I could have all my self-talk.
这是最简单的决定，无论我做出这个决定的过程需要多长时间，我实际上可以坐一个小时试图找出下一步该做什么，我可以有我的理由，我可以有我所有的自言自语。
There's going to be a final change in me that's going to be the proximate cause of me deciding one over the other, and that, no matter how laborious I can make it seem in terms of my reasoning about it, it is going to be fundamentally mysterious as to why I went with one rather than the other.
我身上将会发生最后的改变，这将是我决定其中一个而不是另一个的直接原因，而且，无论我在推理方面如何费力地使它看起来如此，对于为什么我选择其中一个而不是另一个，这从根本上来说将是一个神秘的事情。
Because it's still going to be as mysterious as you thinking of Joe Strummer when you know of the existence of Marilyn Monroe just as much, and yet she simply didn't occur to you.
因为当你知道玛丽莲·梦露的存在时，它仍然会像你想到乔·斯特鲁默一样神秘，但你根本没有想到她。
It's fundamentally mysterious.
这从根本上来说是神秘的。
There are people who are even more famous than Joe Strummer to you.
对你来说，有些人甚至比乔·斯特鲁默 (Joe Strummer) 更出名。
I'm sure he may be somebody who you have thought a lot about, but there are people who, if we could just inventory your conscious life going back the last 10 years, there are people who you've thought about more than Joe Strummer, yet they didn't appear.
我确信他可能是你经常想念的人，但是如果我们能回顾一下你过去十年的意识生活，有些人比乔·斯特鲁默你想得更多，但他们并没有出现。
And that is mysterious.
这很神秘。
And they could've, but they didn't.
他们本来可以，但他们没有。
And what I'm saying is that this mystery never gets banished in our experience, whatever stories we have to tell about it.
我想说的是，无论我们讲述什么故事，这个谜团在我们的经历中永远不会消失。
Because if the story is, "Oh, well, I went for the water because I think I've been drinking too much coffee.
因为如果故事是这样的：“哦，好吧，我去喝水是因为我觉得我喝了太多咖啡。
I listened to Andrew Huberman's podcast, and he was talking about caffeine, and I think I probably-
我听了安德鲁·胡伯曼的播客，他在谈论咖啡因，我想我可能-
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's good for us, but you don't want to overdo it.
这对我们有好处，但你不想做得太过分。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Okay, so let's say that is actually the causal chain.
好吧，我们可以说这实际上是因果链。
I listened to your podcast, you said something about caffeine.
我听了你的播客，你说了一些关于咖啡因的事情。
Now I'm self-conscious about my coffee intake.
现在我对自己的咖啡摄入量感到不自在。
But that's just adding a couple of links to the chain.
但这只是在链条上添加了几个链接。
There's still this fundamental mystery of, well, why did I find that persuasive?
仍然有一个基本的谜团，为什么我觉得这有说服力？
And why did I find it persuasive now and not five minutes ago when I was drinking the coffee?
为什么我现在觉得它很有说服力，而不是五分钟前我喝咖啡的时候？
Why did I just remember it now, or why was it effective now?
为什么我现在才想起来，或者为什么现在才有效？
Your experience in every moment is precisely what it is and not one bit more.
你每时每刻的体验都是如此，一点也不多。
And this subsumes even moments of real resolve and effort and picking yourself up by your bootstraps and changing everything.
这甚至包括真正决心和努力的时刻，以及通过自己的力量振作起来并改变一切的时刻。
It's like you're on a diet and you're tempted to eat chocolate, and you're about to reach and you say, "No, I'm not breaking this diet.
这就像你正在节食，你很想吃巧克力，当你快要吃巧克力时，你说：“不，我不会打破这种节食。
This diet is actually going to stick." Okay, why did that arise in that moment and not at this analogous moment on your last diet?
这种饮食实际上会坚持下去。”好吧，为什么会出现在那个时刻，而不是在你上次节食的类似时刻？
And why did it arise now to precisely the degree that it did?
为什么它现在会出现这种程度呢？
Why will it be as effective as it will be and have the half-life that it will have and not 10% more or less?
为什么它会如此有效，并具有它应有的半衰期，而不是增加或减少 10%？
All of those are always mysterious to you.
所有这些对你来说总是神秘的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, could we give a, as we did before, an evolutionary and a developmental explanation?
那么，我们能否像之前那样给出一个进化和发展的解释？
An evolutionary explanation might be that directed attention and action is metabolically demanding.
进化论的解释可能是，定向注意力和行动对新陈代谢有要求。
It would be inefficient or impossible for us to be in constant deliberate action and with access to all the relevant information as to why we would do anything.
如果我们持续采取深思熟虑的行动并获取所有有关我们为何要做某事的相关信息，那将是低效或不可能的。
So our ideas literally spring to the surface at the last possible moment in order to offset the metabolic The great metabolic requirements of having ideas-
因此，我们的想法在最后可能的时刻才真正浮出水面，以抵消新陈代谢的影响。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
that are related to goal-directed action or that goal-directed action is expensive.
与目标导向的行动相关或目标导向的行动成本高昂。
That's one idea.
这是一个想法。
The other idea would be, and we know this as a fact, which is that initially the brain is fairly crudely wired.
另一个想法是，我们知道这是一个事实，即大脑最初的连接相当粗糙。
That's not true within the neural circuits that control breathing, heart rate, et cetera, but within the neural circuits of sensory perception, thought, et cetera, they're fairly crudely wired.
在控制呼吸、心率等的神经回路中情况并非如此，但在感觉知觉、思想等的神经回路中，它们的连接相当粗糙。
And then across development, there's a progressive pruning back and also in parallel to that, a strengthening of the connections that underlie directed action and thought.
然后，在整个发展过程中，会出现逐步的修剪，同时也会加强指导行动和思想基础上的联系。
And here I don't mean directed as in free will, I mean just that-
在这里我并不是指以自由意志为导向，我的意思只是——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
I can decide to imagine an apple and imagine that apple, for instance.
例如，我可以决定想象一个苹果并想象那个苹果。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
But your decision, your-
但你的决定，你的——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
There seems to be some maintenance of the fine random wiring in systems.
系统中的精细随机接线似乎需要进行一些维护。
We've seen this even in worms, in flies, in so-called lower invertebrates-
我们甚至在蠕虫、苍蝇和所谓的低等无脊椎动物中也看到了这一点——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and lower vertebrates, and we see this in humans.
和低等脊椎动物，我们在人类身上也看到了这一点。
And it seems to be that there's a lot of background spontaneous activity.
似乎有很多背景自发活动。
I've sunk electrodes into the brains of humans, macaques, carnivores, and mice, and in every case, most of what you hear is called hash, and it has nothing to do with hashish.
我已经将电极植入人类、猕猴、食肉动物和老鼠的大脑中，在每种情况下，你听到的大部分内容都被称为大麻，它与大麻无关。
It's just on the audio monitor, which is, you're picking up a bunch of action potentials.
它只是在音频监视器上，也就是说，您正在拾取一堆动作电位。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
As you're listening to a chorus of action potentials.
当您正在聆听动作电位的合唱时。
But it's rare to find a neuron that faithfully fires to represent some sensory stimulus in the world.
但很少有神经元能够忠实地激发来代表世界上的某些感官刺激。
And you can arrange that marriage experimentally so that you can arrive at those strong signal-to-noise events.
你可以通过实验来安排这种结合，这样你就可以得到那些强烈的信噪比事件。
But I was always struck by how much noise there is in the system-
但我总是对系统中的噪音之大感到震惊——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
all around, all the time.
无处不在，无时无刻。
And people argue, is the noise really noise, et cetera, and is it...
人们争论说，噪音真的是噪音吗？等等，是不是……
There's still a lot of debate about that.
对此仍有很多争论。
But I can imagine that some of the spontaneous nature of thoughts just relates to the fact that there's a lot of background spontaneous activity in the brain.
但我可以想象，思想的一些自发性质与大脑中存在大量背景自发活动这一事实有关。
Now, why that is is a whole other discussion.
现在，为什么会这样是一个完全不同的讨论。
But if I were to sort of set up two constraints that there's a lot of spontaneous activity that's going to generate random thoughts, thankfully not much random action, although there's a little bit of random action-
但如果我要设置两个约束，即有很多自发活动会产生随机想法，值得庆幸的是，没有太多随机行动，尽管有一点随机行动-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
in our daily lives.
在我们的日常生活中。
And then against that, say, well, any deliberate thought or motion is going to be expensive, right?
与此相反，好吧，任何深思熟虑的想法或行动都会代价高昂，对吗？
It's a metabolically expensive organ to begin with.
首先，它是一个代谢昂贵的器官。
And so you just have to, evolution has arrived at a place where spontaneous geysering up of things upon which deliberate thoughts and action are superimposed is the best arrangement overall for this very metabolically demanding organ.
所以你必须这样做，进化已经到达了这样一个地步：对于这个代谢要求极高的器官来说，事物的自发间歇泉叠加在其上是经过深思熟虑的思想和行动的最佳安排。
What I basically gave was just kind of a biological description-
我基本上给出的只是一种生物学描述——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
of just one narrow aspect of it.
只是它的一个狭隘的方面。
But can we get comfortable with that?
但我们能对此感到满意吗？
And the reason I say get comfortable is that I'm, and here admittedly I'm forcing a little bit of a striptease towards what I think I and everyone else wants to know, which is how to meditate and why in particular meditation convinces us that something doesn't necessarily have to be eliminated, but that was actually never there.
我说变得舒服的原因是，我承认，在这里，我对我认为我和其他人都想知道的事情强加了一点脱衣舞，这就是如何冥想，以及为什么冥想特别说服我们，某些东西不一定必须被消除，但实际上从未存在过。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I feel like we're now set up of almost like a, you're not contradicting yourself by any means, but in my mind, there's a contradiction, and here's the contradiction.
我觉得我们现在的关系几乎就像一个，你无论如何都不会自相矛盾，但在我看来，有一个矛盾，这就是矛盾。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I love this statement that meditation over time or done properly reveals to us that we're actually not trying to make the gap between actor and observer go away.
我喜欢这样的说法，即随着时间的推移或正确完成的冥想向我们揭示，我们实际上并没有试图消除演员和观察者之间的差距。
It was actually never there.
它实际上从未存在过。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
To me, that's one of the more important statements that I perhaps have ever heard, and it inspires me to go further down this path of meditation because I've never experienced that.
对我来说，这可能是我听过的最重要的说法之一，它激励我在冥想的道路上走得更远，因为我从未经历过这一点。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Not deliberately and certainly not through meditation.
不是故意的，当然也不是通过冥想。
If I ever experienced it, it was transient enough that I'm intrigued to experience it more.
如果我曾经经历过它，那是短暂的，所以我有兴趣去更多地体验它。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Okay.
好的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So on the one hand, you're telling me something was never there and there's a profound experience to be had by anyone that's willing to do the work to arrive at that experience of the loss of that illusion.
因此，一方面，你告诉我有些东西从未存在过，任何愿意付出努力以实现幻象消失的体验的人都会获得深刻的体验。
On the other hand, I'm hearing that there's a profound gap that really does exist, which is that we believe that our thoughts are somehow from us, and indeed they're from in the cranial vault someplace, maybe in the body a bit as well, but that we over-attribute the degree to which we are that and that is us in a way that's volitional, that we control.
另一方面，我听说确实存在一个深刻的差距，那就是我们相信我们的思想在某种程度上来自我们自己，事实上它们来自颅顶的某个地方，也许也来自身体，但我们过度归因于我们的程度，而这就是我们以一种自愿的、我们控制的方式。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And so once I'm hearing that there's an illusion that we can eliminate, and on the other hand, I'm hearing that there's an illusion that we can't eliminate, and maybe these are unrelated and I'm bridging them in an-
所以一旦我听说有一种幻觉我们可以消除，另一方面，我听说有一种幻觉我们无法消除，也许这些是不相关的，我正在用一种——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
unimportant way that seems only important to me, but somehow I can't resolve these two.
不重要的方式似乎只对我重要，但不知何故我无法解决这两个问题。
And maybe the thing to do then is can we separate them in terms of a practice to witness them that would allow us to resolve them separately?
也许接下来要做的事情是，我们能否通过实践来将它们分开，以见证它们，从而使我们能够分别解决它们？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
So yeah, I think I'm hearing the problem.
是的，我想我听到了这个问题。
Well, let me kind of bracket the whole free will discussion because it really is the flip side of this coin that the obverse of which is the illusion of the self.
好吧，让我把整个自由意志讨论括起来，因为它确实是硬币的反面，其正面是自我的幻象。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Okay.
好的。
So at least I-
所以至少我-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
That they're connected
他们是相连的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
so I might be on the right track.
所以我可能走在正确的轨道上。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
They are the opposite sides of a coin.
它们是硬币的两面。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Okay, great.
好的，太好了。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Because-
因为——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So to me, they seem very different in essence
所以对我来说，它们在本质上看起来非常不同
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
...
...
yeah.
是的。
No, because what I'm calling the sense of self and what I think most people feel as their core sense of self is this feeling of being the locus of attention, but it's also the feeling of being the locus of agency, like I can do the next thing.
不，因为我所说的自我意识，以及我认为大多数人所感受到的核心自我意识，是一种成为关注焦点的感觉，但它也是一种成为代理焦点的感觉，就像我可以做下一件事一样。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Who's doing this?
谁在干这事？
Who's reaching for the cup?
谁伸手去拿杯子？
I am.
我是。
Right?
正确的？
I intended this and now I'm doing the thing.
我本来打算这样做，现在我正在做这件事。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
And my conscious intention is the proximate cause of my reaching, right?
而我的意识意图是我达到目标的近因，对吧？
And so I'm the author of my thoughts and actions, essentially, and my specific uses of attention, right?
因此，从本质上讲，我是我的思想和行动的作者，也是我对注意力的具体用途的作者，对吧？
So I can pay attention to the breath, I get lost in thought, I come back to the breath.
这样我就可以注意呼吸，我陷入沉思，然后又回到呼吸。
But on some level, the thoughts themselves are more of my doing something with almost an authorial intent.
但在某种程度上，这些想法本身更多的是我在做一些几乎是作者意图的事情。
Like, "I'm thinking.
就像，“我在想。
What the hell is this guy talking about?
这家伙到底在说什么？
I know I'm thinking.
我知道我在想。
Who's thinking these thoughts?
谁在想这些想法？
I am." The person who really doesn't get what I'm saying is thinking something like that.
我是。”真正不明白我在说什么的人肯定会这么想。
It's like, "What the fuck is this guy talking about?
就像是，“这家伙他妈的在说什么？
I know I'm here.
我知道我在这里。
I'm a self.
我是一个自我。
I'm a body.
我是一个身体。
I'm a mind.
我是一个头脑。
I can reach for things.
我可以伸手拿东西。
These intentional actions are different from things that happen to me." A voluntary action is different from an involuntary one.
这些有意的行为与发生在我身上的事情不同。”自愿行为与非自愿行为不同。
So having a tremor is different from consciously deciding to pick up a glass.
因此，颤抖与有意识地决定拿起玻璃杯是不同的。
So obviously, everything I'm saying about meditation and the self and free will, in order to be a sane picture of a human mind and of reality, has to conserve the data of experience such that, yes, I can acknowledge the difference between a tremor and a deliberative, voluntary motor action.
很明显，我所说的关于冥想、自我和自由意志的一切，为了成为人类思想和现实的理智图景，必须保存经验数据，这样，是的，我可以承认震颤和深思熟虑的、自愿的运动动作之间的区别。
And the things you do volitionally are different, not just psychologically and behaviorally, but they just have different implications.
你自愿做的事情是不同的，不仅在心理和行为上，而且它们只是有不同的含义。
In a court of law, you accidentally hit someone with your car, or you did it on purpose.
在法庭上，您的车不小心撞到了某人，或者您是故意的。
That's still a distinction that matters.
这仍然是一个重要的区别。
Importantly, it tells us a lot about the global properties of your mind, such that we have a sense of what you're likely to do in the future.
重要的是，它告诉我们很多关于您思想的全局属性，以便我们了解您将来可能会做什么。
If you're someone who likes running over people with your car, you're a psychopath who we need to worry about.
如果你是一个喜欢开车撞人的人，那么你就是一个我们需要担心的精神病患者。
If you're someone who did it by accident, well, then you may be culpable for the level of negligence that allowed that to happen, but you're a very different person and we treat you differently, and we're wise to.
如果你是一个偶然造成这种情况的人，那么你可能要为导致这种情况发生的疏忽程度负责，但你是一个非常不同的人，我们会以不同的方式对待你，而且我们很明智地这样做。
So anyway, let's bracket all of that.
所以无论如何，让我们把所有这些都括起来。
There are some false assumptions about the underlying logic of this process, which I think is worth addressing, and actually, there's a kind of found object in the news that I talk about at one point.
关于这个过程的基本逻辑有一些错误的假设，我认为这些假设值得解决，实际上，我在新闻中曾经谈到过一种发现的对象。
I forget where it is in the Waking Up app, but there was a story that I stumbled on on the internet, I think it's about 12 or 13 years old, of a tourist bus in, I think it was Norway.
我忘记了它在“Wake Up”应用程序中的位置，但我在互联网上偶然发现了一个故事，我想它大约有 12 或 13 年的历史，是关于一辆旅游巴士的，我想那是挪威。
It was somewhere in northern Europe.
那是在北欧的某个地方。
And it had about 30 people on it, and one person was described as an Asian woman.
车上大约有 30 人，其中一人被描述为一名亚洲女性。
They went to a rest stop and everyone got off the bus, and they shopped and had lunch.
他们到了休息站，大家下了车，一起购物、吃午饭。
And this Asian woman changed her clothing, for whatever reason, and they all got back on the bus.
这位亚洲女士不知出于什么原因换了衣服，然后他们都回到了公共汽车上。
I think the relevance of it being an Asian woman is that there were language barriers that explained what later happened.
我认为，作为一名亚洲女性，其相关性在于存在语言障碍，这解释了后来发生的事情。
So everyone gets back on the bus.
于是大家就回到了巴士上。
The Asian woman has changed her clothing, and the bus is about to leave, but then someone notices, "Hey, there was an Asian woman who got off the bus who hasn't come back yet." And they tell the driver this, and this poses a problem.
亚裔女子已经换好了衣服，巴士即将出发，却有人注意到，“嘿，有一个亚裔女子下车了，还没回来。”他们告诉司机这一点，这就带来了问题。
So now everyone's waiting for this person to return.
所以现在大家都在等待这个人的归来。
But in fact, everyone was on the bus, this woman had just changed her clothing and was not recognized by her fellow travelers.
但事实上，大家都在车上，这名女子刚刚换好衣服，并没有被同行的人认出来。
So everyone gets concerned as this tourist doesn't show up, and they start looking for her.
由于这名游客没有出现，每个人都感到担心，并开始寻找她。
And they can't find her, and so a search party is formed.
但他们找不到她，于是成立了一个搜索队。
And the Asian woman, because of whatever language barrier, heard that there was a missing tourist, so she joins the search party, which in fact is looking for her.
而那位亚洲女子，由于语言障碍，听说有一名游客失踪，所以她加入了搜索队，而搜索队实际上正在寻找她。
And this goes on into the night, and they're readying helicopters for a dawn patrol to find the missing tourist.
这种情况一直持续到深夜，他们正在准备直升机进行黎明巡逻，以寻找失踪的游客。
Now, at some point along the way, I think it was at 3:00 in the morning, this tourist realizes that she is the object of this search.
现在，在途中的某个时刻，我想是在凌晨 3:00，这位游客意识到她是这次搜索的对象。
And obviously, the whole thing unravels.
显然，整个事情都解开了。
She confesses that she changed her clothes, and the problem is solved.
她承认她换了衣服，问题就解决了。
But the problem is not solved by the logic that the seekers expected.
但问题并没有按照探索者所期望的逻辑得到解决。
So it's not true to say that the missing tourist was found in the way that was expected.
因此，说失踪的游客是按照预期的方式找到的，这是不正确的。
Because the missing tourist was never lost.
因为失踪的游客从未失踪。
The missing tourist was part of the search party.
失踪的游客是搜寻队的一部分。
And so when you think about it from her point of view, what happened?
那么当你从她的角度思考时，发生了什么？
She's part of the search party.
她是搜寻队的一员。
She's looking for the missing tourist, not knowing that she, in fact, is the missing tourist.
她正在寻找失踪的游客，却不知道她实际上就是失踪的游客。
So what happens at the moment she realizes that everyone's looking for her?
那么当她意识到每个人都在寻找她时会发生什么？
The search isn't consummated in the way that is implied by the logic of everyone's use of attention.
搜索并不是按照每个人使用注意力的逻辑所暗示的方式完成的。
And yet the problem evaporates.
然而问题却消失了。
And there's something deeply analogous about the structure of that and the meditative journey.
它的结构和冥想之旅有一些非常相似的地方。
Precisely in, again, not talking about all the possible changes in the contents of consciousness that could be good, which again, they come along for the ride anyway when you do the thing I'm talking about.
准确地说，不是在谈论意识内容中所有可能的变化，这些变化可能是好的，同样，当你做我正在谈论的事情时，它们无论如何都会随之而来。
It's on this point of looking for the self and not finding it.
正是在这一点上寻找自我却找不到它。
And there is this sense that, okay, the self is here and it's a problem.
有一种感觉，好吧，自我就在这里，这是一个问题。
It is the string upon which all of my conscious states, mostly unhappy ones, are strung.
它是我所有意识状态（大部分是不快乐的状态）所系的绳子。
It's the thing that is at the center of my anxiety.
这是我焦虑的中心问题。
It's the thing that I don't feel good about.
这是我感觉不太好的事情。
It's the thing that when criticized, I sort of let implode.
当受到批评时，我就会崩溃。
It's the center of my problem, and now I'm trying to feel better, and meditation has been handed to me as a possible remedy for my situation.
这是我问题的核心，现在我正在努力让自己感觉好一些，冥想已经成为我的情况的一种可能的补救措施。
And it's billed as a remedy.
它被宣传为一种补救措施。
In fact, I'm hearing from this guy that this is the thing that is going to cause me to realize that my self isn't where or as I thought it was.
事实上，我从这个人那里听说，这件事会让我意识到我的自我并不在我想象的地方，也不像我想象的那样。
So now I'm going to look.
所以现在我要去看看。
And so Again, the sense is I start out far away from the goal here.
再次强调，我的出发点离目标还很远。
I start out with a problem.
我从一个问题开始。
I'm now meditating on the evidence of my unenlightenment, right?
我现在正在冥想我未开悟的证据，对吧？
I can feel my problem.
我能感觉到我的问题。
I feel that I'm distracted and distractible, and I feel this sort of cramp at the center of my life.
我觉得我心烦意乱，注意力不集中，我感觉这种抽筋在我的生活中心。
It's me, and I'm not as happy as I want to be.
是我，但我并没有我想要的那么快乐。
I'm not as confident as I want to be.
我没有我想要的那么自信。
I'm more distractible than I want to be.
我比我想要的更容易分心。
And now I'm paying attention to the breath, right?
现在我正在注意呼吸，对吗？
This is what the search party feels like.
这就是搜寻队的感觉。
This is what the confused tourist feels like in her own search party.
这就是困惑的游客在她自己的搜索队伍中的感受。
And she's looking for the missing person.
她正在寻找失踪的人。
And so the angle of, the inclination of all of this is, and the logic of it is all wrong, understandably so, given how we all get into this situation.
因此，所有这一切的角度、倾向和逻辑都是错误的，考虑到我们是如何陷入这种情况的，这是可以理解的。
But it's useful to continually try to undercut it and recognize that the thing that's being looked for is actually right on the surface, which is there is no one looking.
但不断尝试削弱它并认识到正在寻找的东西实际上就在表面上，即没有人在寻找，这是有用的。
There is no place from which you are-- If you're paying attention to the breath, or to sounds, or noticing the next thought arise, this sense that you are over here doing that thing is actually what it's like to be thinking and not knowing that you're thinking.
你不存在任何地方——如果你注意呼吸、声音，或者注意到下一个想法的出现，这种你在这里做那件事的感觉实际上就是在思考但不知道你在思考的感觉。
There's an undercurrent of thought that's going uninspected in that moment.
在那一刻，有一种未经检查的思想暗流。
And, so there is just a continually looking for the mind, a looking for the center of experience, a looking for the one who is looking, which again, is the kind of the orienting practice here.
因此，只有不断地寻找心灵，寻找经验的中心，寻找正在寻找的人，这又是这里的一种定向练习。
And there's a lot more I say about this, obviously, over at Waking Up.
显然，我在《醒来》中对此还说了很多。
But it's the experiment you have to perform in order to get ready to recognize that the search party was formed in error, essentially.
但这是你必须进行的实验，以便准备好认识到搜索队的组建本质上是错误的。
And the problem that you're trying to solve with this practice does evaporate in a similar way, which is like you don't actually get there in the way that you're hoping for, right?
你试图用这种做法解决的问题确实以类似的方式消失了，就像你实际上并没有以你希望的方式到达那里，对吧？
It's like you drop out the bottom of this thing in an unexpected way.
就好像你以一种意想不到的方式掉出了这件事的底部。
There's actually another kind of a similar parable or anecdote that I don't remember if it's Zen or Sufi or, I'm sure it's been reappropriated in many different ways, but by many different traditions.
实际上还有另一种类似的寓言或轶事，我不记得它是禅宗还是苏菲派，或者，我确信它已被以许多不同的方式、但通过许多不同的传统重新改编。
But there's the case of somebody who's lost in a town, and they're asking for directions.
但有一个例子，有人在城镇里迷路了，他们正在问路。
You could put this in Manhattan.
你可以把它放在曼哈顿。
Let's say you're wandering Manhattan, and you're a tourist.
假设您正在曼哈顿闲逛，并且您是一名游客。
You don't know where anything is, and you stop and ask someone, "Where is Central Park?" And the person thinks for a second, and he says, "Oh, yeah, unfortunately, you can't get to Central Park from here." Right?
你什么都不知道在哪里，你停下来问某人：“中央公园在哪里？”那人想了想，然后说：“哦，是的，不幸的是，你不能从这里到达中央公园。”正确的？
Now, that is a very strange...
现在，这是一个非常奇怪的......
I mean, you think about that for a second, you realize, okay, that's an absurd claim.
我的意思是，你想一想，你就会意识到，好吧，这是一个荒谬的说法。
There is no place that you can't get to from the place you're starting on Earth, right?
没有什么地方是你从地球上出发的地方不能到达的，对吗？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's a failure to describe the physical relationships between anything in the world.
它无法描述世界上任何事物之间的物理关系。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
That's just not the world we live in, right?
这不是我们生活的世界，对吧？
So, but it's a funny thing.
所以，但这是一件有趣的事情。
But on some level, that is true of meditation.
但在某种程度上，冥想也是如此。
It's like you can't get there from here.
就好像你无法从这里到达那里一样。
The sense of you as subject isn't brought along to this thing you're looking for, right?
你作为主体的感觉并没有带到你正在寻找的东西上，对吗？
It's almost like you're making a fist and you're trying to get to an open hand.
这几乎就像您握紧拳头并试图张开手一样。
The fist doesn't get to take that journey as a fist, right?
拳头不能把这段旅程当作拳头，对吧？
The fist doesn't go along for the ride.
拳头不随行。
The fist comes apart, right?
拳头分开了，对吗？
And on some level, our subjectivity is a kind of an attentional fist.
在某种程度上，我们的主观性是一种注意力的拳头。
It is a contraction of energy.
这是能量的收缩。
Again, it's so much bound up in thought for most of us most of the time, that is...
再说一次，对于我们大多数人来说，大多数时候，它都与我们的思想息息相关，那就是……
And when properly inspected, there's just this evaporation of the starting point.
当正确检查时，就会发现起点蒸发了。
But there's not this fulfillment of, I'm going to get this fist, is just going to...
但并没有这种满足感，我要握紧拳头，只是要......
If life gets good enough, if I get concentrated enough, focused enough, if I austere enough, if I renounce enough, if I desire less, with enough good intentions, this fist is going to move into some sort of sublime condition, right?
如果生活变得足够好，如果我足够专注，足够专注，如果我足够严峻，如果我足够放弃，如果我欲望更少，有足够的善意，这个拳头就会进入某种崇高的状态，对吗？
That's not the logic of the process.
这不是这个过程的逻辑。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I really appreciate these models and analogies for conscious experience, both as most people experience them and harbor them, and as a way to frame what's possible through a proper meditation practice.
我真的很欣赏这些关于意识体验的模型和类比，因为大多数人都经历过它们并怀有它们，并且作为通过适当的冥想练习来构建可能性的一种方式。
I do want to talk about what a proper meditation practice looks like a bit.
我确实想谈谈正确的冥想练习是什么样的。
But at some point, I do want to raise a model of maybe even just perceptual awareness to see if it survives the filters that-
但在某些时候，我确实想提出一个甚至可能只是感知意识的模型，看看它是否能够在过滤器中幸存下来——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
you've provided.
你已经提供了。
But first, just even if briefly, and then we can return to it, what does this meditation practice or set of practices look like?
但首先，即使是简短的，然后我们可以回到它，这个冥想练习或这套练习是什么样的？
Obviously, the app is a wonderful tool.
显然，该应用程序是一个很棒的工具。
I've started using it.
我已经开始使用它了。
As I mentioned in the beginning, my father's been using it for a while, and many people have derived great benefit from it.
正如我在开始时提到的，我父亲已经使用它有一段时间了，许多人都从中受益匪浅。
But if we were to break it down meditation into some basic component parts-
但如果我们将冥想分解为一些基本的组成部分——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
as we have broken down normal perceptual experience and some of its component parts.
因为我们已经分解了正常的感知体验及其一些组成部分。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yep.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I can just throw out some things that I associate with meditation, and maybe you can elaborate on how these may or may not be applied.
我可以抛出一些与冥想相关的东西，也许你可以详细说明如何应用这些内容或不应用这些内容。
For instance, there is almost always a ceasing of ...
例如，几乎总是会停止......
robust motor movement.
强劲的电机运动。
I know there are walking meditations and so forth, but it seems like sitting or lying down and perhaps not always, but often limiting our visual perception, closing the eyes.
我知道有行禅等等，但它看起来像是坐着或躺着，也许并不总是如此，但常常限制我们的视觉感知，闭上眼睛。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Directing a mind's eye someplace.
将心灵的眼睛引导到某个地方。
Is there a dedicated effort toward generating imagery?
是否专门致力于生成图像？
What are the component parts?
有哪些组成部分？
And where I'm really going with this is why would those component parts eventually allow for this dissolution of the fist or the realization that there is no distinction between actor and observer and so on?
我真正想说的是，为什么这些组成部分最终会允许拳头的溶解，或者认识到演员和观察者之间没有区别等等？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Well, so to answer that second question first, ultimately meditation is not a practice that you're adding to your life.
好吧，首先回答第二个问题，最终冥想并不是你在生活中添加的一种练习。
It's not a doing more of anything.
这不是做更多的事情。
It's actually ceasing to do something.
它实际上是停止做某事。
It's ultimately non-distraction.
最终是不分心。
Ultimately, you're recognizing what consciousness is like when you're no longer distracted by the automatic arising of thought.
最终，当你不再被自动产生的思想分散注意力时，你就会认识到意识是什么样子。
It's not that thoughts don't arise.
这并不是说念头不会生起。
It's not that you can't use them.
这并不是说您不能使用它们。
It's not that you become irrational or unintelligent.
这并不是说你变得不理性或不聪明。
You still have all of your tools, but everything is in plain view.
您仍然拥有所有工具，但一切都清晰可见。
There's an analogy in Tibetan Buddhism, which I love, which is kind of in the final stage of meditation, thoughts are like thieves entering an empty house.
我很喜欢藏传佛教里的一个比喻，就是在冥想的最后阶段，思想就像小偷进入了一间空房子。
There's nothing for them to steal, right?
他们没有什么可偷的，对吧？
So in the usual case, there really is something in jeopardy.
所以在通常的情况下，确实有一些东西处于危险之中。
Every time a thought comes, I'm not meditating anymore, and not only that, I feel terrible because of what I'm thinking about most of the time, right?
每当一个想法出现时，我就不再冥想了，不仅如此，我因为大部分时间都在想什么而感觉很糟糕，对吗？
And so it's totally understandable that thoughts seem like a problem in the beginning.
因此，思想一开始看起来像是一个问题，这是完全可以理解的。
And for certain types of meditation, they are explicitly thought of as a problem because you're trying to focus on one thing to the exclusion of everything else, including thought.
对于某些类型的冥想，它们被明确认为是一个问题，因为你试图专注于一件事，而排除其他一切，包括思想。
And that is what I called concentration practice earlier.
这就是我之前所说的专注练习。
And that's a training that can be good to do.
这是一项很有好处的培训。
It becomes a tool that you can use for other kinds of insight, but it's a very specific and brittle skill in the end.
它成为一种可以用于其他类型洞察力的工具，但最终它是一种非常具体且脆弱的技能。
It's a skill, just like I'm going to pay attention to one thing and I'm going to do that so well that everything else is going to fade out.
这是一种技能，就像我会关注一件事，并且我会做得很好，其他一切都会消失。
And it's somewhat analogous to what you described in the visual system.
这有点类似于你在视觉系统中所描述的。
If you have a laser focus to one fixation point, everything else in your visual field begins to fade out.
如果您将激光聚焦到一个注视点，那么您视野中的其他一切都会开始淡出。
But meditatively, if you have a laser focus on any one thing, whether it's the breath or a candle flame or whatever it is.
但冥想时，如果你把注意力集中在任何一件事上，无论是呼吸、蜡烛火焰还是其他什么。
Let's use the breath for a second, because your eyes can be closed.
让我们用一下呼吸，因为你的眼睛可以闭上。
You can lose all sense of everything.
你可能会失去对一切的所有感觉。
You can lose all sense of hearing, and your physical body can disappear.
你可能会失去所有听觉，你的身体也会消失。
Literally, it can become incredibly subtle and vast and drug-like.
从字面上看，它可以变得极其微妙、巨大，就像毒品一样。
And many people approach meditation thinking climbing the ladder of those changes into subtlety and vastness, that's the whole game, right?
许多人进行冥想思考，攀登这些变化的阶梯，变得微妙和广阔，这就是整个游戏，对吧？
And it can be a deeply rewarding game to play, and it also does come with all kinds of ancillary benefits.
它可以是一款非常值得玩的游戏，而且它还具有各种附带好处。
All the focus and the calm and the kind of smoothness of emotional states.
所有的专注、平静以及情绪状态的平稳。
All of that comes with greater concentration, and it can be quite wonderful.
所有这一切都需要更加专注，这可能会非常美妙。
But again, at best, that's a tool to aim in the direction that I'm talking about now with respect to meditation, which relates to more what I would call mindfulness generically, and ultimately, kind of non-dual mindfulness.
但同样，这充其量只是一种工具，可以朝着我现在谈论的冥想方向发展，冥想与我所说的一般意义上的正念有关，最终是一种非二元正念。
So mindfulness generically, and for most people, certainly in the beginning dualistically, is just the practice of paying careful attention to whatever is arising on its own, right?
因此，一般来说，对于大多数人来说，一开始肯定是二元的，正念只是仔细注意任何自行产生的事物的练习，对吗？
Now, in the beginning, it's natural to take a single object like the breath as a starting point.
现在，一开始，很自然地以呼吸等单一对象作为起点。
It's kind of an anchor.
这是一种锚。
But very, very quickly, over the course of even your first week of doing this, teachers and various sources of information will recommend that once you know the difference between being lost in thought and actually paying attention to the breath, well, then you can open it up to everything.
但很快，甚至在你这样做的第一周的过程中，老师和各种信息来源都会建议你，一旦你知道陷入沉思和真正关注呼吸之间的区别，那么你就可以向一切敞开心扉。
You can open it up to sounds and other sensations in the body, and moods and emotions, and even ultimately thoughts themselves.
你可以打开它，感受声音和身体的其他感觉、情绪和情绪，甚至最终的想法本身。
And so very quickly, you can recognize that thoughts are not intrinsically the enemy to this practice.
很快，你就能认识到思想本质上并不是这种练习的敌人。
They are also just spontaneous appearances in consciousness that can be observed.
它们也只是可以观察到的意识中的自发表现。
But for some considerable period of time, people will feel that there is a place from which that observation is happening, right?
但在相当长的一段时间内，人们会觉得有一个地方发生了这种观察，对吗？
There's just, "I'm now the one who's being mindful." And however attenuated that sense of self can be, and again, it can get very expansive.
只是，“我现在是那个正念的人。”无论这种自我意识如何减弱，它也可能变得非常广泛。
As you get anything, just a modicum of concentration, it becomes very drug-like and the boundaries of your body dissolve, and your feeling of having a body can disappear.
当你得到任何东西时，只要稍微集中一点，它就会变得非常像毒品，你身体的界限就会消失，你拥有身体的感觉就会消失。
And if your eyes are closed, your visual field-- Most people, when they close their eyes, initially, they just forget about their visual field.
如果你闭上眼睛，你的视野——大多数人，当他们闭上眼睛时，最初，他们只是忘记了他们的视野。
But if you close your eyes right now, you notice your visual field is fully present.
但如果你现在闭上眼睛，你会发现你的视野完全存在。
And we call it dark, but it's not quite dark.
我们称其为黑暗，但它并不完全黑暗。
There is this sort of scintillating field of color and shadow that's there in the darkness of your closed eyes.
在你闭上眼睛的黑暗中，有一种闪烁的色彩和阴影。
And that can become a sky-like domain of kind of vast Visual expression that opens up as you get more concentrated with your eyes closed, right?
当你闭上眼睛更加集中注意力时，这可以成为一种巨大的视觉表达的天空般的领域，对吗？
So you can very much be aware of seeing with your eyes closed in a meditative practice.
因此，在冥想练习中，你可以非常清楚地意识到闭着眼睛看东西。
But from the point of view of mindfulness, the logic is not to care about any of the interesting changes in experience that come as a result of practicing in this way, because what the underlying goal is, is to be more and more equanimous with changes.
但从正念的角度来看，逻辑是不关心以这种方式练习所带来的任何有趣的经验变化，因为潜在的目标是越来越平静地对待变化。
So it's not to grasp at what's pleasant or interesting and not to push what's unpleasant or boring or otherwise not engaging in a way.
所以，不要去抓住什么是令人愉快或有趣的事情，也不要去推动什么是不愉快或无聊的事情，或者以其他方式不参与的事情。
What you want is just a kind of a sky-like mind that just allows everything to appear, and you're not clinging to anything or reacting to anything.
你想要的只是一种如天空般的心，只允许一切出现，而你不执着任何事物，也不对任何事物起反应。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Could I ask you what your thoughts are about the differences between nouns, adjectives, and verbs in the context of what we're talking about and you're describing?
我能否问您，在我们正在讨论和您正在描述的上下文中，您对名词、形容词和动词之间的差异有何看法？
And the reason to bring this up is that, as you know, and I know, everything in biology is a process.
提出这个问题的原因是，正如你所知，我也知道，生物学中的一切都是一个过程。
We would never, ever say, oh, the perception of that red line on a painting is a noun, right?
我们永远不会说，哦，对绘画上那条红线的感知是一个名词，对吗？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's an event in the visual system.
这是视觉系统中的一个事件。
You're abstracting some understanding about that thing in the outside world.
你正在抽象一些对外部世界事物的理解。
And I think it's very useful in thinking about the brain.
我认为这对于思考大脑非常有用。
And people will notice I actively avoid the use of the word mind because I-
人们会注意到我主动避免使用“头脑”这个词，因为我——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
figure, especially with you sitting across from me, that I'll step in it if I do.
我想，尤其是当你坐在我对面时，如果我这样做的话，我会介入。
But the brain generates a series of perceptions or what have you by through processes, not nouns.
但大脑会通过过程而不是名词产生一系列感知或你所经历的事情。
And so when thinking about biology, I think of development as an arc of processes.
因此，在思考生物学时，我将发展视为一个过程的弧线。
Aging as an arc.
老化为弧线。
Perception as an arc of processes.
感知是一个过程的弧线。
They just exist on different time scales.
它们只是存在于不同的时间尺度上。
And so a little bit of what I'm hearing is that inside of an effective meditation practice, there's a little bit of a certainly non-judgment, but discarding of the noun and the adjective modes of language.
因此，我听到的一点是，在有效的冥想练习中，肯定有一点非判断性，但抛弃了名词和形容词的语言模式。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Like red apple, okay, it's a red apple, but then you sort of need to eliminate some other adjectives about it.
就像红苹果，好吧，它是一个红苹果，但是你需要删除一些关于它的其他形容词。
It's a rotten apple.
这是一个烂苹果。
It's a ripe apple.
这是一个熟透的苹果。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And instead view the appearance and disappearance of that apple as just a thing, a process, as opposed to an event.
相反，将苹果的出现和消失视为一个事物、一个过程，而不是一个事件。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And now events, we could really get into the language aspect of it, but that just reveals how diminished language is to describe the workings of the brain at some level.
现在，我们可以真正进入它的语言方面，但这只是揭示了语言在某种程度上描述大脑运作的能力是多么弱化。
I don't know if any of this resonates, but it seems to me the goal or one of the goals is to start to understand the algorithm that is the fleeting nature of perception, but to not focus on any one single perception, and then to not even focus on one single algorithm, but to at some level, what is revealed to the meditator over time is some sort of macroscopic principle about the way perceptions work at a deeper level.
我不知道这是否能引起共鸣，但在我看来，目标或目标之一是开始理解作为感知的转瞬即逝的本质的算法，但不要关注任何一种单一的感知，然后甚至不关注单一的算法，但在某种程度上，随着时间的推移，向冥想者揭示的是某种关于感知在更深层次上运作方式的宏观原理。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Right?
对吗？
That there's sort of a deeper principle there that sits below certainly our normal everyday awareness, but that in paying attention to the mechanics of all this stuff and not judging those mechanics, not naming those mechanics, or just naming them and let them pass by, that there's some action function, some verb is revealed.
那里有一种更深层次的原则，当然是在我们正常的日常意识之下，但是在关注所有这些东西的机制而不是评判这些机制，不命名这些机制，或者只是命名它们并让它们过去时，有一些动作功能，一些动词被揭示。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And that maybe the word to describe that verb is mindfulness.
也许可以用“正念”来形容这个动词。
Maybe mindfulness is really just a verb to describe that.
也许正念实际上只是一个用来描述这一点的动词。
I don't know.
我不知道。
But is there anything here or am I create-
但这里有什么东西还是我创造的-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah, no
是的，不
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I don't know if I'm creating just useless straw or if there's actually a seed here of something real.
我不知道我是否只是在创造无用的稻草，或者这里是否真的有一颗真正的种子。
But to me, anytime I want to understand something in biology or psychology, I try and broaden the time domain and think in terms of verbs, not nouns or adjectives.
但对我来说，每当我想了解生物学或心理学中的某些东西时，我都会尝试拓宽时间域并用动词而不是名词或形容词来思考。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
No, that's very useful.
不，这非常有用。
And that's somewhat adjacent to this distinction I'm making between dualistic and non-dualistic ways of experiencing the world.
这与我在体验世界的二元和非二元方式之间所做的区分有些相似。
So even dualistically, everything is still a process, right?
所以即使是二元论，一切仍然是一个过程，对吗？
And we're misled by the reification that noun talk gives us.
我们被名词谈话给我们带来的具体化所误导。
And this applies not just to something like mindfulness, but even to something like the self, right?
这不仅适用于正念之类的东西，甚至也适用于自我之类的东西，对吧？
So the sense of self is also a process.
所以自我意识也是一个过程。
I mean, it's a verb.
我的意思是，这是一个动词。
We're selfing more than we are ourselves, right?
我们比我们自己更自我，对吧？
And even appropriate uses of the term self that don't go away even when you recognize that the core subject self is an illusion, there are states of self, right?
甚至当你认识到核心主体自我是一种幻觉时，“自我”一词的适当使用也不会消失，也有自我的状态，对吧？
Where you can recognize in your life that you inhabit very different modes of being depending on the context.
在你的生活中，你可以认识到，根据环境的不同，你的存在方式也截然不同。
So there are moments where just by walking into a certain building, you suddenly transition into a different state of self.
所以有时候，只要走进某个建筑物，你就会突然转变到一种不同的自我状态。
Suddenly you pass through a door and now you're a customer in a store, right?
突然你穿过一扇门，现在你是一家商店的顾客，对吗？
So we know what that customer feeling is.
所以我们知道客户的感受是什么。
You're now the person who's getting the attention.
你现在是最受关注的人了。
It's a very kind of formalized type of attention from the person who's running the store, or a restaurant.
这是来自商店或餐厅经营者的一种非常正式的关注。
You're a customer in a restaurant, right?
你是一家餐馆的顾客，对吧？
I just remembered something that's kind of funny.
我刚刚想起一件很有趣的事情。
That it was born of a mismatch of this.
它是由于这种不匹配而诞生的。
I'll come back to that in a second.
我稍后会回过头来讨论这一点。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Please do.
请这样做。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
So we go through, you can be a student in the presence of a teacher, you can be a parent in the presence of a son or a daughter.
所以我们经历过，你可以在老师面前成为学生，你可以在儿子或女儿面前成为父母。
You can be a spouse in the presence of your spouse.
您可以在您的配偶在场的情况下成为配偶。
And all of those shadings of the change in context Really does usher in some fundamental psychological changes in just the states of consciousness that are available to you.
所有这些背景变化的阴影确实会在你可用的意识状态中带来一些基本的心理变化。
And some of this is really, I'm sure we could understand a lot about this personally and generically, but it is pretty mysterious.
其中一些确实是，我相信我们可以个人和一般地理解很多，但它非常神秘。
There are people who I know who I'm with them in a certain way, and based on something I'm getting off of them, I can't be that.
有些人我以某种方式知道我在他们身边是谁，但根据我从他们身上得到的东西，我不能成为那样的人。
I'm effortlessly one way with them, and there's no way I could be that way with somebody else.
我可以毫不费力地以一种方式对待他们，而我不可能以这种方式对待其他人。
Right?
正确的？
I don't know if it's pheromones or it's just the way they are, their facial expression.
我不知道这是信息素的问题，还是它们本来的样子，它们的面部表情。
But there are people with whom I'm really kind of effortlessly funny, and there are people with whom it would never occur to me to be funny, no matter what happened.
但有些人与我相处时我真的可以毫不费力地变得有趣，而有些人无论发生什么事我都不会觉得有趣。
And I have longstanding relationships with these people.
我和这些人有着长期的关系。
All that's very mysterious, but anyway, the difference there is not in this core sense of subject in relationship to all the objects, it's in kind of the states of self.
所有这些都非常神秘，但无论如何，区别不在于与所有客体的关系的主体的核心意识，而在于自我的状态。
And all of that is just very verby, right?
所有这些都非常啰嗦，对吧？
This pattern of changes, it's a pattern of what's available and what's not available, the capacities that come online or not in those various contexts.
这种变化模式是一种关于什么可用、什么不可用、在这些不同的环境中上线或不上线的能力的模式。
But no, the memory I just had, which I hadn't had in a long time, but it was one of these moments where I realized the power of these shifts in context for states of self.
但不，我刚刚拥有的记忆，我已经很长时间没有了，但正是在这些时刻之一，我意识到这些自我状态的背景转变的力量。
So once, I was a young man, I think I was probably 22 or so, and single, and just trying to figure out how do you meet women, and how does one get confident to do this well?
所以有一次，我还是个年轻人，我想我大概 22 岁左右，单身，只是想弄清楚如何认识女性，以及如何有信心做好这一点？
And I walked into a restaurant and a woman was walking toward me, toward the front door of the restaurant.
我走进一家餐馆，一个女人朝我走来，朝餐馆的前门走来。
But she was walking toward me in a way where I just, by default, assumed she was the hostess in the restaurant.
但她朝我走来的方式让我默认以为她是餐厅的女主人。
But she wasn't the hostess.
但她不是女主人。
She was just someone who had just eaten there, I guess.
我猜她只是刚刚在那里吃过饭的人。
So I walk through, and she comes out, and so there's a fundamental misunderstanding in me that's set up by literally just this change in architecture.
所以我走过来，她走了出来，所以我心里有一个根本性的误解，这个误解实际上是由架构上的这种变化造成的。
And so I just said hi to her in a way that I would, presumably, I would say hi to any hostess who was coming up to ask me where I wanted to sit.
所以我只是以一种我会向任何走过来问我想坐哪里的女主人打招呼的方式来打招呼。
But what had actually happened is I had said hi to a total stranger in a way that I tended, at that point, never to say hi to total strangers because I was shy and it was just like...
但实际发生的事情是，我向一个完全陌生的人打了招呼，当时我倾向于从不向完全陌生的人打招呼，因为我很害羞，就像……
But apparently I gave her a 10,000 watt hi of all of the confidence you would have if you were that sort of person.
但显然我给了她一万瓦的自信，就像你是那种人一样。
And it just ushered in a complete...
而它刚刚迎来了一个完整的...
So I went to my table, and this woman came back into the restaurant and gave me her phone number, which was something that was just a completely foreign experience to me.
所以我走到我的餐桌旁，这位女士回到餐厅，给了我她的电话号码，这对我来说是完全陌生的经历。
And it was based completely on my misunderstanding of the situation I was in.
这完全是基于我对自己所处情况的误解。
Right?
对吗？
And so anyway-
无论如何——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Among the misunderstandings that one can have and then action engage in life, I would say that-
在生活中可能存在的误解和行动中，我想说的是——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah, yeah
是啊是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
that was a somewhat adaptive one.
这是一种具有一定适应性的方法。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
But then you realize that, okay, but then there are certain people who recognize this machinery to whatever degree, or have kind of natural aptitudes for bringing certain things online or not, such that, okay, they can consciously make these states of self, this level of gregariousness, say, available to them in the circumstances where it's actually useful to them.
但后来你意识到，好吧，但是有些人在某种程度上认识到这种机制，或者有某种天生的能力将某些东西带到网上或不上网，这样，好吧，他们可以有意识地使这些自我状态，比如说，这种程度的社交，在对他们真正有用的情况下为他们所用。
So if you're single and you want to meet people, well, it's actually very helpful to feel confident enough to just go say hi to strangers and ask them how they're doing and to be online in that way, where at that point in my life, in that circumstance, by default I was going to ignore this stranger who I was passing by in the doorway of a restaurant.
所以，如果你是单身，你想认识人，那么，有足够的自信去向陌生人打招呼，询问他们过得怎么样，并以这种方式上网，实际上是非常有帮助的，在我生命中的那个时刻，在那种情况下，默认情况下，我会忽略这个我在餐馆门口经过的陌生人。
But thinking she was the hostess, I was engaging her fully.
但我以为她是女主人，所以我充分吸引了她。
So anyway, you can consciously, again, this does not invoke free will at all, but yes, you can consciously decide to play with these mechanisms such that you can decide what states of self would be more normative to have, given what you want in life.
所以无论如何，你可以有意识地再次强调，这根本不会调用自由意志，但是，是的，你可以有意识地决定利用这些机制，这样你就可以根据你在生活中想要的东西来决定什么样的自我状态会更规范。
And you can become increasingly attentive to the ways in which you get played by the world.
你会变得越来越关注世界如何玩弄你。
You're a kind of instrument, your mind is a kind of instrument, your brain is a kind of instrument that is continually getting played by the situations you're in, and you can become more of an intelligent curator of your conscious states and your conscious capacities just by noticing the changes in you.
你是一种仪器，你的思想是一种仪器，你的大脑是一种不断被你所处的情境所发挥作用的仪器，你可以通过注意到自己的变化而成为你的意识状态和意识能力的聪明管理者。
In graduate school, this is something I talk about, I think, at some point in "Waking Up", this became very stark for me because I was an old graduate student.
在研究生院，这是我谈论的事情，我想，在“醒来”的某个时刻，这对我来说变得非常明显，因为我是一名老研究生。
I had taken 11 years off at Stanford between my sophomore and junior year.
从大二到大三，我在斯坦福大学休学了 11 年。
So when I went back to school-
所以当我回到学校时——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Talk about a leave of absence.
谈论请假。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
No, it was.
不，是的。
Yeah.
是的。
Yeah.
是的。
But so Stanford had this, you might know this, they have this stop-out policy where you never really drop out, you just stop out.
但是斯坦福大学有这个，你可能知道这一点，他们有这样的止损政策，你永远不会真正退学，你只是止损。
So you can always go back.
所以你可以随时回去。
You don't have to write letters saying that you still exist every two years, as you do in other schools.
你不必像在其他学校那样每两年写一封信表明你仍然存在。
So anyway, I showed up after 11 years.
不管怎样，11年后我还是出现了。
So I was really on a deadline and I felt late for everything, so I'm kind of finishing my degree as quickly as I can as an undergraduate, and then I jump into graduate school and I'm an old graduate student.
所以我真的是在截止日期前，我觉得一切都迟到了，所以我作为一名本科生，尽可能快地完成我的学位，然后我跳入研究生院，我是一名老研究生。
There's a real sense of kind of urgency, like I'm late, I should have done this earlier.
有一种真正的紧迫感，就像我迟到了一样，我应该早点做这件事。
I want to get this stuff done.
我想把这件事完成。
But then 9/11 happened, just as I had finished my coursework at getting my PhD.
但就在我完成博士学位课程作业时，9/11 事件发生了。
I was just getting into my research, but 9/11 intersected with my life in such a way that I just had to drop everything and write my first book.
我刚刚开始研究，但 9/11 事件与我的生活发生了交叉，我不得不放下一切，写我的第一本书。
And I did that, and then I just had to drop everything and write my second book because of the response to the first book.
我这样做了，然后由于第一本书的反响，我不得不放弃一切并写我的第二本书。
And so essentially, I had four years where I was AWOL doing my PhD.
所以本质上，我有四年擅离职守攻读博士学位。
But I still had a toe in the lab, and I was still showing up occasionally.
但我仍然涉足实验室，并且仍然偶尔出现。
But I was becoming this kind of cautionary tale from the point of view of grad school, but I was also becoming kind of a famous or semi-famous writer, because my first book had been a New York Times bestseller.
但从研究生院的角度来看，我正在成为这种警示故事，但我也正在成为一名著名或半著名的作家，因为我的第一本书是《纽约时报》的畅销书。
So I was getting some notoriety as a writer.
所以我作为一名作家而声名狼藉。
And so I was doing things, like I was giving a TED Talk, but I still hadn't finished graduate school, right?
所以我正在做一些事情，就像我在 TED 演讲一样，但我仍然没有完成研究生学业，对吗？
I think that timing's right.
我认为这个时机是正确的。
Maybe I had just finished graduate school when I gave the TED Talk.
也许当我发表 TED 演讲时我刚刚完成研究生学业。
But anyway, so I was rowing in two boats, and one boat was sinking or showing every sign of being damaged.
但无论如何，我划着两条船，其中一艘正在下沉，或者有损坏的迹象。
And I was literally getting letters from the head of the department saying, "We're concerned about you." But on the other hand, I was becoming a quasi-celebrity in that world too, at least in a world that was overlapping.
我确实收到了部门主管的来信，说：“我们很担心你。”但另一方面，我也在那个世界里成为了准名人，至少在一个重叠的世界里。
So I was having the experience of going in...
所以我有进去的经历...
I mean, the moment where this crystallized for me in a fairly peculiar way was, I had a meeting at three o'clock with my advisor, who was this guy Mark Cohen in the Brain Mapping Center at UCLA.
我的意思是，当我以一种相当奇特的方式明确这一点时，我在三点钟与我的顾问开会，他是加州大学洛杉矶分校大脑绘图中心的马克·科恩。
He's a fantastic guy.
他是一个很棒的人。
Great advisor.
很棒的顾问。
I did not extract as much wisdom from him as I should have.
我没有从他身上汲取应有的智慧。
Brilliant scientist.
杰出的科学家。
And for him, I'm late, right?
而对于他来说，我迟到了，对吗？
At least in my head.
至少在我的脑海里。
It's not that he was riding me so hard, but in my head, I'm very self-conscious about how I'm not living up to his expectations at this point.
并不是说他对我要求太高，而是在我的脑海里，我很不自在地意识到我现在没有达到他的期望。
So I have a meeting with him at three o'clock, and I'm just kind of wilting under his gaze and my own imagined inner gaze of his.
所以我在三点钟和他见面，在他的注视和我自己想象的他内心的注视下，我有点萎靡不振。
But two hours later, I have a meeting with his boss, a dinner meeting with his boss, who wants to meet with me to get advice on launching his book.
但两个小时后，我和他的老板开了个会，和他的老板一起吃晚饭，他想和我会面，征求关于推出他的书的建议。
We have the same publisher, but I'm the much bigger author at Norton, and he's coming to me for advice.
我们有相同的出版商，但我是诺顿更大的作者，他来向我寻求建议。
And so I'm ricocheting between two diametrically opposite self-states that are, again, this comes down to architecture.
所以我在两个截然相反的自我状态之间来回切换，这又归结为建筑。
It's literally like the state I was in walking into one building and then leaving and walking into another building on the same campus.
这实际上就像我走进一栋建筑，然后离开并走进同一校园的另一栋建筑的状态。
And they were completely opposite self-concepts.
他们的自我概念完全相反。
In one context, I'm a fuckup.
在某种情况下，我是个混蛋。
In another context, I'm a celebrity who's-
在另一种情况下，我是一个名人——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And you have mastery and virtuosity-
而你拥有精湛的技艺和精湛的技艺——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Exactly.
正是如此。
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and we're developing it very quickly.
我们正在快速开发它。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
But so again, this is a kind of a stark version of that, but everyone has some version of this just in bouncing between talking to their mom and then talking to their best friend and then talking to a stranger and talking to someone who's very successful, talking to someone who's not very successful.
但话又说回来，这是一种赤裸裸的版本，但每个人都有一些这样的版本，只是在与他们的妈妈交谈、然后与他们最好的朋友交谈、然后与陌生人交谈、与非常成功的人交谈、与不太成功的人交谈之间来回跳动。
You notice your vulnerability to all of this stuff.
你注意到你对所有这些东西的脆弱性。
And ultimately, what you want is a level of psychological integrity that is truly divorcible from that.
最终，你想要的是真正与之分离的心理完整性水平。
Now, I'm not saying you're ever going to get it perfect.
现在，我并不是说你永远都能做到完美。
There's always going to be some...
总会有一些...
I mean, yeah, I can't talk about the ultimate fulfillment of this process.
我的意思是，是的，我无法谈论这个过程的最终实现。
I'm not a Buddha.
我不是佛。
I'm not saying I've finished the project.
我并不是说我已经完成了这个项目。
But I think there's more and more as you become sensitive to these changes and you become sensitive to what it's like to actually not be psychologically reactive.
但我认为，当你对这些变化变得敏感，并且你对实际上没有心理反应的感觉变得敏感时，就会有越来越多的变化。
And not be definable by your own self-concept, your own idea.
并且不能由你自己的自我概念、你自己的想法来定义。
You're not identifying with anything.
你不认同任何东西。
You're not hanging your hat on anything.
你没有把你的帽子挂在任何东西上。
You're not thinking about yourself in the kind of terms that you would export to others and then care about what they think about you, right?
你不会以那种出口给别人的方式来思考自己，然后关心他们对你的看法，对吧？
There's a kind of invulnerability that arises that's not born of being well-defended.
有一种刀枪不入的感觉，并不是由于防御严密而产生的。
It's born of being evaporated.
它是因蒸发而诞生的。
Right?
正确的？
It's like you're no longer keeping score in those ways.
就好像你不再以这些方式记分一样。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Once again, I really appreciate that description because these days I'm really intrigued by something we've known for a long time that you're certainly familiar with, is the prefrontal cortex's ability to establish context-dependent rule sets.
再次，我真的很欣赏这个描述，因为这些天我对我们早已知道的你肯定熟悉的东西很感兴趣，那就是前额皮质建立上下文相关规则集的能力。
A Stroop task would be a basic example of reading numbers or letters on cards and then switching to having to report the colors that the letters and numbers are written in.
Stroop 任务是读取卡片上的数字或字母，然后转而必须报告字母和数字所用颜色的基本示例。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's a basic task, but prefrontal cortex, obviously important for setting context-dependent thought and behavior and directed action.
这是一项基本任务，但前额叶皮层对于设定依赖于情境的思想和行为以及定向行动显然很重要。
But within the context of all these different variations of the self, depending on graduate school or relationship or sitting alone in one's room, yeah, there are different rule sets arise, and somehow we are able to have a coherent sense of self that encompasses all of those.
但在所有这些不同的自我变化的背景下，根据研究生院或人际关系或独自坐在一个房间里，是的，出现了不同的规则集，并且以某种方式，我们能够有一个包含所有这些的连贯的自我意识。
Functional people can toggle between them as needed and not overlap them inappropriately, at least not to the extent that it's career failing or life failing.
职能型人士可以根据需要在它们之间切换，并且不会不恰当地重叠它们，至少不会达到职业失败或生活失败的程度。
Although, there are sad examples of that, many of which exist in the Twitter space.
尽管如此，也有一些令人悲伤的例子，其中很多都存在于 Twitter 领域。
I know several colleagues, not directly of mine, but people who through mistakes made with their thumbs where they forgot context-
我认识几位同事，不是我直接的同事，而是那些因为用拇指犯下的错误而忘记了背景的人——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
or forgot to realize that the context on social media is near infinite But the context that it existed in their head might not be clear in the way that they communicated something, and they lost their jobs-
或者忘记意识到社交媒体上的上下文近乎无限但他们头脑中存在的上下文可能在他们交流某些内容的方式中并不清晰，因此他们失去了工作 -
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
by saying what were perceived as insensitive things, in some cases were in fact offensive, insensitive things.
在某些情况下，说出被认为麻木不仁的话实际上是令人反感的、麻木不仁的话。
In some cases, it's debatable, right?
在某些情况下，这是有争议的，对吧？
In any case, I think that the image that now comes to mind relates to something you've said several times, that it's not about eliminating something, it's about revealing that something was never actually there.
无论如何，我认为现在浮现在脑海中的图像与你多次说过的事情有关，这不是要消除某些东西，而是要揭示某些东西实际上从未存在过。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And then in terms of sensory experience and these different aspects of the self, I have this image in my mind of, I'm not an experienced scuba diver, but I've done enough of it.
然后就感官体验和自我的这些不同方面而言，我脑海中浮现出这样的画面：我不是一名经验丰富的水肺潜水员，但我已经做得足够多了。
I've worn a wetsuit.
我已经穿了潜水衣了
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
You wear a complete wetsuit with the hood, and this idea if you were born into that wetsuit, you might think that, yeah, you nudge up or lean up against a wall and you experience it one way, right?
你穿着一套带兜帽的完整潜水服，如果你生来就穿着那件潜水服，你可能会想，是的，你轻推或靠在墙上，你就会以一种方式体验它，对吗？
But were you to shed that wetsuit, you would go, wow, there's this incredible landscape of somatosensory experience-
但如果你脱掉潜水服，你会感叹，哇，这真是令人难以置信的体感体验景观——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
that I had no idea.
我不知道。
That goes way beyond levels of sensitivity, right?
这远远超出了敏感度的范围，对吧？
Now you're talking about fine two-point discrimination and light strokes, and this could be positive or negative pain in other ways too.
现在你谈论的是精细的两点辨别和轻击，这也可能以其他方式带来积极或消极的疼痛。
But what you're describing is essentially that the wetsuit was never really there.
但你所描述的本质上是潜水衣从未真正存在过。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But was created through a series of action steps.
而是通过一系列行动步骤创建的。
And I think what we're migrating towards here is a set of, for most, non-intuitive or non-reflexive action steps that reveal to us that, in fact, we're not wearing this wetsuit.
我认为，对于大多数人来说，我们正在转向的是一组非直觉或非反射性的行动步骤，这些步骤向我们揭示，事实上，我们并没有穿着这件潜水衣。
Now, you raised one topic which I think is analogous to this wetsuit, which is this notion of distraction.
现在，你提出了一个我认为与这件潜水衣类似的话题，这就是分散注意力的概念。
That normally-
正常情况下——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
distraction is masking what would otherwise be a better experience of life.
分心会掩盖本来会更好的生活体验。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I can think of distraction as falling into two different bins.
我可以将分心视为落入两个不同的垃圾箱。
One would be the kind of distraction that is internally generated, like the fact that thoughts arise and pull me down different alleyways and avenues of my brain and my thoughts and my experience.
一种是内部产生的分心，就像思想的出现并把我拉向我的大脑、我的思想和我的经历的不同小巷和大道。
And that would compete with my ability to really focus on something.
这会与我真正专注于某件事的能力相竞争。
And then another form of distraction, which captures my ability to focus intensely, but has me focusing on the wrong things.
然后是另一种形式的分心，它夺去了我集中注意力的能力，但却让我专注于错误的事情。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And here, I think the judgment of wrong is reasonable to include if, for instance, I'm being impulsively yanked to something on social media, I'm being impulsively yanked to someone else's pain and experience and somehow confusing that with my own experience.
在这里，我认为错误的判断是合理的，例如，如果我冲动地被社交媒体上的某些东西所吸引，我被冲动地吸引到别人的痛苦和经历，并以某种方式将其与我自己的经历混淆。
This isn't empathy, but just getting yanked around, my attention as a spotlight is kind of like over here, over there.
这不是同理心，而是被拉来拉去，我作为聚光灯的注意力有点像这里，那里。
I'm not feeling as if I'm the one standing behind that spotlight controlling it, or I'm not the spotlight.
我不觉得我是站在聚光灯后面控制它的人，或者我不是聚光灯。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Just to keep with the-
只是为了跟上-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
what we've been building up here.
我们一直在这里建立的东西。
So could you tell us a little bit about distraction and tell me whether or not these two forms are in any way accurate or inaccurate?
那么您能否告诉我们一些关于分心的信息，并告诉我这两种形式是否准确或不准确？
I'd be happy for them to be inaccurate.
我很高兴他们不准确。
And whether or not there are other forms of distraction that we need to be on the lookout for.
以及是否还有其他形式的干扰值得我们警惕。
And again, I think what most people are seeking is what is the way to not just enhance our ability to focus, but to shed this wetsuit-like cloak-
再说一遍，我认为大多数人正在寻求的方法不仅能增强我们的专注能力，还能脱掉这件潜水衣般的斗篷——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
that limits our experience, that I'm calling and that you've called distraction.
这限制了我们的经验，我打电话给你，你称之为分心。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Distraction is one component of it.
分心是其中的一个组成部分。
The other aspect of it is identification with thought.
它的另一个方面是对思想的认同。
The feeling of self is bound up in the sense that I'm the thinker, I'm the one attending, I'm the one vulnerable.
自我感觉与我是思考者、我是参与者、我是脆弱者这一感觉密切相关。
I'm the inner homunculus that's vulnerable to experience.
我是内心的小矮人，很容易受到经验的影响。
And think it can be gratified by it or not, and it's constantly trying to improve it or, and mitigate negative aspects of it.
并认为它可以对此感到满意，也可以不满足，并且它不断地尝试改进它，或者减轻它的负面影响。
It's the sense that there's kind of a rider on the horse of consciousness as opposed to just consciousness and its contents.
这是一种感觉，有一种骑手骑在意识的马上，而不仅仅是意识及其内容。
So again, it rides atop this illusion of control, et cetera.
再说一次，它建立在这种控制幻觉之上，等等。
So to go all the way back to the question you asked about just what do I recommend as a starting point for meditation?
那么，回到你问的问题，我建议什么作为冥想的起点？
Some of your assumptions are in fact true.
您的一些假设实际上是正确的。
Yes, I often recommend in the beginning people close their eyes and you do a sitting practice, and that's different from a walking practice.
是的，我经常建议人们在一开始就闭上眼睛，然后进行坐式练习，这与步行练习不同。
You can do both, but people tend to start sitting with their eyes closed.
你可以两者都做，但人们往往会开始闭着眼睛坐着。
But again, ultimately where this is going is meditation properly recognized is not an artifice that you're adding to your life.
但同样，最终的结果是，正确认识到冥想并不是你在生活中添加的一种技巧。
It's not even a practice.
这甚至不是一种练习。
It is less rather than more.
它是更少而不是更多。
And therefore, it is also coincident with potentially every waking moment.
因此，它也可能与每个醒着的时刻相一致。
There's nothing that you can do with your attention once you know how to meditate, that in principle excludes meditation.
一旦你知道如何冥想，你的注意力就无法做任何事情，原则上排除冥想。
Because meditation is just a recognition of an intrinsic character of consciousness in each moment, and all you have in each moment is consciousness and its contents, whatever you're doing.
因为冥想只是对每个时刻意识的内在特征的认识，而无论你在做什么，你每个时刻所拥有的就是意识及其内容。
So in the beginning, you'll be very deliberate and precious about deciding to practice meditation, and you'll set aside 10 minutes in the morning and you'll do that, and it'll seem very different from the next 10 minutes when you're spilling out onto your to-do list and you're trying to figure out what the day looks like, right?
所以一开始，你会非常深思熟虑地决定练习冥想，你会在早上留出 10 分钟来练习冥想，而接下来的 10 分钟，当你把时间写在你的待办事项清单上，并试图弄清楚这一天会是什么样子时，这看起来会非常不同，对吗？
But ultimately, you want to erase this boundary between formal practice and the rest of life, such that it's just not remotely findable.
但最终，你想要消除正式实践和生活的其余部分之间的界限，这样就无法远程找到它。
And that's achievable, and I think even from the very beginning, you can relax this conceptual distinction between meditation and its antithesis because it's not at the level of anything you're doing, it's at the level of what's happening in your relationship to thought.
这是可以实现的，我认为即使从一开始，你就可以放松冥想与其对立面之间的概念区别，因为它不是在你正在做的任何事情的层面上，而是在你与思想的关系中发生的事情的层面上。
It's the transition from The bistable percept.
这是从双稳态感知的转变。
You're looking at the image and you see nothing.
你看着图像，却什么也没看到。
Let's say the Dalmatian, it's just the spots on the paper, and you don't see anything, and then all of a sudden, the Dalmatian or the face of Jesus or whatever the image is pops out, and then you see it.
比如说达尔马提亚狗，它只是纸上的斑点，你看不到任何东西，然后突然，达尔马提亚狗或耶稣的脸或任何图像弹出，然后你就看到了它。
It's the transition from nothing to something.
这是从无到有的转变。
The practice becomes the transition from being lost in thought and then waking up.
修行成为从沉思到醒来的过渡。
Breaking the spell of thought and identification with thought is very much like waking up from a dream and having-- That transition.
打破思想的魔咒和对思想的认同非常像从梦中醒来并经历——那种转变。
You're having a dream, and a couple things are true there.
你正在做一个梦，其中有几件事是真实的。
It really is a kind of psychosis that we don't problematize because you're safely in bed and you're not moving or anything.
这确实是一种精神病，我们不会对此提出问题，因为你安全地躺在床上，一动不动什么的。
Unless you've got some kind of sleep disorder, you're not walking around harming yourself or anybody else.
除非您患有某种睡眠障碍，否则您不会四处走动伤害自己或其他任何人。
But to be in bed and to not know it, and to think you're running along a beach or you're getting tried for murder in a court of law or whatever the thing is that you're completely delusional about, that is psychosis.
但躺在床上却不自知，以为自己正在海滩上奔跑，或者因谋杀罪在法庭受审，或者任何你完全产生幻觉的事情，那就是精神病。
You're fundamentally unaware of your circumstance.
你根本不了解自己的处境。
And then two things can happen there.
然后那里可能会发生两件事。
You can either become lucid within the dream, which is interesting, and there's a whole phenomenology of that which can be practiced.
你可以在梦中变得清醒，这很有趣，而且有一整套可以练习的现象学。
But more commonly, you can just wake up from the dream, and all of a sudden, the problem you thought you had is no longer there, and you have a completely different context for your conscious life.
但更常见的是，你可以从梦中醒来，突然间，你认为自己遇到的问题不再存在，你的意识生活有了完全不同的背景。
Now you know you were safely in bed all the while.
现在你知道你一直安全地躺在床上。
There really is something analogous when you break this identification with thought.
当你用思想打破这种认同时，确实存在类似的事情。
You're having a thought that seems to be some kind of moral or psychological emergency, and yet the moment you see daylight around it, the moment you see that the mind is larger than this mere appearance, suddenly you have a degree of freedom that a moment ago was just unthinkable.
你有一个想法，似乎是某种道德或心理紧急情况，然而，当你看到它周围的阳光的那一刻，当你看到心灵比这单纯的外表更大的那一刻，你突然拥有了某种程度的自由，这在刚才是不可想象的。
You sort of come to, in a way, you recognize your circumstance in a way that you weren't a moment ago when you were just talking to yourself, when you were just identical to that conversation.
在某种程度上，你开始以一种不同于刚才你自言自语、与那次谈话完全相同的方式认识自己的处境。
This is all to say that ultimately meditation-- Again, there's another apparent paradox here.
这就是说，最终冥想——这里还有另一个明显的悖论。
Many people who don't know much about meditation will say things like, "Well, for me, running is my meditation," or skiing, or rock climbing, or playing the guitar.
许多不太了解冥想的人会说，“嗯，对我来说，跑步就是我的冥想”，或者滑雪，或者攀岩，或者弹吉他。
Something they like to do that gives them an experience of flow.
他们喜欢做的事情可以给他们带来心流的体验。
That's what they go to to feel better, and that's the opposite of all the chaos of their lives or their time on Twitter or whatever it is.
这就是他们为了感觉更好而去的地方，这与他们生活中的所有混乱或他们在 Twitter 或其他任何东西上的时间相反。
In virtually every case, it's not true to say that that is effectively meditation.
几乎在所有情况下，说这就是有效的冥想都是不正确的。
By learning to play the guitar, you're not going to learn what I'm calling meditation, and you're not going to learn it by cycling.
通过学习弹吉他，你不会学到我所说的冥想，也不会通过骑自行车来学习它。
No matter how good you get at any of those things, you're not going to learn it by doing those things.
无论你在这些事情上做得有多好，你都不会通过做这些事情来学习它。
But paradoxically, not really, but it can seem like a paradox, once you know how to meditate, then you can meditate doing all of those things.
但矛盾的是，并非如此，但这看起来像是一个悖论，一旦你知道如何冥想，那么你就可以冥想做所有这些事情。
Meditation is totally compatible with playing the guitar or skiing or doing any ordinary thing you like to do.
冥想与弹吉他、滑雪或做任何你喜欢做的普通事情完全兼容。
So once you know how to meditate, and again, it's totally natural in the beginning to formalize it and to set aside time each day to do it because it is a training.
因此，一旦您知道如何冥想，那么一开始就将其正式化并每天留出时间进行冥想是完全自然的，因为这是一种训练。
It is something that in the beginning you have to get used to.
这是一开始你必须习惯的事情。
But once you're getting used to it, then there is no good reason not to be experiencing this thing I'm calling meditation, this insight into the centerlessness of consciousness, the non-selfhood of consciousness.
但是一旦你习惯了它，那么就没有充分的理由不去体验我称之为冥想的东西，这种对意识的无中心性、意识的无我性的洞察。
You should experience it when you're playing your favorite sport or when you're having a conversation with somebody.
当您进行自己喜欢的运动或与某人交谈时，您应该体验一下。
Then to come back to your initial assumption about eyes closed, a lot of practice, even formal practice, can be done eyes open, and it's important to do it eyes open because so much of our anchoring of our sense of self is based on visual cues.
然后回到你最初关于闭着眼睛的假设，很多练习，甚至是正式的练习，都可以在睁着眼睛的情况下完成，而且睁着眼睛做很重要，因为我们对自我意识的锚定很大程度上是基于视觉线索。
We know that if you give people the right visual cues, you can translocate their sense of self.
我们知道，如果给人们正确的视觉提示，就可以转移他们的自我意识。
You can give them an out-of-body experience with a video display where you can literally make them feel like there's a body-swapping illusion.
您可以通过视频显示给他们一种灵魂出窍的体验，让他们感觉有一种身体交换的错觉。
You can make them feel that they're in another person's body looking back at their body if you run the cameras the right way.
如果你以正确的方式运行摄像机，你可以让他们感觉到他们在另一个人的身体里回头看自己的身体。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I've done this in VR, seeing an image of you.
我在 VR 中完成了这件事，看到了你的图像。
They create an avatar for you, and then your-
他们为你创建一个化身，然后你的——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
bodily movements generate the movements of the avatar, and you start gaining presence, as they call it in the-
身体运动产生化身的运动，你开始获得存在感，正如他们所说的那样——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
VR lingo, very quickly.
VR行话，很快。
And then pretty soon you lose sense of your own bodily representation and-
然后很快你就失去了自己身体代表的感觉并且——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
it's a little eerie.
有点怪异。
What's eeriest to me is going back into, of course, never left-
当然，对我来说最奇怪的是回到从未离开过的地方——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
but back into your actual body when the VR goggles pop off.
但当 VR 护目镜弹出时，又会回到你的真实身体中。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
The world seems almost overwhelming, the number of sensory stimuli that are in a laboratory room, which is actually quite sparse.
这个世界看起来几乎是令人眼花缭乱的，实验室里的感官刺激数量实际上是相当稀少的。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So exactly what you described, this translocation of notions of self through-
所以正如你所描述的那样，自我概念的转变通过-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
visual experience and-
视觉体验和——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
But conversely, when you lose the sense of self, the sense of self I'm talking about, it can be especially vivid and salient with eyes open because so many of your reference points to self-hood are delivered visually.
但相反，当你失去自我意识时，我所说的自我意识，睁开眼睛时它会特别生动和突出，因为你的许多自我参考点都是通过视觉传达的。
Especially in a social situation.
尤其是在社交场合。
It's like I'm talking to you, you're looking back at me.
就好像我在跟你说话，你却回头看着我。
So the implication of your gaze is that I'm over here behind my face implicated by your gaze.
所以你的目光暗示着我就在你的目光所暗示的脸后面。
So the sense that you're looking at something ...
所以你在看某样东西的感觉......
is the sense of self in that social context, right?
是那种社会背景下的自我意识，对吗？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
And so if your facial expression changes, like so I'm saying something, and if you kind of furrow your brow like, "Well, what the hell is he..." And I can read into that facial change some inner state of yours that is sailing into me.
所以，如果你的面部表情发生变化，就像我在说些什么，如果你皱起眉头，比如，“好吧，他到底是什么……”我可以从面部表情的变化中读出你正在向我传达的某种内心状态。
All of a sudden we've got this sort of dance of like, I'm noticing you reacting to me, and that's changing the way I'm feeling about what I'm...
突然之间，我们就开始了这样的舞蹈，我注意到你对我的反应，这正在改变我对自己的感受……
That's the purview of every neurosis everyone didn't want, right?
这是每个人都不想要的神经症的权限，对吗？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And every relationship.
以及每一段关系。
I had a girlfriend when I was a postdoc who was very, very...
当我还是一名博士后时，我有一个女朋友，她非常非常......
She was brilliant, really.
她真的很聪明。
Still is.
仍然是。
And she always said that every relationship, there are four arrows, she used to say.
她总是说，每段关系都有四支箭，她常说。
She was a neuroscientist.
她是一位神经科学家。
Still is.
仍然是。
And said, there's the arrow of, she was talking to me, so she said, "Me to you, and kind of what you perceive coming from me, and then there's you to me, and then there's an arrow from the middle going right back out at each one of us."
她说，有一个箭头，她在对我说话，所以她说，“我对你，你感知到的东西来自我，然后你对我，然后有一支箭头从中间射向我们每个人。”
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Which is our own perception of what the other person is thinking about us.
这是我们自己对他人对我们的看法的看法。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And it's feeding back on the other arrow.
它反馈到另一个箭头上。
And she gave me this very clear but, model of basically relationships.
她给了我这个非常清晰但基本的关系模型。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
The relationship failed, but it was good while it lasted, I should say.
这段关系失败了，但我应该说，在它持续的过程中，它是美好的。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Sure.
当然。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But the four arrow model of relationships actually shows up in every type of one-on-one relationship, and is probably an under-description of the total number of arrows.
但关系的四箭头模型实际上出现在每种类型的一对一关系中，并且可能对箭头总数的描述不足。
But I think it's exactly what you're describing is that perception of self through the eyes of other, whether or not we're empathic or not, strongly shapes the way that we access different context-dependent rule sets about what we're going to say and not going to say.
但我认为这正是你所描述的，通过他人的眼睛对自我的感知，无论我们是否有同理心，都强烈地塑造了我们访问不同的上下文相关规则集的方式，这些规则集是关于我们要说和不说的内容。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's very dynamic, right?
它非常有活力，对吧？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
So, but the freedom that I think we want, and people can sometimes experience this just haphazardly, but the thing that, the center of the bullseye from the meditative point of view is to get off that ride entirely.
所以，但我认为我们想要的自由，人们有时会随意地体验到这种自由，但从冥想的角度来看，靶心的中心是完全摆脱这种束缚。
So losing the sense of self in this context of a social encounter is to give up your face, essentially.
因此，在社交场合中失去自我意识本质上就是放弃你的面子。
And what that entails is, or what that gives you is the free attention to actually just pay attention to the other person, right?
这意味着，或者说，这给了你自由的注意力，实际上只是关注对方，对吗？
And the other person is now no longer quite an object in the world for you.
而另一个人现在对你来说不再是世界上的一个对象了。
There's really just a kind of a totality of which that person is a part.
这实际上只是一种整体，而那个人只是其中的一部分。
And actually, Martin Buber, the kind of mystical Jewish philosopher, talked about the I-thou relationship.
事实上，马丁·布伯，一位神秘的犹太哲学家，谈到了我与你的关系。
And this, I think, it's been a long time since I've read Buber, and I don't know if he goes far enough to be truly non-dualistic, but this distinction between I and thou, because the thou part of it is, I think potentially this, or again, it's been several decades since I read him.
我想，自从我读布伯以来，已经有很长一段时间了，我不知道他是否走得足够远，达到真正的非二元论，但我和你之间的这种区别，因为它的“你”部分，我认为可能是这样，或者再说一遍，自从我读他以来，已经有几十年了。
But there's a way of beholding another person where you have the free attention to simply behold them, right?
但是有一种看待另一个人的方式，你可以自由地关注他们，对吧？
You no longer care what they think about you.
你不再关心他们对你的看法。
You don't feel neurotically implicated by their gaze.
你不会因为他们的目光而感到神经质的牵连。
You're simply the space in which they're appearing, right?
你只是他们出现的空间，对吧？
And so you're free.
这样你就自由了。
And people can feel, and so by definition, you're no longer self-conscious, right?
人们可以感觉到，所以根据定义，你不再有自我意识，对吗？
And this phrase, self-consciousness, really does get at this, what I'm calling the self, the illusory self as a kind of contraction.
自我意识这个短语确实表达了我所说的自我，虚幻的自我作为一种收缩。
And you can notice this for yourself.
您可以自己注意到这一点。
Just imagine what it's like to go from not being self-conscious to suddenly being self-conscious, and the proximate cause of this almost invariably is suddenly recognizing that somebody's looking at you.
想象一下从不难为情到突然变得难为情是什么感觉，而造成这种情况的直接原因几乎总是突然意识到有人在看着你。
Right?
正确的？
So you're in a Starbucks and you're alone and you're reading the newspaper or whatever it is, and this now sounds highly anachronistic.
所以你在星巴克里，你独自一人，你正在读报纸或其他什么东西，这现在听起来非常不合时宜。
It's been three years since I've held a physical newspaper in a Starbucks.
我已经三年没有在星巴克拿过实体报纸了。
But you're just minding your own business and you look up and you're seeing a room full of strangers, but then you notice that someone is just looking at you.
但你只顾自己的事，抬头一看，发现满屋子都是陌生人，但随后你发现有人只是在看着你。
And so that moment of eye contact, right, suddenly that throws you back on yourself as a kind of suddenly you're the object in the world for that other person.
因此，目光接触的那一刻，对吧，突然间，你会回到自己身上，就像突然间，你成为了另一个人世界上的对象。
That recognition is the tightening there, the kind of contraction there is a further ramification of this feeling most of us have most of the time of being the center of experience.
这种认识就是那里的收紧，那种收缩是我们大多数人在大部分时间里成为经验中心的这种感觉的进一步衍生。
It's like we're all walking around with a fist, and in moments of self-consciousness, the fist gets really tight.
就好像我们都握着拳头走来走去，在自我意识的时刻，拳头变得非常紧。
And that's the thing that gets fully relaxed when you discover this, what I'm at various points call the nature of mind or the non-dual nature of consciousness, is just that there is no center to this experience.
当你发现这一点时，你就会完全放松，我在不同的观点上称之为心的本质或意识的非二元本质，就是这种体验没有中心。
And when you recognize no center, then even when your gaze is aimed at another person's gaze, there is no implication going back to the center because there is no center, right?
当你不认识中心时，即使你的目光瞄准另一个人的目光，也没有暗示要回到中心，因为没有中心，对吧？
And rather than that being an experience of weird detachment or confusion, it's actually an experience of greater relationship because you're no longer defending anything over here.
这并不是一种奇怪的超然或困惑的体验，它实际上是一种更牢固的关系的体验，因为你不再在这里捍卫任何东西。
You're not braced against anything.
你没有准备好反对任何事情。
You're just the space in which that person is showing up.
你只是那个人出现的空间。
And so it's an experience of being much more comfortable in the presence of another person, whatever your relationship, because you're not contracting, right?
所以这是一种在另一个人面前感到更加舒服的体验，无论你们的关系如何，因为你没有契约，对吧？
And then when you do, when you have that, again, and this is meditation, right?
然后当你这样做时，当你再次拥有它时，这就是冥想，对吧？
This is meditation that is totally compatible with having a conversation with somebody.
这是与与某人交谈完全兼容的冥想。
And then when you notice yourself contracting, like when you notice you're not meditating anymore, you're actually reacting.
然后，当您注意到自己收缩时，例如当您注意到自己不再冥想时，您实际上正在做出反应。
Like they just said something or looked a certain way, and now you're cast back upon yourself in relationship to them, that becomes a kind of mindfulness alarm, right?
就像他们刚刚说了一些话或以某种方式看起来一样，现在你又回到了自己与他们的关系中，这变成了一种正念警报，对吗？
Then it becomes like the unsatisfactoriness of that psychologically becomes more and more salient, right?
那么心理上的不满足就变得越来越突出了，对吗？
Because one, that's not the way you want to be.
因为一，这不是你想要的方式。
I mean, it's like it's the antithesis of it being as comfortable as you were a moment ago.
我的意思是，这就像你刚才那样舒适的对立面。
But two, it's something you're doing unnecessarily, right?
但第二，你所做的事情是不必要的，对吧？
It's like you're making a fist when you don't have to make a fist, right?
这就像你在不需要握拳的时候却握起了拳头，对吧？
Again, we can leave aside all those circumstances where it's appropriate to react to someone and-
再说一次，我们可以把所有那些适合对某人做出反应的情况放在一边，然后——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Sure
当然可以
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
...
...
I'm into martial arts and self-defense and yes, you're not supposed to be just this puddle of goo out in the world who can be just mistreated by people and never put up resistance.
我热衷于武术和自卫，是的，你不应该只是这个世界上的一滩粘糊糊的东西，可以被人虐待而从不反抗。
But psychologically even if a state like anger or contraction is sometimes normative and appropriate, the question is, how long is it normative and appropriate for?
但从心理上来说，即使像愤怒或收缩这样的状态有时是规范和适当的，问题是，它持续多长时间是规范和适当的？
Like how long do you want to stay angry for?
比如你想生气多久？
In my experience, these kind of classically negative emotions like anger and fear are appropriate as salience cues.
根据我的经验，这些典型的负面情绪（例如愤怒和恐惧）适合作为显着线索。
They orient you to an emergency or a potential emergency.
他们引导您应对紧急情况或潜在的紧急情况。
But then in dealing with the emergency, they're almost never the state you want to be in.
但在处理紧急情况时，它们几乎从来都不是你想要的状态。
It's better to actually be calm in an emergency.
在紧急情况下实际上保持冷静会更好。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Oh, absolutely.
哦，绝对是。
And again, the language is insufficient to describe what you're telling us, but I think what comes to mind for me is this distinction between situational awareness and self-awareness.
再说一次，语言不足以描述你告诉我们的内容，但我想我想到的是情境意识和自我意识之间的区别。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And we need both, but under conditions of true emergency or motivated desire, we need to dial down the amount of self-awareness in order to be more effective within the situational awareness.
我们两者都需要，但在真正的紧急情况或有动机的欲望的情况下，我们需要降低自我意识的数量，以便在态势感知中更加有效。
But you said something very important, and my lab has been working on fear-like states for a long time so I confess I'm going to rob this from you, but I'll credit you every time I describe it.
但你说了一些非常重要的话，我的实验室长期以来一直在研究类似恐惧的状态，所以我承认我会从你那里夺走这一点，但每次我描述它时我都会相信你。
Is that the fear or the threat detection state or set of events acts as a flag but is not meant to persist in the way that the flag went up-
恐惧或威胁检测状态或一系列事件是否充当旗帜，但并不意味着以旗帜升起的方式持续存在-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
if one is to be in their most adaptive state.
如果一个人要处于最适应的状态。
Actually, Jocko Willink and I were talking about this.
事实上，乔科·威林克和我正在谈论这个。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
He talks a lot about detachment and open gaze, things that my lab is interested in, visual system and autonomic interaction.
他谈论了很多关于超然和开放的目光、我的实验室感兴趣的事情、视觉系统和自主交互。
So why broadening the gaze literally broadens-
那么为什么拓宽视野确实会拓宽-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
the time domain of thinking, you come up with new solutions to complex problems in real time and so on.
在思维的时域中，你可以实时提出复杂问题的新解决方案等等。
And you're describing an everyday set of interactions where that could be very useful.
您正在描述一组日常交互，这可能非常有用。
And yet there seems to be something about the way you describe meditation and what you've managed to arrive at and what practitioners of meditation can arrive at, which is something more than that.
然而，你描述冥想的方式、你已经达到的目标以及冥想练习者可以达到的目标似乎有些东西，但远不止于此。
It's not just about being effective or optimizing all the language we see thrown around a lot in the space that I live in these days.
这不仅仅是为了有效或优化我们现在所生活的空间中经常看到的所有语言。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But something fundamentally more important about how to experience life and the self, this realization that what you thought was there was never really there.
但从根本上来说，更重要的是如何体验生活和自我，意识到你所认为的东西从来没有真正存在过。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But that there are constraints that limit that, and so to try and fracture those constraints one by one.
但存在限制这一点的限制，因此要尝试一一打破这些限制。
Would you say that meditation as a practice done for a few minutes each day or with the app, that it's a kind of a step function?
您是否认为冥想作为每天几分钟或使用应用程序进行的练习，是一种阶梯功能？
Is it very nonlinear in terms of people's progress?
就人们的进步而言，它是不是非常非线性？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'm certainly going to go start doing more meditation based on this discussion, truly.
我当然会根据这次讨论开始做更多的冥想，真的。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Because anytime someone describes that there's kind of a myth that we've been living in, I become obsessed with the idea of dissolving that myth.
因为每当有人描述我们一直生活在一个神话中时，我就会沉迷于消除这个神话的想法。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
That's a very seductive phrase-
这是一个非常诱人的词——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
so thank you for using that one.
感谢您使用该产品。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
There is no better marketing tool, which is I realize what you're not trying to do here, but that's for me to capture my efforts.
没有更好的营销工具，我意识到你在这里不想做的事情，但那是为了让我捕捉到我的努力。
You tell me that there's a myth that I'm living in-
你告诉我，我生活在一个神话之中——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and that it can be dissolved, and that opens up a better landscape.
它可以被溶解，从而开辟出更好的景观。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
What is the process like?
流程是怎样的？
Do some people make progress very quickly?
有的人进步很快吗？
Do some people experience kind of step functions towards progress?
有些人是否经历过某种进步的阶梯功能？
What does the meditation practice look like over time?
随着时间的推移，冥想练习会是什么样子？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Do you still meditate or have you just threaded it through your jujitsu, your writing, your daily life, your coffee, your time with your wife, et cetera?
你还在冥想吗？还是只是将它贯穿于你的柔术、你的写作、你的日常生活、你的咖啡、你与妻子在一起的时间等等？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
So just to come back to talk about the myth for a second.
所以我想回来谈谈这个神话。
So what you just enunciated was a kind of a second doorway into this whole project.
所以你刚才阐述的是整个项目的第二个入口。
So like the usual door is through the door of suffering, for lack of a better word.
因此，就像平常的门一样，穿过痛苦之门，因为没有更好的词了。
I mean, people feel unhappy in a variety of ways, and they get more sensitized to the mechanics of their own unhappiness.
我的意思是，人们以多种方式感到不快乐，并且他们对自己不快乐的机制更加敏感。
And meditation is one of the things on the menu that is explicitly billed as a remedy for unhappiness, and it is and I think that's probably the most common path to this.
冥想是菜单上明确标榜为治疗不快乐的方法之一，而且我认为这可能是最常见的途径。
But another path is just intellectual interest and just wanting to know what's real about the mind subjectively in a first-person way.
但另一条路只是智力兴趣，只是想以第一人称的方式主观地了解心灵的真实情况。
And there's no contradiction between those two things.
而且这两件事之间并不矛盾。
I'm motivated by both of them, but it's a totally valid doorway into this.
我受到他们两个的激励，但这是一个完全有效的途径。
There are definitely step functions.
肯定有阶跃函数。
I would say there are at least two.
我想说至少有两个。
I mean the And they really are articulated along the lines of the framework I've been describing of dualistic and non-dualistic mindfulness.
我的意思是，它们确实是按照我所描述的二元和非二元正念的框架来阐明的。
So in the beginning, you're going to start out, 99.9% of people will start out dualistically paying attention and noticing the difference between being distracted by thought and then being on the object of attention, whether it's the breath or sounds or whatever.
所以一开始，99.9%的人都会开始二元地关注，注意到被思想分散注意力和关注注意力的对象之间的区别，无论是呼吸、声音还是其他什么。
And eventually, that opens up to all possible objects of attention, including thoughts, and there's still this fluctuation between being distracted and then being mindful of whatever.
最终，这会向所有可能的注意力对象开放，包括思想，并且在分心和注意任何事物之间仍然存在这种波动。
And the fact that it's open to all possible objects differentiates this type of practice from anything that is narrowly focused on one object, like a mantra or a visualization.
事实上，它对所有可能的对象开放，这一事实将这种类型的练习与任何狭隘地专注于一个对象的练习（如咒语或可视化）区分开来。
Those are other paths of practice that are more concentration-based and interesting.
这些是其他更加专注且有趣的练习路径。
But the benefit of mindfulness is that very quickly you realize it's by definition compatible with all possible experience because you're not artificially contracting your attention down to something.
但正念的好处是，你很快就会意识到它的定义与所有可能的体验兼容，因为你不会人为地将注意力集中到某件事上。
You're just being aware of the next thing, a sight, a sound, a taste, a thought.
你只是意识到下一件事，一个景象，一个声音，一种味道，一个想法。
So the first step function is to very clearly experience the difference between being lost in thought and being clearly aware of any part of experience, including thought.
因此，第一步的功能是非常清楚地体验迷失在思想中和清楚地意识到经验的任何部分（包括思想）之间的区别。
And to notice the freedom, the comparative psychological freedom that gives you.
并注意自由，给予你的相对心理自由。
So something's made you angry, and now you're thinking about all the reasons why you should be angry and have every right to be angry and what you're going to tell that person when you see them.
有些事情让你生气，现在你正在思考你应该生气的所有原因，你有权利生气，以及当你看到他们时你要告诉那个人什么。
And then you notice you're thinking.
然后你发现你在思考。
And you notice the connection between the thought and the anger.
你会注意到想法和愤怒之间的联系。
The minute spent lost in thought about what's making you angry is the thing that drags through the physiology of anger.
花在思考是什么让你生气上的那一分钟，就是拖延愤怒生理机能的事情。
And the moment you notice that once you're mindful, once you can be mindful, you can notice thought as thought and how quickly that dissipates.
当你注意到一旦你有正念，一旦你能有正念，你就能注意到思想就是思想，以及它消散的速度有多快。
It's just the language and the imagery.
这只是语言和图像。
You couldn't hold onto it if you wanted to.
如果你想的话，你也无法抓住它。
And then you notice the physiology of the anger is just this kind of meaningless inner incandescence that has its own half-life and degrades very, very quickly.
然后你会注意到，愤怒的生理学就是这种毫无意义的内心白炽，它有自己的半衰期，并且退化得非常非常快。
When you're no longer thinking about the reasons why you should be angry, you can't hold onto the anger.
当你不再思考自己应该生气的原因时，你就无法控制愤怒。
The anger itself dissipates.
愤怒本身就消散了。
And from the point of view of the one who's being mindful, this is tremendous relief.
从正念者的角度来看，这是一种巨大的解脱。
And at minimum, it's a degree of freedom.
至少，这是一定程度的自由。
You can, at that point, decide, well, how long do I want to be angry for?
那时你可以决定，好吧，我想生气多久？
Is it useful to stay angry?
保持愤怒有用吗？
Do I want to be angry for one minute, two minutes, five minutes, 10 minutes?
我想生气一分钟、两分钟、五分钟、十分钟吗？
Because before you have that capacity to be mindful, you're going to helplessly be as angry as you're going to be for as long as you're going to be that way, just based on the time course of your thinking about it, brooding about it, telling your wife about it.
因为在你有能力保持正念之前，只要你一直这样，你就会无助地生气，这取决于你思考它、沉思它、告诉你妻子这件事的时间过程。
It's just going to be this conversation-based misadventure in negative states of mind.
这只是在消极心态下基于对话的不幸经历。
And you are going to be the hostage of that for as long as you'll be the hostage of that.
只要你还是它的人质，你就会成为它的人质。
You'll have nothing you can do apart from just deciding to check out and watch "Game of Thrones" again for the third time.
除了决定第三次观看并观看《权力的游戏》之外，你将无能为力。
You can divert your attention to something else, which is sometimes a good thing to do.
您可以将注意力转移到其他事情上，有时这是一件好事。
But mindfulness, even dualistic mindfulness, gives you this capacity to just observe the mechanics of this and then get off the ride whenever you want.
但是正念，甚至是二元正念，可以让你有能力观察其中的机制，然后在你想要的时候下车。
So that really is a step function.
所以这确实是一个阶跃函数。
First, there was a time before you could do that, and then there's a time after which you can do that.
首先，有一段时间你可以这样做，然后有一段时间你可以这样做。
The other step function is noticing that there is no one who is doing that.
另一个步骤功能是注意到没有人在这样做。
This is the non-duality, the selflessness, the centralessness of awareness.
这就是觉知的不二性、无私、中心性。
The fact that there's no place from which the mindfulness is being aimed, but the fact that there's just this open condition in which everything is appearing, thoughts included.
事实上，正念没有任何目标，但事实是，一切事物都在这种开放的状态中出现，包括思想。
At that point, your mindfulness, it's no longer this dualistic effort to strategically pay attention to anything as opposed to being lost in thought.
到那时，你的正念不再是这种二元的努力，策略性地关注任何事物，而不是陷入沉思。
It's just what's left when the present recognized thought unravels.
当当前公认的思想瓦解时，这只是剩下的东西。
Even before it unravels, what's recognized is you are simply identical to the condition in which everything is appearing.
甚至在它解开之前，我们就已经认识到，你与一切出现的状态完全相同。
Now, again, I'm not making a Deepak Chopra-like metaphysical claim about the mind.
现在，我再说一遍，我并不是对心灵做出迪帕克·乔普拉式的形而上学主张。
I'm not saying the mind isn't what the brain is doing, and I'm not saying that you're recognizing the consciousness that gave birth to the universe.
我并不是说心灵不是大脑正在做的事情，我也不是说你正在认识到诞生宇宙的意识。
I'm not making any broad claims about metaphysics.
我并不是对形而上学做出任何宽泛的主张。
I'm just talking about as a matter of experience, there is just this condition in which everything is appearing.
我只是说作为一个经验的问题，一切都在这个状态下出现。
And what you're calling your body, again, as a matter of experience, I'm not saying that we can't have third-person conversations about physical bodies in a physical world, but as a matter of experience, the only body you're ever going to directly encounter as your own is an appearance in consciousness.
再说一遍，作为经验的问题，我并不是说我们不能就物理世界中的物理身体进行第三人称对话，但作为经验的问题，你唯一能直接遇到的身体就是意识中的显现。
So consciousness is not in your body.
所以意识并不在你的身体里。
What you're calling your body is in consciousness.
你所说的你的身体是在意识中。
Visually, proprioceptively, it's like everything is just appearing in this condition.
视觉上、本体感觉上，一切都好像在这种情况下刚刚出现。
And again, this is not a spotlight that you're aiming at the body.
再说一次，这不是你瞄准身体的聚光灯。
There's just this condition in which everything, including anything you could call yourself, is appearing.
在这种情况下，一切，包括任何你可以称为你自己的东西，都在出现。
So that's the second step function is to recognize that This is already true.
所以第二步的功能是认识到这已经是真的。
Consciousness is already without this thing you've been calling your ego, hoping to unravel it through meditation.
意识已经没有了你一直称之为自我的东西，希望通过冥想来解开它。
Consciousness is not going to get any more selfless, any more centerless, any freer than it always already is recognized as such.
意识不会变得比人们一直以来所认识的更加无私、更加无中心、更加自由。
And so the step function at that point is your mindfulness at that point, the thing you come back to when you're no longer distracted, is that recognition again and again.
因此，那个点的阶跃函数就是你在那个点的正念，当你不再分心时，你会回到那个点上，一次又一次地认识到这一点。
And then it becomes compatible with anything you would do.
然后它就会与你所做的任何事情兼容。
And so to answer your question, yes, I still practice formally sometimes, frequently.
所以回答你的问题，是的，我有时仍然经常进行正式练习。
But I definitely miss days, and I don't do it for...
但我确实怀念几天，而且我不会这样做......
I don't rule out the possibility that I will go back on retreat at various times just to check in with that and see if that makes a difference.
我不排除我会在不同时间回去静修的可能性，只是为了检查一下，看看这是否会产生影响。
But I tend to sit for-- I've designed my life so that I can spend a lot of time meditating without having to be formally meditating.
但我倾向于静坐——我设计了自己的生活，这样我就可以花很多时间冥想，而不必正式冥想。
So, I'll go for a hike for two hours, right?
那么，我去徒步两个小时吧？
And what I'm doing when I'm hiking is identical to what I'm doing when I'm, quote, "meditating", sitting in a chair, doing nothing but meditate.
我徒步旅行时所做的事情与我坐在椅子上“冥想”时所做的事情是一样的，除了冥想什么也不做。
So it's-- Yeah.
所以这是——是的。
Again, I'm very interested in erasing the boundary between what people are calling meditation and the rest of life.
再说一次，我对消除人们所说的冥想和其他生活之间的界限非常感兴趣。
And so in teaching these things, I tend to emphasize that from the beginning because I think it's very easy to set up-- to get gulled by a bunch of assumptions that cause you to be very split in your sense of what your life is about.
因此，在教授这些事情时，我倾向于从一开始就强调这一点，因为我认为很容易被一堆假设所欺骗，这些假设会导致你对自己的生活的感觉非常分裂。
And I'm sort of banking my meditation over here because I'm now meditating two hours a day diligently, and this is going to be really good for me.
我有点把冥想放在这里，因为我现在每天努力冥想两个小时，这对我来说真的很有好处。
And then over here is the rest of my life, which is not nearly as wise or as useful, or this is the stuff that is still the area of my problems.
然后这是我的余生，它几乎不那么明智或有用，或者这仍然是我的问题领域。
And I think it's useful to recognize you've got one life, and you've got this single condition of consciousness and its contents in every mode of life.
我认为认识到你有一种生活，并且你在每种生活方式中都有这种单一的意识状态及其内容，这是有用的。
And there's something to recognize about it, and you're always free to recognize that.
它有一些值得认识的地方，而且你总是可以自由地认识到这一点。
And truly, even in your dreams, right?
确实，即使在你的梦中，对吧？
It never stops.
它永远不会停止。
So that's what I tend to emphasize.
这就是我倾向于强调的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So earlier you told us that meditation is not about changing the content of conscious experience.
早些时候您告诉我们，冥想并不是要改变意识体验的内容。
And in a different podcast that you were on, I heard you say something to the effect of that normally we are in our daily experience, and unless we are trained in meditation, unless we've dissolved this illusion of the gap between actor and self and observer, that we require certain sensory events to create collisions within us and with the natural world that sort of blast us into a different mode of being.
在你参加的另一个播客中，我听到你说了一些话，大意是我们通常在日常经历中，除非我们接受过冥想训练，除非我们已经消除了演员与自我和观察者之间差距的幻觉，否则我们需要某些感官事件来在我们内部以及与自然世界之间产生碰撞，从而将我们带入一种不同的存在模式。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I want to use that as a way to frame up this idea that some things, such as psychedelics, but also a very long hike, a very long fast, who knows?
我想用它来构建这样一个想法：有些东西，比如迷幻药，但也是一次很长的徒步旅行，一次很长的禁食，谁知道呢？
A banquet.
一场宴会。
Different types of life experiences do exactly the opposite of what you're describing meditation does, which is that they actively change the content of our conscious experience, so much so that we often remember those for the rest of our lives.
不同类型的生活经历与你所描述的冥想的作用完全相反，即它们积极地改变我们意识体验的内容，以至于我们经常在余生中记住这些内容。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Could you tell us why psychedelics can be useful?
您能告诉我们为什么迷幻药有用吗？
And here I'll give the caveats that maybe you'll feel obligated to give as well, but we're talking about used safely and responsibly, age-appropriate-
在这里，我将给出一些警告，也许您也有义务给出，但我们谈论的是安全、负责任、适合年龄的使用——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
context-appropriate, ideally with some clinical or other type of guidance, legality issues obeyed, et cetera.
适合具体情况，最好有一些临床或其他类型的指导，遵守合法性问题等等。
All that stated, psychedelics to me are an experience of altered perception, internal and external perception.
综上所述，迷幻药对我来说是一种改变感知、内在和外在感知的体验。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Altered space-time relationship, somewhat dreamlike.
时空关系发生了变化，有些梦幻。
I think it was Alan Hobson at Harvard for a long time talked about the relationship between psychedelic-like states and dream-like states because of this distortion of space-time dimensionality.
我想是哈佛大学的艾伦·霍布森（Alan Hobson）很长一段时间谈到了迷幻状态和梦幻状态之间的关系，因为这种时空维度的扭曲。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I haven't experimented with them much.
而且我还没有对它们进行太多实验。
I've been part of a clinical trial, three doses of MDMA, which certainly altered the quality of my conscious experience in ways that led to a lot of lasting, and at least for me, valuable learning.
我参加了一项临床试验，服用了三剂摇头丸，这无疑改变了我意识体验的质量，从而带来了很多持久的、至少对我来说有价值的学习。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So what are your thoughts about psychedelics in terms of how they intersect with the discussion that we've been having, and what utility do they play in recognition of the self or in other sorts of brain changes?
那么，您对致幻剂有何看法？它们如何与我们一直在进行的讨论相交叉，以及它们在认识自我或其他类型的大脑变化方面发挥什么作用？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Well, so, let's just price in all those caveats that people can anticipate.
好吧，那么，让我们把人们可以预见到的所有这些警告考虑在内。
These drugs are not without their risks, and one problem is that we have this single term, drugs or psychedelics, which names many different types of substances, and they're not all the same.
这些药物并非没有风险，一个问题是我们有“药物”或“迷幻药”这个单一术语，它命名了许多不同类型的物质，而且它们并不完全相同。
So, MDMA is not even technically a psychedelic.
因此，从技术上讲，摇头丸甚至不是迷幻药。
I think it has immense therapeutic value, and it actually was my gateway drug to this whole area of concern.
我认为它具有巨大的治疗价值，它实际上是我进入整个关注领域的入门药物。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Amphetamine pathogen, right?
安非他明病原体，对吗？
It's sort of an amphetamine and a pathogen at the same time.
它既是一种安非他明，又是一种病原体。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
It's often called-
它常常被称为——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Empathogen.
移情者。
Excuse me.
打扰一下。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
An empathogen.
一个移情者。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Not pathogen.
不是病原体。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
No.
不。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Empathogen.
移情者。
Yeah.
是的。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
An empathogen or an entactogen it's been called.
它被称为“empathogen”或“entactogen”。
But it doesn't tend to change perception in the way that classic psychedelics do.
但它不会像经典迷幻药那样改变认知。
And it's also serotonergic, but it's not- It has to be in some part differently so than-- Even LSD and psilocybin, which are much more similar in classic psychedelics, both are also serotonergic, but they're not merely so, and they're also different.
它也是血清素能的，但它不是——它必须在某些方面有所不同——即使是LSD和裸盖菇素，它们在经典致幻剂中更加相似，也都是血清素能的，但它们不仅如此，而且它们也不同。
At lower doses, everything can kind of seem the same.
在较低剂量下，一切看起来都一样。
At higher doses, they begin to diverge.
当剂量较高时，它们开始出现分歧。
And we can talk about the pharmacology if you wanted to.
如果您愿意，我们可以讨论药理学。
But I would just say that for many of us, certainly for me, psychedelics were indispensable in the beginning in proving to me that a first-person interrogation of the mind was worth doing.
但我只想说，对于我们许多人来说，当然对于我来说，迷幻药在一开始就不可或缺，它向我证明了对心灵的第一人称审问是值得做的。
Because I was somebody who, at age 17 or 18, before I had any real experience with MDMA or LSD or psilocybin, if you had taught me how to meditate at that point, I think I would have just bounced off the whole project.
因为我在 17 岁或 18 岁的时候，在我真正体验过 MDMA、LSD 或裸盖菇素之前，如果你当时教我如何冥想，我想我就会从整个项目中跳出来。
I think my mind was so cerebral in my engagement with anything.
我认为我在处理任何事情时都非常理智。
I was so skeptical of any of the religious and spiritual traditions that have given us most of our meditation talk, that I think I just would've-- And I know many of these people.
我对任何宗教和精神传统都持怀疑态度，这些传统为我们提供了大部分冥想谈话，我想我会——而且我认识其中很多人。
I have tried to teach Richard Dawkins to meditate and Daniel Dennett to meditate.
我曾尝试教理查德·道金斯和丹尼尔·丹尼特冥想。
I've ambushed them with meditation, both in a group setting and one-on-one.
我用冥想来伏击他们，无论是在团体环境中还是在一对一环境中。
Not Dan, but Richard, I ambushed on my own podcast with a guided meditation.
不是丹，而是理查德，我在自己的播客上进行了冥想引导。
And he closes his eyes, he looks inside, and there's nothing of interest to see.
他闭上眼睛，向里面看去，没有什么有趣的东西可看。
He doesn't have the conceptual interest in him that would cause him to persist long enough to find out that there's a there there.
他对自己没有概念上的兴趣，这会让他坚持足够长的时间来发现那里有一个东西。
Now, this is not a problem with LSD or psilocybin or MDMA.
现在，LSD、裸盖菇素或 MDMA 不再是问题。
I know that if I gave him 100 micrograms of LSD or five grams of mushrooms, or 25 milligrams of psilocybin, that's probably not the analogous dosage to the five grams of mushrooms.
我知道，如果我给他 100 微克 LSD 或 5 克蘑菇，或 25 毫克裸盖菇素，这可能与 5 克蘑菇的剂量不同。
Five grams of mushrooms would be more than that.
五克蘑菇就更多了。
I forget what it is of MDMA, maybe 120 milligrams of-
我忘记了 MDMA 是什么，也许是 120 毫克——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I think the MAPS dosage, which is the one that's under clinical trials, is 125 milligrams with an option of a 75-milligram booster.
我认为正在临床试验中的 MAPS 剂量为 125 毫克，并可选择 75 毫克加强剂量。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's funny how I remember that.
有趣的是我怎么记得那件事。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yes.
是的。
It's strange the facts that come to hand.
眼前的事实很奇怪。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Exactly.
正是如此。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
But there's just no possibility that nothing's going to happen.
但不可能什么都不会发生。
Right now, something with a psychedelic, with MDMA, most people tend to have, certainly under any kind of guidance, tend to have a very positive, pro-social experience.
现在，大多数人都会有一种迷幻的东西，比如摇头丸，当然在任何形式的指导下，都会有一种非常积极、有利于社会的体验。
But with a psychedelic, you might have a somewhat terrifying experience if you have, quote, a bad trip.
但对于迷幻剂来说，如果你经历了一次糟糕的旅行，你可能会有一些可怕的经历。
And I've certainly had those experiences on LSD and to some degree, on psilocybin.
我确实有过服用LSD以及某种程度上服用裸盖菇素的经历。
But the prospect that nothing is going to happen is just in nearly a million cases out of a million just not in the cards.
但是，在百万分之一的情况下，什么都不会发生的可能性是不可能的。
Just neurophysiologically, something's going to happen with the requisite dose of one of these drugs.
从神经生理学角度来看，只要服用其中一种药物达到所需剂量，就会发生一些事情。
And if that thing that happens is psychologically at all normative and pleasant and interesting and valuable, which it is so much of the time, and certainly under the appropriate set and setting and guidance, it can be a lot of the time for virtually everybody.
如果发生的事情在心理上是正常的、令人愉快的、有趣的和有价值的，而且在很多时候都是如此，而且当然是在适当的背景、环境和指导下，那么对于几乎每个人来说，这可能是很多时候。
Again, there are caveats.
再次强调，有一些警告。
If you think you have a proclivity for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, this is almost certainly not for you.
如果您认为自己有精神分裂症或双相情感障碍的倾向，那么这几乎肯定不适合您。
And anyone doing the studies at Johns Hopkins for the therapeutic effects of any of these drugs, they're ruling out people with first-degree relatives with any of these clinical conditions.
任何在约翰·霍普金斯大学对这些药物的治疗效果进行研究的人，都会排除其一级亲属患有任何这些临床疾病的人。
But so for somebody like me at 18, who didn't know that this was an area of not only interest, but would it be the center of gravity for the rest of his life if only he could pay attention clearly enough to see that it could be.
但对于像我这样 18 岁的人来说也是如此，他不知道这不仅是一个令人感兴趣的领域，而且会成为他余生的重心，只要他能够足够清晰地关注并看到它可能会成为他余生的重心。
I was someone who very likely, again, I don't have the counterfactual in hand, I don't know what would have happened if someone had forced me to meditate for an hour at that point.
我很可能是这样的人，我手头没有反事实，我不知道如果有人强迫我在那时冥想一个小时会发生什么。
But I know I wasn't interested in it until I took MDMA.
但我知道我对它不感兴趣，直到我服用摇头丸。
I know I wasn't having these kinds of experiences spontaneously that showed me that there was an inner landscape that was worth exploring.
我知道我并没有自发地拥有这些经历，这些经历向我展示了值得探索的内心景观。
I was a very hard-headed skeptic who was very interested in lots of things, but there was no alternative to me just thinking more about those things.
我是一个非常顽固的怀疑论者，对很多事情都很感兴趣，但我别无选择，只能更多地思考这些事情。
The idea that there's some other way of grasping cognitively at the interesting parts of the world beyond thinking about the world, that just wouldn't have computed for me at all.
除了思考世界之外，还有其他一些方式可以认知世界上有趣的部分，这种想法对我来说根本无法计算。
And literally, no one ever gave me a book to read.
从字面上看，没有人给过我一本书来读。
The noun meditation very likely meant absolutely nothing to me before I took my first dose of, in this case, it was MDMA.
在我服用第一剂之前，冥想这个名词对我来说很可能毫无意义，在这种情况下，它是摇头丸。
So what the drug experience did for me is it just proved, one of the limitations of a drug is that, obviously, no matter how good the experience, the drug wears off, and then you're back to in more or less your usual form, and now you have a memory of the experience.
所以药物体验对我的作用刚刚证明，药物的局限性之一是，显然，无论体验有多好，药物都会逐渐消失，然后你或多或少会回到平常的状态，现在你对这段经历有了记忆。
And it can be a fairly dim memory.
这可能是一段相当模糊的记忆。
Some of these experiences are so discontinuous with normal waking consciousness that it can be like trying to remember a dream, that just disappears.
其中一些体验与正常的清醒意识非常不连续，就像试图记住一个梦一样，它就消失了。
It degrades, over the course of seconds.
它会在几秒钟内降解。
And then it could have been the most intense dream you've ever had, and for whatever reason, you can barely get a purchase on what it was about.
然后，这可能是你做过的最强烈的梦想，但无论出于何种原因，你几乎无法购买它的内容。
And there's some psychedelic experiences that are analogous to that.
还有一些与此类似的迷幻体验。
But for most people, most of the time, there's a residue of this experience.
但对于大多数人来说，大多数时候，这种经历都会留下痕迹。
And with something like MDMA, they can be quite vivid, where you recognize, okay, there was a way of being that is quite different than what I'm tending to access by default.
对于像 MDMA 这样的东西，它们可以非常生动，你会意识到，好吧，有一种存在方式与我默认情况下倾向于访问的存在方式完全不同。
And it is different in ways that are just obviously better and psychologically more healthy.
它的不同之处在于明显更好并且心理上更健康。
It's possible to be healthy psychologically in a way that I never imagined, right?
以我从未想象过的方式保持心理健康是可能的，对吗？
And then when you link it up to the traditional literature around any of this stuff, again, so much of it is shot through with superstition and otherworldliness of religion.
然后，当你将它与围绕这些东西的传统文学联系起来时，再次，其中很多内容都充满了迷信和宗教的超凡脱俗。
And as you know, and I think your listeners probably know, I've spent a lot of time criticizing all that, but there is a baby in the bathwater to all of that, right?
正如你所知，我想你的听众可能也知道，我花了很多时间批评所有这些，但所有这些都有一个婴儿在洗澡水中，对吧？
It's not that somebody like Jesus or the Buddha or any of the matriarchs and patriarchs of the world's religions, it's not that they were all conscious frauds or temporal lobe epileptics.
这并不是说像耶稣或佛陀或任何世界宗教的女族长和族长那样的人，也不是说他们都是有意识的欺诈者或颞叶癫痫患者。
There's a pathological lens that you can put on top of all that.
你可以在这一切之上加上一个病态的镜头。
But once you have one of these experiences on psychedelics or on a drug like MDMA, you know that there's a there there.
但是，一旦您有过服用迷幻药或摇头丸之类的药物的经历，您就会知道那里有这样的经历。
You know that unconditional love is a possibility, right?
你知道无条件的爱是有可能的，对吧？
You know that feeling truly one with nature, right?
你知道那种真正与自然融为一体的感觉，对吗？
Just so one with nature that you could spend 10 hours in front of a tree and find that to be the most rewarding experience of your life, right?
与大自然融为一体，您可以在一棵树前度过 10 个小时，并发现这是您一生中最有价值的经历，对吗？
That's a possible state of consciousness.
这是一种可能的意识状态。
Now, it may not be the state of consciousness you want all the time.
现在，这可能不是你一直想要的意识状态。
You don't want to be the crazy guy by the tree who can't have a conversation about anything else.
你不想成为树边那个无法谈论其他事情的疯子。
But, once you have one of these experiences, you recognize, okay, there's some reason why I'm not having the beatific vision right now, and I can't even figure out how to aim my attention so as to have anything like it.
但是，一旦你有了这些经历之一，你就会认识到，好吧，有一些原因导致我现在没有美好的愿景，而且我什至不知道如何集中注意力才能拥有类似的东西。
And that's a problem, right?
这是一个问题，对吧？
Because it's available, right?
因为它可用，对吗？
And it is among the best things that has ever happened to me, right?
这是发生在我身上最好的事情之一，对吧？
And now I can just only dimly remember what that was like.
现在我只能依稀记得那是什么感觉。
So how do I get back there on some level?
那么我怎样才能在某种程度上回到那里呢？
So that invites, again, a logic of changes, a logic of seeking changes in the contents of consciousness, which sets someone up for this protracted or seemingly protracted and fairly frustrating search to game their nervous system so as to have those kinds of experiences more and more.
因此，这再次引发了一种变化的逻辑，一种寻求意识内容变化的逻辑，这使得人们开始进行这种旷日持久或看似旷日持久且相当令人沮丧的探索，以博弈他们的神经系统，以便越来越多地获得此类体验。
And again, it's not that that's, in principle, fruitless, but it is from the point of view of the kind of the core insight of the core wisdom of what I would take from a tradition like Buddhism.
再说一次，这并不是说原则上是没有成果的，而是从我从佛教这样的传统中获得的核心智慧的核心洞察的角度来看。
Which is not the only tradition that has given voice to this, but I would argue it's given voice to it in the most articulate way.
这并不是唯一表达这一点的传统，但我认为它以最清晰的方式表达了这一点。
Again, leaving aside any of the superstition and otherworldliness and miracles that we don't have to talk about at the moment, and you certainly don't need to endorse in order to be interested in this stuff.
再说一次，抛开我们目前不必谈论的任何迷信、超凡脱俗和奇迹，你当然不需要认可才能对这些东西感兴趣。
And so that's the bifurcation between all of the utility of psychedelics and what I'm talking about under the rubric of meditation is at this point of, okay, once you realize there's a there there, what do you do and what's the logic by which you're led to do it?
所以这就是迷幻药的所有效用和我在冥想标题下所说的之间的分歧，好吧，一旦你意识到那里有一个存在，你会做什么以及引导你这样做的逻辑是什么？
And it's possible, if your only framework is the good experiences, the good feels you had on whatever drug it was, and a further discussion of what that path of changes can look like, and that can come in a religious context, it can come in just a purely psychedelic context, or some combination of the two.
如果你唯一的框架是良好的经历，无论是哪种药物的良好感觉，以及对改变路径的进一步讨论，这可能会出现在宗教背景中，也可能出现在纯粹的迷幻背景中，或者两者的某种组合。
I think you can be misled to just seek lots of peak experiences.
我认为你可能会被误导，只寻求大量的巅峰体验。
You're just trying to string together a lot of peak experiences, hoping they're going to change you.
你只是想把很多巅峰经历串在一起，希望它们能改变你。
Every one of which, by definition, is going to be impermanent, right?
根据定义，其中每一个都是无常的，对吗？
First it wasn't there, then it's there, and then it's no longer there.
首先它不存在，然后它存在，然后它不再存在。
And then you've got a memory of it, right?
然后你就有了它的记忆，对吗？
What everyone really wants, whether they know it or not, and their right to want, is a type of freedom that is compatible with even ordinary states of consciousness, which can ride along with them into extraordinary states of consciousness.
每个人真正想要的，无论他们是否知道，以及他们想要的权利，是一种与普通意识状态兼容的自由，这种自由可以伴随他们进入非凡的意识状态。
I hadn't done psychedelics for 25 years because, again, they were super useful for me in the beginning.
我已经 25 年没有使用迷幻药了，因为它们一开始对我来说非常有用。
Then I discovered meditation on the basis of those experiences.
然后我在这些经历的基础上发现了冥想。
Got really into meditation and realized, okay, this is a much more ...
真正进入冥想并意识到，好吧，这是一个更多......
conceptually, this makes much more sense to me.
从概念上讲，这对我来说更有意义。
This is delivering the goods in terms of my experience.
根据我的经验，这就是交付货物。
There's no need to keep seeking these peak experiences with drugs.
没有必要继续寻求这些毒品的巅峰体验。
But it had been 25 years since I had done that, and there was this resurgence in research on psychedelics, and I was being asked about psychedelics, and I was talking about their utility for me.
但距离我这么做已经过去 25 年了，迷幻药研究又重新兴起，有人问我有关迷幻药的问题，我谈论的是它们对我的效用。
But again, these were distant memories.
但同样，这些都是遥远的记忆。
And there was also one type of psychedelic experience I was aware that I had never had.
我意识到还有一种我从未有过的迷幻体验。
I had never done a high dose of mushrooms blindfolded.
我从来没有蒙着眼睛吃过大剂量的蘑菇。
Every mushroom trip I'd ever had, I'd been out in nature and interacting with-- It's just been a very transformed sensory experience of the world and of other people.
我经历过的每一次蘑菇之旅，都是在大自然中进行的，并与其他人互动——这对世界和其他人来说是一种非常转变的感官体验。
But I'd never done it alone, blindfolded, just purely inwardly directed and at a high dosage.
但我从来没有单独这样做过，蒙着眼睛，只是纯粹向内做，而且剂量很大。
I'd done high doses of LSD but not mushrooms.
我服用了高剂量的LSD，但没有服用蘑菇。
So I did that, and it was very useful.
所以我就这么做了，而且非常有用。
And I spoke about it on my podcast, and I think if you search Sam Harris mushroom trip on YouTube, you get the 19-minute version of my describing that trip.
我在我的播客上谈到了这件事，我想如果你在 YouTube 上搜索 Sam Harris 蘑菇之旅，你会得到我描述那次旅行的 19 分钟版本。
It was incredibly useful, but what was doubly useful was my mindfulness training in the context of that explosion of synesthesia.
它非常有用，但双重有用的是我在联觉爆发的背景下进行的正念训练。
It was such an overwhelmingly strong experience.
这是一次非常强烈的经历。
And there were so many moments where it could have gone one way or the other based on my sense of just, okay, I'm going to try to resist this.
在很多时候，事情可能会以一种方式或另一种方式发展，这取决于我的感觉，好吧，我会尽力抵制这种情况。
It was, in truth, irresistible because it was just so much.
事实上，这是不可抗拒的，因为它实在是太多了。
But there were moments where I was aware of, okay, letting go of self, in this context, is the thing that is going to make the difference between heaven and hell here.
但有些时候我意识到，好吧，在这种情况下，放开自我，才是区别天堂和地狱的关键。
Because there are experiences that are so extreme that you can't even tell if it's agony or ecstasy.
因为有些经历是如此极端，以至于你甚至无法分辨这是痛苦还是狂喜。
It's just everything is turned up to 11, right?
只是一切都调到了11，对吧？
And the difference between the two is the tipping point is it really is kind of a high wire act in some sense.
两者之间的区别在于临界点，从某种意义上说，这确实是一种走钢丝行为。
You could just fall to one side or the other.
你可能会倒向一侧或另一侧。
And, yeah.
而且，是的。
So what I think people want is they certainly want to be able to extract from the psychedelic experience wisdom that is applicable to ordinary states of consciousness.
所以我认为人们想要的是他们当然希望能够从迷幻体验中提取适用于普通意识状态的智慧。
It's like, what is the thing you can realize in a moment of having a conversation with your child that isn't distracting you from that relationship?
就像，在与孩子交谈的那一刻，你能意识到什么事情不会分散你对这段关系的注意力？
It's not a memory of when the world dissolved or when you were indistinguishable from the sky, but it's just a way of having free attention and unconditional love in this totally ordinary and potentially chaotic human experience which can be psychologically fraught, and you can meet iterations of yourself that you don't like, that are not equipping you to be the best possible person in that relationship.
它不是关于世界何时消解或何时你与天空难以区分的记忆，而只是在这种完全普通且可能混乱的人类经历中获得自由关注和无条件爱的一种方式，这可能会带来心理上的困扰，你可能会遇到你不喜欢的自己的迭代，这并不能让你成为这段关系中最好的人。
And what we want to do is cut through all of that and actually be in love with our lives and with the people in our lives more and more of the time.
我们想做的就是摆脱这一切，越来越多地真正爱上我们的生活和生活中的人。
I'm not saying that repeated psychedelic journeys can't be integral to that project, but you know that the project can't be being high all the time.
我并不是说重复的迷幻之旅不能成为该项目的一部分，但你知道该项目不可能一直都很高。
Right?
正确的？
So whatever is extractable from the occasional psychedelic trip has got to be mappable into ordinary waking consciousness.
因此，从偶尔的迷幻之旅中提取的任何东西都必须可以映射到普通的清醒意识中。
And the real point of contact does kind of run through this, what I've been calling the illusion of the self.
真正的接触点确实贯穿于此，我一直称之为自我的幻觉。
And again, that part is discoverable without any changes in contents.
再说一次，该部分是可以发现的，无需对内容进行任何更改。
Right?
正确的？
So you don't have to suddenly feel the energy of your body rush out and be continuous with the ocean of energy that is not your body.
所以你不必突然感觉到你身体的能量涌出，与非你身体的能量海洋持续。
Right?
正确的？
That's an experience that's there to be had, there's no doubt.
毫无疑问，这是一种值得拥有的体验。
But the truth is, just looking at this cup is just as formless and as mysterious as that, right?
但事实上，单单看这个杯子就和它一样无形且神秘，对吧？
When seen in the right way.
当以正确的方式看待时。
And that's what meditation encourages one to recognize.
这就是冥想鼓励人们认识到的东西。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, I share the experience that MDMA significantly altered my perception of what's possible in terms of an emotional stance towards self and others.
嗯，我分享一下 MDMA 的经历，它极大地改变了我对自我和他人的情感立场的可能性的看法。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Including animals, right?
包括动物，对吗？
Something that runs very deep for me and that I had been kind of actively suppressing in anticipation of having to put my dog down.
有些东西对我来说根深蒂固，我一直在积极压抑，因为我预计必须把我的狗放下。
But also, I don't know how to frame it except to say, my lab did animal research for years, and I was always very conflicted about it.
但我也不知道如何表达它，只能说，我的实验室做了多年的动物研究，我对此总是非常矛盾。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Because I love animals, and yet I wanted to understand the brain, and we need to work on animal brains.
Because I love animals, and yet I wanted to understand the brain, and we need to work on animal brains.
And we-
而我们——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Rodents or what?
啮齿类动物还是什么？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah, I'll be very direct about this.
是的，我会非常直接地谈论这一点。
I've worked on many species.
我研究过很多物种。
I've worked on mice and rats.
我对老鼠进行过研究。
Admittedly, I've done some cat experiments.
诚然，我做过一些猫实验。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Hmm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I've worked on large non-human primates, including macaques.
我研究过大型非人类灵长类动物，包括猕猴。
I no longer work on any of those species.
我不再研究这些物种中的任何一个。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I've worked on cuttlefish.
我曾经研究过墨鱼。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Cephalopods.
头足类动物。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
A discussion for another time.
下次再讨论。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Brilliant little-
才华横溢的小——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Amazing, yeah
太棒了，是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
creatures.
生物。
Maybe as smart as us, or who knows?
也许和我们一样聪明，或者谁知道呢？
Maybe smarter.
也许更聪明。
And now I work on humans because I couldn't reconcile the challenge inside me, which was my love of animals and working on them.
现在我从事人类研究，因为我无法接受内心的挑战，那就是我对动物的热爱以及对它们的研究。
I just couldn't do it any longer.
我只是不能再这么做了。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah, I understand.
是的，我明白。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And MDMA didn't set that transition.
MDMA 并没有设定这种转变。
That transition actually had been set a lot earlier, and it was something I really grappled with.
这种转变实际上很早就已经确定了，这是我真正努力解决的问题。
It didn't keep me up at night, but it was always in the back of my mind.
它并没有让我彻夜难眠，但它一直在我的脑海里。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
In any event, I hope what we discovered was worthwhile, but that's a bigger debate.
无论如何，我希望我们的发现是有价值的，但这是一个更大的争论。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I have strong feelings about this, and maybe it's a topic for another podcast.
And I have strong feelings about this, and maybe it's a topic for another podcast.
But I'm very happy that now I work on humans, and they can tell me if they want to be part of the experiment or not.
但我很高兴现在我在人类身上工作，他们可以告诉我他们是否想成为实验的一部分。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I trust them, and I trust their answers.
我相信他们，也相信他们的答案。
I think that MDMA, in its role as an empathogen, I think really did set an understanding of what's real and true.
我认为摇头丸作为一种共情剂，确实让我们了解了真实的情况。
So think truths like that become-- I felt that they didn't hit me square in the face.
所以想想这样的事实就变成了——我觉得他们并没有当面打我的脸。
Just the feeling behind the conflict made itself evident, and what to do about it made itself evident.
冲突背后的感受是不言而喻的，而如何应对它也是不言而喻的。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So I suppose MDMA did assist the transition to purely human research as opposed to animal research.
So I suppose MDMA did assist the transition to purely human research as opposed to animal research.
The other thing that I noticed it did is it made it not scary to confront things that were scary to confront in my conscious life.
我注意到它所做的另一件事是，它让我不再害怕面对那些在我的意识生活中可怕的事情。
And I could think about things in my conscious life, but it brought them close in a way that I could get closer and closer to the flame and then gain some understanding.
我可以在我有意识的生活中思考事情，但它以某种方式让它们更接近，我可以越来越接近火焰，然后获得一些理解。
I'm still amazed at how answers arrive, both during the session and in the weeks and months that follow.
我仍然对会议期间以及接下来的几周和几个月得到的答案感到惊讶。
If one puts the attention to it, I think that's why it's important to have a guide of some sort or to have some pseudo structure, because otherwise one can get attached to the sounds in the room and there's probably meaning there, but I wanted to do some deeper work.
如果有人注意到它，我认为这就是为什么有某种指南或有某种伪结构很重要，因为否则人们可能会对房间里的声音产生依恋，并且那里可能有意义，但我想做一些更深入的工作。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I have not had experience with psilocybin, at least not since my youth, and I don't recommend young people do it.
我没有使用过裸盖菇素的经验，至少从年轻时起就没有，而且我不建议年轻人这样做。
I regret doing LSD and psilocybin as a young person.
我后悔年轻时服用LSD和裸盖菇素。
I don't say that for politically correct reasons or liability reasons.
我这么说并不是出于政治正确的原因或责任原因。
I just think my mind was not developed.
我只是觉得我的心智没有发展起来。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But I'm intrigued by something.
但我对某件事很感兴趣。
So here's the question.
那么问题来了。
How is it that psilocybin in particular, and high-dose psilocybin, and the ego dissolution that people talk about on psilocybin, how do you think that lines up with some of the experiences that you've been describing for a adequate meditation practice?
尤其是裸盖菇素，尤其是高剂量的裸盖菇素，以及人们谈论的裸盖菇素的自我消解，你认为这与你所描述的充分冥想练习的一些经历如何相符？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Because that's something that I did not experience on MDMA.
因为这是我在 MDMA 上没有经历过的事情。
In fact, if anything, I experienced for the first time what really feeling like a isolated container was and the difference, and how empathy and being bounded, having, in other words, good boundaries and empathy could be symbiotic.
事实上，如果说有什么不同的话，那就是我第一次体验到了什么是一个孤立的容器，以及其中的区别，以及同理心和被限制是如何共生的，换句话说，良好的界限和同理心是可以共生的。
I experienced that for the first time there.
我在那里第一次经历过这种事。
And I do think that there is learning inside of these states that translates into everyday life when one is not on these states.
我确实认为，当一个人不在这些状态时，这些状态中的学习会转化为日常生活。
And the last thing I'll say is, no, I don't feel the impulse to go and do 20 more MDMA sessions.
And the last thing I'll say is, no, I don't feel the impulse to go and do 20 more MDMA sessions.
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I think that the three as part of this study were very effective for me.
I think that the three as part of this study were very effective for me.
And as they say, if you hear the calling again-
正如他们所说，如果你再次听到召唤——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
you might do it.
你可能会这么做。
But I'm very curious about psilocybin in particular-
但我对裸盖菇素特别好奇——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and this notion of ego dissolution because we've been talking about the self.
以及自我消解的概念，因为我们一直在谈论自我。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Well, so there are different ways in which the sense of self can be eroded or expanded, and there's lots of experiences that can still have a kind of center to them, but be very novel and transformational.
嗯，自我意识可以通过不同的方式被侵蚀或扩展，并且有很多经历仍然可以有一个中心，但非常新颖和具有变革性。
And one can reify those as a kind of goal state, right?
人们可以将这些具体化为一种目标状态，对吧？
And there's a concept in Buddhism that I think is useful.
佛教中有一个概念我认为很有用。
It doesn't translate well to English, or it can set up kind of false associations in English that are unfortunate.
它不能很好地翻译成英语，或者它可能会在英语中建立某种错误的联想，这是不幸的。
But there's a concept of emptiness in Buddhism, which sounds, again, kind of gray and dispiriting in English.
但佛教中有一个空性的概念，这在英语中听起来又有点灰色和令人沮丧。
But its cognate terms are things like unconditioned, unconstrained, open, centerless, right?
But its cognate terms are things like unconditioned, unconstrained, open, centerless, right?
So when I'm talking about non-duality, when I'm talking about the loss of a sense of subject and then what's left, in Buddhism, they would often describe what's left as emptiness.
因此，当我谈论不二性时，当我谈论主体感的丧失以及剩下的东西时，在佛教中，他们经常将剩下的东西描述为空性。
But emptiness is not a something.
但空性并不是什么东西。
Importantly, it's not the same thing as unity, right?
Importantly, it's not the same thing as unity, right?
So it's not a oneness, right?
所以这不是单一性，对吗？
Because when the center drops out of experience, it's not like you are suddenly merged with the cup, right?
Because when the center drops out of experience, it's not like you are suddenly merged with the cup, right?
But now granted, and this is where psilocybin and other psychedelics can give a false impression of, I think, what the goal is.
但现在理所当然，这就是裸盖菇素和其他迷幻药可以给人留下错误印象的地方，我认为，目标是什么。
You can have seeming merging experience.
您可以获得看似合并的体验。
You can have unity experiences on psychedelics, which can be quite powerful, especially with other people and with nature, where you can just feel like the energy of your body becomes incredibly vivid and powerful.
你可以在迷幻药上获得团结体验，这种体验非常强大，尤其是与其他人和大自然一起时，你可以感觉到你身体的能量变得异常生动和强大。
It's just like everything is just buzzing with life energy.
It's just like everything is just buzzing with life energy.
And then when you touch another person's hand or you touch a tree, there can be this sort of continuity of energy, which can be this overwhelming experience of, and again, this is just a 20-megaton change in the contents of consciousness, right?
然后，当你触摸另一个人的手或触摸一棵树时，可能会有这种能量的连续性，这可能是一种压倒性的体验，再说一次，这只是意识内容的 20 兆吨变化，对吗？
This is a non-ordinary state of consciousness, but this gives some indication of how this happens.
This is a non-ordinary state of consciousness, but this gives some indication of how this happens.
Back in the day when I was in my 20s and I was experimenting with, this was LSD, but some friends and I decided, we had this brilliant idea, we would camp above Muir Woods and then take some LSD at dawn and then walk down like a mile, I think, from the campsite into the actual proper grove of trees and commune with the giant redwoods, the tallest trees on Earth.
早在我 20 多岁的时候，我就在尝试，这是 LSD，但我和一些朋友决定，我们有一个绝妙的主意，我们会在缪尔森林上方露营，然后在黎明时服用一些 LSD，然后步行一英里，我想，从露营地到真正的树林，与巨大的红杉、地球上最高的树交流。
And so we drop the acid at dawn and we start walking, but the acid came on almost immediately.
And so we drop the acid at dawn and we start walking, but the acid came on almost immediately.
And we got nowhere near the woods, and we got stopped by a tree that was just an ordinary 20-foot oak tree, like the most boring tree in the world.
我们还没有靠近树林，就被一棵树拦住了，那棵树只是一棵普通的 20 英尺高的橡树，就像世界上最无聊的树一样。
And that tree absorbed the next six hours of our-
And that tree absorbed the next six hours of our-
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Amazing
太棒了
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
...
...
conscious attention because it was the tree of life.
conscious attention because it was the tree of life.
I mean, there could be no better tree.
我的意思是，没有比这更好的树了。
So we're talking about non-ordinary states of consciousness wherein a merging with life and with the world is possible.
So we're talking about non-ordinary states of consciousness wherein a merging with life and with the world is possible.
And so I'm not saying that kind of experience isn't possible, but there's a sort of expanded self-reification.
所以我并不是说这种体验是不可能的，而是存在一种扩展的自我具体化。
It is a kind of ego dissolution, but there's a kind of egoity that sort of goes along for the ride as well, or can go along for the ride.
It is a kind of ego dissolution, but there's a kind of egoity that sort of goes along for the ride as well, or can go along for the ride.
And the real insight into emptiness, the real sort of centerless, center of the bullseye, is a recognition that in some ways equalizes all experiences.
对空性的真正洞察，真正的无中心、靶心中心，是一种在某种程度上平等所有体验的认识。
I mean, again, it's just as available now in this ordinary podcasting experience as it is when you're merging hands-on with an oak tree and on 400 micrograms of acid, and this is the whole universe.
我的意思是，现在在普通的播客体验中，就像你亲自接触一棵橡树和 400 微克酸一样，这就是整个宇宙。
And so it's the equality of those two experiences that this concept of emptiness captures, which a concept of oneness doesn't quite capture.
And so it's the equality of those two experiences that this concept of emptiness captures, which a concept of oneness doesn't quite capture.
Because oneness is really this peak experience of being dragged out of your somethingness into a much bigger somethingness, right?
Because oneness is really this peak experience of being dragged out of your somethingness into a much bigger somethingness, right?
Emptiness is just no center, right?
空性只是没有中心，对吗？
And then everything is in its own place, right?
然后一切都各就各位了，对吧？
There's still sights and sounds and sensations and thoughts and feelings, but there's no center and there's no clinging to anything.
仍然有景象、声音、感觉、思想和感受，但没有中心，也没有对任何事物的执着。
There's no clinging to identity.
没有身份执着。
There's no clinging to the good stuff.
没有人会执着于美好的事物。
There's no resistance to the bad stuff.
对坏事没有抵抗力。
So pleasant and unpleasant get sort of strangely equalized, and it's very expansive.
如此令人愉快和不愉快的事情奇怪地被平等化了，而且范围非常广泛。
And most importantly, it doesn't block anything.
最重要的是，它不会阻止任何东西。
So yeah, if for whatever reason, if your nervous system is set up to have the, "Oh my God, I'm now merging with the tree experience," that's possible from the state of no center, right?
所以，是的，如果出于某种原因，如果你的神经系统被设置为“哦，天哪，我现在正在与树的经验融合”，那么从没有中心的状态来看，这是可能的，对吗？
And on my recent, now not so recent, three years ago, it was right before COVID, but my last big psychedelic experience, I was very much experiencing that whereas insofar as I, at the peak, there was no me to remember any of this stuff.
在我最近的，现在不是最近的，三年前，就在新冠病毒之前，但我最后一次巨大的迷幻经历，我非常经历，而就我而言，在巅峰时期，没有我记得任何这些东西。
But insofar as I could experiment with, is this really different from anything else?
但就我可以尝试的范围而言，这真的与其他东西不同吗？
There is a kind of equalizing to the emptiness recognition, even in the presence of a completely transformed neurophysiology.
There is a kind of equalizing to the emptiness recognition, even in the presence of a completely transformed neurophysiology.
And so again, there's a point of contact.
再说一次，有一个接触点。
I mean, the real point of contact between psychedelics and meditation for me is, but for my experiences on psychedelics, I think there's just no way I would've had the free attention to be interested in the project at all.
我的意思是，对我来说，迷幻剂和冥想之间的真正联系点是，但就我在迷幻剂方面的经验而言，我认为我根本不可能有自由的注意力对这个项目感兴趣。
And there are other aspects to the project.
该项目还有其他方面。
It's not just having this insight into selflessness.
这不仅仅是对无私的洞察。
It's all of the ethical ramifications of that.
这就是所有的道德后果。
It's just like, what kind of person do you want to be?
就像，你想成为什么样的人？
What are your values?
你的价值观是什么？
What is a good life altogether when you are talking about relationships and political engagement and the changes you can make in the world or not make?
当你谈论人际关系、政治参与以及你可以或不可以对世界做出的改变时，美好的生活到底是什么？
Or it's just, what kind of person do you want to be?
或者只是，你想成为什么样的人？
There's a much larger consideration, and I mean, as you discovered, an experience on MDMA can really both expand your model of what is possible and what is desirable, what is normative.
有一个更大的考虑因素，我的意思是，正如您所发现的，MDMA 的体验确实可以扩展您关于什么是可能的、什么是可取的、什么是规范的模型。
I mean, just what kind of self do you want to be in the world?
我的意思是，你到底想在这个世界上成为什么样的自己？
And it can also help you cut through things that are inhibiting you, you're actualizing any of those possibilities in ordinary waking consciousness.
它还可以帮助你消除那些阻碍你的事物，你可以在普通的清醒意识中实现这些可能性。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I've certainly found that to be the case.
我确实发现情况确实如此。
I mean, you raise a really important point, which is that once these learnings take place, these understandings take place inside of psychedelic journeys, and I do believe they translate to neuroplasticity.
我的意思是，你提出了一个非常重要的观点，那就是一旦这些学习发生，这些理解就会发生在迷幻之旅中，我确实相信它们会转化为神经可塑性。
I do want to-
我确实想要-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
highlight the point for people.
为人们突出重点。
Oftentimes people say, "Oh, this mushroom or this psychedelic, it opens plasticity." But of course, plasticity has to be directed someplace.
Oftentimes people say, "Oh, this mushroom or this psychedelic, it opens plasticity."但当然，可塑性必须指向某个地方。
Plasticity is just a process, like walking or anything else, underlying neural process.
可塑性只是一个过程，就像行走或其他任何东西一样，是潜在的神经过程。
And I think it's impossible for me to understand what compartments of my life have been impacted by these three MDMA sessions.
我认为我不可能了解我生活的哪些部分受到了这三个摇头丸的影响。
But in some ways, I wonder whether or not, not just the transition away from animal research, but also a deeper realization of the love for learning and sharing information.
但在某些方面，我想知道这是否不仅仅是从动物研究的转变，而且是对学习和分享信息的热爱的更深层次的认识。
I won't go so far as to say this podcast is happening because of that particular session, but these things, they splay out into multiple domains of the self.
我不会说这个播客是因为那个特定的会议而发生的，但这些事情，它们扩展到自我的多个领域。
And I do think that the key features that feel most important to me to mention are that it really identified true loves, things that I truly love-
我确实认为对我来说最重要的关键特征是它真正确定了真爱，我真正喜欢的东西 -
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and made me less cautious about feeling how intense those loves really are.
让我不再那么谨慎地感受那些爱的真正强度。
And then also lowered the inhibition point of exploring, well, what would that mean, right?
然后还降低了探索的抑制点，那么，这意味着什么呢？
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And one of the reasons I bring this up and why I think it's so important that you mention some ...
我提出这个问题的原因之一以及为什么我认为你提到一些内容是如此重要......
issues around politics and ethics and many things have splayed out from your exploration with psychedelics, meditation, neuroscience, philosophy, all the things that are you and of course, that's only a subset, is that so much of what I hear and see in the kind of self-help space contradicts itself and leads back to the origin without a lot of progress.
围绕政治和伦理的问题以及许多事情都从你对迷幻药、冥想、神经科学、哲学的探索中展开，所有这些都是你的事情，当然，这只是一个子集，我在自助空间中听到和看到的很多东西都是自相矛盾的，并在没有太多进展的情况下回到了原点。
And for instance, we hear, "Absence makes the heart grow fonder," but then out of sight, out of mind.
例如，我们听到“缺席使心变得更亲近”，但随后就消失在视线之外，消失在脑海中。
You hear about radical acceptance, but then what if it's radical acceptance of non-acceptance, right?
You hear about radical acceptance, but then what if it's radical acceptance of non-acceptance, right?
There are some experiences and people for which I radically accept the fact that I want nothing to do with them.
对于某些经历和人，我从根本上接受这样一个事实：我不想与他们有任何关系。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Am I supposed to transcend that?
我应该超越这个吗？
So these are the questions I think that keep a lot of people from exploring things like meditation, because they feel like, well, is the idea to just be okay with everything?
所以我认为这些问题阻止了很多人探索冥想之类的事情，因为他们觉得，嗯，就是接受一切的想法吗？
Is radical acceptance just like-
彻底的接受就像——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
well, just bulldoze me with things even if they-- And my goal is to somehow surpass the idea that they're harmful.
好吧，就用东西推倒我吧，即使它们——而我的目标是以某种方式超越它们是有害的想法。
And I don't think that's actually the way any of this stuff is supposed to work, although I don't claim to be the authority on it either.
我不认为这实际上是任何这些东西应该工作的方式，尽管我也没有声称自己是这方面的权威。
I think notions of radical acceptance and radical honesty and any number of different sayings that one can find out there are really the most salient beacons and guides that most people have in order to try and navigate tough areas in their life, including the relationship to self, but others, and political orientations.
我认为彻底接受和彻底诚实的概念以及人们可以发现的许多不同的说法确实是大多数人所拥有的最显着的灯塔和指南，以便尝试和驾驭生活中的困难领域，包括与自我、他人的关系以及政治倾向。
And so I feel like almost all those things can be used to anchor down in a stance that may or may not be informed or to open up to ideas.
所以我觉得几乎所有这些东西都可以用来固定一种可能被告知或不被告知的立场，或者开放的想法。
And so I think that none of this can really be solved in a single practice, it sounds like.
所以我认为这一切都不能通过一次实践真正解决，听起来像是这样。
But it does seem to me based on what you've told us today, is that only through a deep understanding of the self as it really is, as opposed to this illusion that you framed up, could we actually arrive at some answers about what's actually right for each and every one of us.
但根据你今天告诉我们的内容，在我看来，只有通过深入了解自我的本来面目，而不是你编造的这种幻想，我们才能真正找到一些答案，了解什么才是真正适合我们每个人的。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
There's one generic answer that I think can be extracted both from psychedelics and from meditation, and just from just thinking more clearly about the nature of our lives.
我认为有一个通用的答案可以从迷幻药和冥想中提取出来，并且可以通过更清楚地思考我们生活的本质来提取。
And it's to become more process-oriented and to be more and more sensitive to the mirage-like character of achieving our goals.
我们要变得更加注重过程，并对实现目标的海市蜃楼般的特征变得越来越敏感。
Now, I'm not against achieving goals.
现在，我并不反对实现目标。
I have a lot of goals.
我有很多目标。
I'm very busy.
我很忙。
There are lots of things I want to get done, and I'm as satisfied as anyone to finish a project.
There are lots of things I want to get done, and I'm as satisfied as anyone to finish a project.
But if you look at the time course of all of that fulfillment and there are few lessons everyone, I think, has to draw.
但如果你看看所有这些成就的时间进程，我认为每个人都没有什么值得吸取的教训。
One is most of your life is spent in the process, right?
One is most of your life is spent in the process, right?
The moment at which the goal is fully conquered, that is a tiny duration, and it has a very short half-life.
完全攻克目标的那一刻，那是一个很小的持续时间，而且它的半衰期很短。
And the moment you arrive at it, it begins to recede because in the meantime, you have all these other goals that have appeared on the horizon.
当你达到它的那一刻，它就开始消退，因为与此同时，你还有所有其他已经出现的目标。
You've got people asking what you're going to do next.
有人问你下一步打算做什么。
And in some sense, if you're focused on goals, you can never arrive, right?
从某种意义上说，如果你专注于目标，你永远无法实现，对吗？
And I think what we're all looking for in life, whether we're ever thinking about taking psychedelics or practicing something like meditation, we're looking for good enough reasons to let our attention fully rest in the present.
我认为我们在生活中都在寻找什么，无论我们是否考虑服用迷幻药或练习冥想之类的东西，我们都在寻找足够好的理由让我们的注意力完全停留在当下。
Right?
正确的？
Now, that is the logic of success.
Now, that is the logic of success.
The sense like I've got all these things I want to do.
感觉就像我已经拥有了所有我想做的事情。
If I could just get rich enough or fit enough or dial in my sleep well enough or improve my life in all these ways, get the right relationship, wouldn't it be great to be married?
如果我能够变得足够富有，或者足够健康，或者让我的睡眠足够好，或者通过所有这些方式改善我的生活，获得正确的关系，结婚不是很好吗？
I want to start a family.
I want to start a family.
I want all of these things.
我想要所有这些东西。
Why do I want these things?
我为什么想要这些东西？
Right?
正确的？
I want these things because I'm telling myself-- It's not that all of those things are wonderful, right?
I want these things because I'm telling myself-- It's not that all of those things are wonderful, right?
So I'm not discounting those relative forms of happiness or sources of happiness because it's all completely valid to want those things.
因此，我并不是贬低那些相对形式的幸福或幸福的来源，因为想要这些东西是完全合理的。
But one thing is absolutely clear, it's possible to be miserable in the presence of all of those things, right?
但有一点是绝对清楚的，面对所有这些事情，我们可能会感到痛苦，对吗？
And you can add great wealth and fame and everything on top of that, and it's possible to be absolutely miserable having everything anyone could seemingly want.
你可以增加巨大的财富和名誉以及除此之外的一切，拥有任何人看似想要的一切可能会绝对痛苦。
You just have to open a newspaper to see people living out that predicament.
你只要打开一份报纸，就能看到人们如何摆脱这种困境。
Right?
正确的？
Spectacularly wealthy, famous, healthy, successful people who could do anything they want in life, apparently, and yet they're doing this thing that is completely dysfunctional and making them needlessly miserable.
显然，那些非常富有、著名、健康、成功的人可以在生活中做任何他们想做的事情，但他们所做的事情完全不正常，让他们不必要地痛苦。
I won't name names.
我不会指名道姓。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
There are enough of them out there.
那里有足够多的人。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Some people come to mind at the moment.
Some people come to mind at the moment.
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
So there is a clear dissociation between having everything and happiness that's possible.
因此，拥有一切和可能的幸福之间存在着明显的分离。
And it's also possible to have very little and almost nothing and to be quite happy.
And it's also possible to have very little and almost nothing and to be quite happy.
You might not have met these people, but I have met people who have spent 10 years alone in a cave.
You might not have met these people, but I have met people who have spent 10 years alone in a cave.
Right?
正确的？
And they come out of that cave not floridly neurotic or psychotic.
And they come out of that cave not floridly neurotic or psychotic.
They come out of that cave beaming with compassion and joy, and it's like they've been taking MDMA for 10 years, essentially, and they come out of the cave and now they're going to talk about it.
他们从洞穴里走出来，脸上洋溢着同情心和喜悦，就好像他们已经服用摇头丸十年了，基本上，他们从洞穴里走出来，现在他们要谈论它了。
Right?
正确的？
And I'm not necessarily recommending that project to anyone.
And I'm not necessarily recommending that project to anyone.
I'm just saying that is a psychological possibility.
I'm just saying that is a psychological possibility.
So you have a double dissociation here, whether you can have everything and be miserable, you can have nothing and be beaming with happiness.
所以你在这里有双重分离，你可以拥有一切却痛苦不堪，你也可以一无所有却幸福快乐。
So what is it that we actually want in all of our seeking to arrange the props in our lives and the story, to have a convincing enough story to tell about ourselves that we're doing the right thing?
那么，在我们努力安排生活和故事中的道具时，我们真正想要的是什么，想要有一个足够令人信服的故事来告诉我们自己，我们正在做正确的事情呢？
What is all of that effort predicated on?
所有这些努力的基础是什么？
It's predicated on this desire and this expectation that if we could get all of this stuff in the right place and not have anything terrifying to worry about.
它基于这种愿望和期望，即如果我们能够将所有这些东西放在正确的位置，并且没有任何可怕的事情需要担心。
Everyone we love is healthy for the moment.
Everyone we love is healthy for the moment.
And we're healthy.
我们很健康。
And we've got something to look forward to on the weekend.
And we've got something to look forward to on the weekend.
And there's not a plumbing leak in the house that we have to immediately respond to.
And there's not a plumbing leak in the house that we have to immediately respond to.
And we like our house.
我们喜欢我们的房子。
And our career is going fine.
And our career is going fine.
And there's something good to watch on Netflix.
And there's something good to watch on Netflix.
And we have all of it.
我们拥有这一切。
Now can we just actually give up the war?
Now can we just actually give up the war?
Can we fully locate our sense of well-being in the present moment?
Can we fully locate our sense of well-being in the present moment?
Can we relax the impulse to brood about the past or think anxiously about the future for long enough to discover that all of this here is enough?
我们能否放松沉思过去或焦虑地思考未来的冲动足够长的时间，以发现这里的一切就足够了？
Because our life is we have this finite resource of, we absolutely have the finite resource of time, but within the finite resource, the continuum of time, we have the even more precious resource of free attention that can find our fulfillment in the present.
因为我们的生活是我们拥有这种有限的资源，我们绝对拥有有限的时间资源，但在有限的资源、时间的连续体中，我们拥有更宝贵的自由注意力资源，可以在当下找到我们的满足。
Because even if we're guarding our time to do the things that are most important to us, we can spend all of that time regretting the past or anxiously expecting the future and just bouncing between past and future in our thinking about ourselves and our lives, and basically just dancing over the present and never making contact with it.
因为即使我们珍惜时间去做对我们来说最重要的事情，我们也可以把所有的时间都花在后悔过去或焦急地期待未来上，在思考我们自己和我们的生活时，只是在过去和未来之间跳来跳去，基本上只是在当下跳舞，从不接触它。
So I think what we want is a circumstance where attention can be located in the present in a way that's truly fulfilling.
So I think what we want is a circumstance where attention can be located in the present in a way that's truly fulfilling.
And unless you have had some kind of radical insight that allows you to do that on demand, you are, in some sense, hostage to the circumstances of your life to do that for you.
除非你有某种激进的洞察力，可以让你根据需要做到这一点，否则从某种意义上说，你会受制于你的生活环境来为你做到这一点。
You're constantly trying to engineer a state of the world that will propagate back on a state of self that will make the present moment good enough.
你不断地尝试设计一种世界状态，这种状态将传播回自我状态，使当下的时刻足够好。
And what meditation does, and psychedelics to some degree does this, but meditation very directly does this, it reverses the causality and lets you actually change states such that you can be fulfilled before anything happens.
冥想的作用，致幻剂在某种程度上可以做到这一点，但冥想非常直接地做到这一点，它颠倒了因果关系，让你真正改变状态，这样你就可以在任何事情发生之前得到满足。
Your happiness is no longer predicated on the next good thing happening.
你的幸福不再取决于下一件好事的发生。
You can be in the presence of the next good or bad thing already being fulfilled and already being at peace.
你可以面对下一件好事或坏事已经实现并且已经处于平静之中。
I think there are misleading nouns we can throw at what is left there, but it is tranquility, peace, freedom, lack of contraction, lack of conflict.
我认为我们可以用一些误导性的名词来形容剩下的东西，但它是安宁、和平、自由、缺乏收缩、缺乏冲突。
All of that can be more and more of a default.
所有这些都可能越来越成为一种默认。
And all of that is also compatible with deciding, yeah, why not get in shape?
所有这些也都与决定兼容，是的，为什么不保持身材呢？
Why not engage this project?
为什么不参与这个项目呢？
Why not change your career?
为什么不改变你的职业呢？
It's not that you need to be somebody who, to your point, you can notice all of these non-optimal things, because no matter how much you meditate, you're very likely going to spend a lot of your time still lost in thought, still identified with it, and still wanting, still caring about the difference between dysfunction and normativity in your life.
这并不是说你需要成为一个能够注意到所有这些非最佳事物的人，因为无论你冥想多少，你很可能会花很多时间陷入沉思，仍然认同它，仍然想要，仍然关心你生活中功能失调和正常之间的区别。
And the question is, how much can you puncture that seeking happiness project with the recognition that you're already free?
问题是，当你认识到自己已经自由时，你能在多大程度上刺穿寻求幸福的计划？
That's what meditation makes possible.
这就是冥想使之成为可能的原因。
You can keep just 1,000 times a day letting some daylight into this search space.
你每天只能保持 1,000 次，让一些阳光进入这个搜索空间。
But it is still compatible.
但它仍然兼容。
Working out is a great frame in which to look at this because in working out, when you really work out, I'm thinking mostly of, it's really anything, but it's resistance training or cardio or something like jujitsu.
锻炼是一个很好的框架来看待这个问题，因为在锻炼中，当你真正锻炼时，我主要想的是，它实际上是任何东西，但它是阻力训练或有氧运动或柔术之类的东西。
You're intentionally putting yourself in classically unpleasant circumstances physiologically.
你故意将自己置于生理上典型的不愉快环境中。
So if you imagine what it's like to do anything to failure.
所以如果你想象一下做任何事都失败是什么感觉。
Well, if you just check in on what that is like at the level of sensation, it feels like a medical emergency.
好吧，如果你只是在感觉层面上检查一下，那感觉就像是医疗紧急情况。
If you were having that experience for some other reason, like if you woke up in the middle of the night and felt what it feels like to be deadlifting on your 10th rep on a set where you would fail at 11.
如果你因为其他原因有过这样的经历，比如你在半夜醒来，感受到在一组中进行第 10 次硬拉时的感觉，而你在第 11 次时就会失败。
That's an emergency.
那是紧急情况。
But because you understand what you're doing in the gym and you've sought it out and it's actually something you like doing.
但因为你了解自己在健身房里做什么，并且你已经找到了它，而这实际上是你喜欢做的事情。
And you can get a real dopamine hit from doing it.
这样做你可以得到真正的多巴胺刺激。
What you're doing when you're doing that is you're owning a kind of a, you're actually transforming a classically negative experience into something that's almost intrinsically positive, right?
当你这样做的时候，你正在做的就是你拥有一种，你实际上正在将一种典型的消极经历转变为几乎本质上积极的经历，对吧？
Certainly, the net on it is positive.
当然，它的网络是积极的。
You can do that, and being able to do that is more and more the experience of being actually at peace, even while exerting really intense effort in one direction.
你可以做到这一点，而且能够做到这一点越来越成为一种真正平静的体验，即使是在一个方向上付出了真正的努力。
So you can be straining, and I'm sure physiologically showing a lot of stress.
所以你可能会很紧张，我确信生理上会表现出很大的压力。
I'm sure that cortisol is up and blood pressure's up, heart rate is certainly up.
我确信皮质醇升高，血压升高，心率肯定升高。
So as far as the body's concerned, stress as far as the eye can see, but you really can be deeply equanimous and at peace, again, because of the frame around it, because of the concepts attached to it.
因此，就身体而言，眼睛所见的压力，但你确实可以深深地平静和平静，再次，因为它周围的框架，因为附加到它的概念。
Because you know what you're doing, you know why it's happening, and you want it.
因为你知道自己在做什么，知道为什么会发生，并且你想要它。
So that's an attitude you can bring into other stressful things that take effort to accomplish.
因此，你可以将这种态度带入其他需要努力才能完成的有压力的事情中。
And so it's not that you just need to be a pushover when you learn how to meditate or when you take MDMA or you work on yourself in any of these ways.
所以，当你学习如何冥想、服用摇头丸或以任何这些方式锻炼自己时，你并不需要成为一个容易屈服的人。
But what I think you want to find is you want to find your point of rest in the midst of any struggle.
但我认为你想要找到的是你想要在任何挣扎中找到你的休息点。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
I would say that certainly MDMA, and again, I have less experience with meditation, but they really, I think, put us ultimately in positions of what can only refer to as real strength.
我想说的是，当然是摇头丸，再说一遍，我在冥想方面的经验较少，但我认为它们确实让我们最终处于只能称为真正力量的位置。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
These can make what before seemed like impossible decisions or even concepts or emotional states to even think about for any period of time without deliberately distracting or avoiding in some other way, and be able to lean into those with open eyes.
这些可以做出以前看似不可能的决定，甚至可以在任何时间段内思考的概念或情绪状态，而无需刻意分散注意力或以其他方式回避，并且能够向那些睁开眼睛的人倾斜。
And I think to me, that's my definition of strength.
我认为对我来说，这就是我对力量的定义。
I don't know what other people consider, but-
我不知道其他人怎么想，但是——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
there's definitely something real there in each case.
每种情况下肯定都有真实的东西。
This may seem like a divergence, but I and many other people are very curious about a recent decision that you made, which was to close your account on Twitter.
这看起来似乎是一个分歧，但我和许多其他人对你最近做出的一个决定非常好奇，那就是关闭你的 Twitter 帐户。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
You still have an Instagram account, I noticed.
我注意到你还有 Instagram 帐户。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Although my team manages that.
尽管我的团队能够做到这一点。
I've never-
我从来没有-
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's a lot friendlier over at Instagram.
Instagram 上的情况要友好得多。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I've been there a lot longer.
我在那里待了很长时间。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
But I've never even seen it, so yeah.
但我从来没有见过它，所以是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Oh, it's pretty good, actually.
哦，其实还不错。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Imagine what would happen if you did-
想象一下如果你这样做会发生什么——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
deep hate it.
深深的厌恶它。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
They're doing a good job with it.
他们在这方面做得很好。
But your decision to close your account on Twitter, I think grabbed a lot of eyes and ears and-
但我认为你关闭 Twitter 帐户的决定吸引了很多人的目光和耳朵，而且——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
there's a lot of questions about why.
关于原因还有很多疑问。
It was a very large account.
这是一个非常大的帐户。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It correlated with a number of things that, for the outsider, people might be wondering about new leadership, people who had been booted off, brought back on, or at least invited back on-
它与许多事情相关，对于局外人来说，人们可能想知道新的领导层，那些被解雇、重新上任或至少被邀请重新上任的人——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right
右
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and so on.
等等。
You are certainly not obligated to explain your behavior to me, or anybody else for that matter, but I'm curious if you might share with us what the motivation was for taking the account down and how you feel in the absence of it.
您当然没有义务向我或其他任何人解释您的行为，但我很好奇您是否可以与我们分享删除该帐户的动机以及您在没有帐户的情况下的感受。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Your thumb's presumably are freed up to do other things.
您的拇指可能可以腾出来做其他事情。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
I was getting an arthritic right thumb, I think.
我想我的右手拇指得了关节炎。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Sure.
当然。
Yeah
是啊
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
And I think it-
我认为——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
If you don't mind sharing, I think there's a lot of curiosity about you and your routines.
如果您不介意分享，我认为人们对您和您的日常生活充满好奇。
You've been very generous in sharing that, your knowledge.
您非常慷慨地分享您的知识。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But also what makes you tick, what motivates pretty big decisions like that.
但也是什么让你做出这样的决定，是什么促使你做出如此重大的决定。
It was a major platform for you.
这对你来说是一个主要平台。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So-
所以——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
It was the only social media platform I've ever engaged.
这是我参与过的唯一社交媒体平台。
Like you said, I have an Instagram, I have a Facebook account, but I never use those as platforms.
就像你说的，我有一个 Instagram，我有一个 Facebook 帐户，但我从不将它们用作平台。
Right?
正确的？
I'm never on them, I never follow people, and all the posting, it's just marketing from my team.
我从来不关注他们，我从不关注别人，所有的帖子都只是我团队的营销。
But Twitter was me, for better or worse, and I began to feel more and more for worse.
但 Twitter 就是我，无论好坏，我开始感觉越来越糟糕。
And it was interesting because I've talked about it a lot on my podcast, about just my love-hate relationship with Twitter over the years.
这很有趣，因为我在我的播客上谈了很多，关于这些年来我对 Twitter 又爱又恨的关系。
Many good things came to me from Twitter, and I was following a lot of smart people, and it had become my news feed and my first point of contact with information each day, and I was really attached to it just for that reason, just as a consumer of content.
Twitter给我带来了很多好东西，我关注了很多聪明人，它已经成为我的新闻源和我每天接触信息的第一个点，我真的因为这个原因而对它产生了依恋，就像内容的消费者一样。
And then it was also a place where I genuinely wanted to communicate with people and react to things.
这也是我真诚地想要与人交流并对事物做出反应的地方。
And I would see some article that I thought was great, and I would signal boost it to the people following me on Twitter, and that was rewarding.
我会看到一些我认为很棒的文章，然后我会向 Twitter 上关注我的人发出信号，这是值得的。
And I could literally help people on Twitter.
我确实可以在 Twitter 上帮助人们。
There are people who I've raised lots of money for on Twitter just by signal boosting their GoFundMe's.
我仅通过在 Twitter 上宣传 GoFundMe 的信号就为一些人筹集了很多资金。
And so I was engaged in a way that seemed productive.
所以我以一种看起来富有成效的方式参与其中。
But I was always worried that it was producing needless conflict for me and was giving me a signal in my life that I was being lured into responding to and taking seriously that was out of proportion to its representation of any opinion or set of opinions that I should be taking seriously.
但我总是担心它会给我带来不必要的冲突，并在我的生活中向我发出一个信号，即我被引诱去回应和认真对待，这与它所代表的任何我应该认真对待的观点或一组观点不成比例。
So I was noticing that, and again, this evolved over years, this long predated recent changes to Twitter.
所以我再次注意到，这种情况已经发生了很多年，而且早在 Twitter 最近发生的变化之前就已经发生了。
But I was noticing that many of the worst things that had happened for me professionally were first born on Twitter.
但我注意到，我职业生涯中发生的许多最糟糕的事情都是首先在 Twitter 上发生的。
Just like some conflict I got into with somebody or something that I felt like I needed to podcast about in response to on Twitter- It's just so much of it.
就像我与某人或某事发生的一些冲突一样，我觉得我需要在 Twitter 上发布播客来回应 - 就这么多。
It's either its genesis was Twitter, or it's the further spin of it that became truly unpleasant and dysfunctional happened on Twitter.
要么是它的起源是 Twitter，要么是它的进一步演变导致 Twitter 上发生了真正令人不愉快和功能失调的情况。
It was just Twitter was part of the story when it got really bad.
当事情变得非常糟糕时，只是 Twitter 成为了故事的一部分。
And I've had vacations that have gone sideways just because I got on Twitter and said something, and then it produced a controversy that I had to respond to, and then I had to do a podcast about that.
我的假期也有过，只是因为我在推特上说了些什么，然后引发了一场争议，我必须对此做出回应，然后我不得不就此做一个播客。
And it was just, "Okay, this is a mess." And so at that point, I have friends who also had big Twitter platforms who would say, "Why are you responding to anything on Twitter?
只是，“好吧，这真是一团糟。”因此，在这一点上，我的一些朋友也拥有大型 Twitter 平台，他们会说：“你为什么要在 Twitter 上回复任何内容？
Just tweet and ghost." Joe Rogan- Yeah.
只是发推文和鬼魂。”乔·罗根 - 是的。
Ghost ...
鬼...
sat me down and- Ghost and ghost ...
让我坐下来——幽灵和幽灵……
tried to give me a talking to, as did Bill Maher.
试图与我交谈，比尔·马赫也是如此。
And both of them engage Twitter in that way.
他们俩都以这种方式参与 Twitter。
I think they basically never look at their @mentions.
我认为他们基本上从不看他们的@提及。
They never see what's coming back at them.
他们永远看不到会发生什么。
They use it effectively the way I use or don't even use Instagram or Facebook.
他们像我使用 Instagram 或 Facebook 一样有效地使用它。
I don't even see what's going out there in my name.
我什至不知道我的名字里发生了什么。
And so I could essentially do that for myself on Twitter, presumably.
所以我大概可以在 Twitter 上为自己做这件事。
And I did that for some periods of time, but then I would continually decide, "Okay, now it's all balanced again.
我这样做了一段时间，但后来我会不断地决定，“好吧，现在一切又恢复平衡了。
Maybe I can just communicate here." Because it was very tempting for me to communicate with people, because I would see somebody clearly misunderstanding something I had said on my podcast, and I think, "Why not clarify this misunderstanding?" And my efforts to do that almost invariably produced a...
也许我可以在这里交流。”因为与人交流对我来说非常有吸引力，因为我会看到有人明显误解了我在播客上所说的内容，我想，“为什么不澄清这个误解呢？”我所做的努力几乎总是产生......
Sometimes it was a kind of a meandering process of discovery, but often it was just kind of a stark confrontation with what appeared to me to be just lunacy and malevolence on a scale that I never encounter elsewhere in my life.
有时这是一种曲折的发现过程，但通常这只是一种与我看来的疯狂和恶意的严峻对抗，其规模是我一生中从未遇到过的。
I never meet these people in life.
我一生中从未遇到过这些人。
And yet, I was meeting these people by the tens of thousands on Twitter.
然而，我在 Twitter 上结识了数以万计的人。
And so the thing that began to worry me about it, and again, I understand that people have the opposite experience on Twitter.
所以这件事开始让我担心，我再次了解到人们在 Twitter 上有相反的经历。
Depending on what you're putting out and the kinds of topics you're touching, you could have just nothing but love coming back at you on Twitter.
根据你发布的内容和你所涉及的主题类型，你可能只会在 Twitter 上得到喜欢的回复。
But because I'm very essentially in the center politically, and because this is now on my podcast, this is not in the Waking Up app, I'm often criticizing the far left and criticizing the far right.
但因为我在政治上基本上处于中间位置，而且因为这现在在我的播客上，所以这不在“醒来”应用程序中，所以我经常批评极左派和极右派。
I'm basically pissing off everyone some of the time.
有时我基本上惹恼了每个人。
And it's very different.
这是非常不同的。
If you're only criticizing the left, no doubt you get hate from the left, but you have all the people on the right who just reflexively and tribally are expressing their solidarity for you.
如果你只是批评左派，毫无疑问你会受到左派的仇恨，但所有右派人士都会本能地、部落式地表达对你的声援。
And who are dunking on your enemies for you and when your enemies come out of the woodwork.
当你的敌人突然出现时，谁会为你扣篮。
And if you're only criticizing the right, you get a lot of pain from the right, but you've got the people on the left who are tribally identified with the left who are just going to reflexively defend you.
如果你只是批评右派，你会从右派那里得到很多痛苦，但左派的人在部落上认同左派，他们只会本能地为你辩护。
If you're in the center criticizing the left as hard as anyone on the right ever criticizes the left, and you're also criticizing the right as hard as anyone on the left criticizes the right, you're getting hate from both sides all the time, and no one is reflexively and tribally defending you because you pissed them off last time.
如果你站在中间，像右派批评左派一样严厉地批评左派，而且你也像左派批评右派一样严厉地批评右派，那么你就会一直受到双方的仇恨，而且没有人本能地、部落式地为你辩护，因为你上次惹恼了他们。
You might be getting hate from the left now and the people on the right agree with you, but they can't forget the thing you said about Trump on that podcast two podcasts ago.
你现在可能会受到左翼的仇恨，而右翼的人也同意你的观点，但他们不能忘记你在两个播客前在那个播客上所说的关于特朗普的事情。
So they're not going to defend you.
所以他们不会为你辩护。
And so I basically created hell for myself on Twitter because it was just a theater of...
所以我基本上在 Twitter 上为自己创造了地狱，因为它只是一个剧院……
It was just pure cacophony most of the time.
大多数时候这只是纯粹的杂音。
And what I was seeing was, there's no way there's this many psychopaths in the world, but I was seeing psychopaths everywhere.
我看到的是，世界上不可能有这么多精神病患者，但我到处都看到精神病患者。
I was seeing the most malicious dishonesty and just goalpost moving and hypocrisy and...
我看到了最恶意的不诚实和只是球门柱的移动和虚伪......
Some of it's trolling and some of it's real confusion and some of it is psychopathy, but it was so dark that I worried that it was actually giving me a very negative and sticky view of humanity that was, one, I think it isn't inaccurate, but two, it was something I was returning to so much because, again, I was checking Twitter at least a dozen times a day, and I'm sure there were some days where I checked it 100 times a day.
其中有些是恶搞，有些是真正的混乱，有些是精神病，但它是如此黑暗，以至于我担心它实际上给了我一种非常消极和粘性的人性观点，第一，我认为这并非不准确，但第二，这是我经常回顾的事情，因为我每天至少查看 Twitter 十几次，而且我确信有些日子我每天查看 100 次。
Again, it was my main source of information.
这又是我的主要信息来源。
I was constantly reading articles and then putting my own stuff out, that it became this kind of fun house mirror in which I was looking at the most grotesque side of humanity and feeling implicated in it in ways that were important because it was reputationally important or seemed to be important.
我不断地阅读文章，然后把自己的东西拿出来，它变成了一种有趣的镜子，在其中我看到了人性最怪诞的一面，并以重要的方式感受到了其中的牵连，因为它在声誉上很重要，或者看起来很重要。
I know a lot of these people.
我认识很多这样的人。
These weren't just faceless trolls.
这些不仅仅是不露面的巨魔。
These are people with whom I have had relationships, and in some cases, friendships, who because of what largely Trump and COVID did to our political landscape in the last half a dozen years, were beginning to act in ways that seemed starkly dishonest and crazy-making to me.
这些人与我有过关系，在某些情况下是友谊，由于过去六年来特朗普和新冠疫情对我们政治格局的影响，他们开始采取在我看来完全不诚实和疯狂的行为方式。
So I was just noticing that I was forming a view of people who I actually have had dinner with that was way more negative based on their Twitter behavior than I think would ever be justified by any way they would behave in life with me.
所以我只是注意到，我对那些与我共进晚餐的人形成了一种看法，根据他们在推特上的行为，他们的看法比我认为他们在与我一起生活时的任何行为方式都更加消极。
I was never going to have a face-to-face encounter with any of these people that was this malicious and dishonest and gaslighting and weird as what was happening hourly on Twitter.
我永远不会与这些人面对面接触，像 Twitter 上每小时发生的那样恶意、不诚实、煤气灯和奇怪。
And so I just began to become more sensitive to just the residue of all of this in my life and just how often the worst thing about me in my relationship with the people in my life, like just talking to my wife or my kids, was just the fact that I had been on Twitter at some point in the previous hour, and there was some residue of that in my interaction with them.
所以我开始对我生活中所有这些残留物变得更加敏感，在我与生活中的人的关系中，我最糟糕的事情，比如和我的妻子或我的孩子说话，就是我在前一个小时的某个时候在推特上的事实，并且在我与他们的互动中存在一些残留物。
It's like, "What are you stressed out about?
就像，“你有什么压力吗？
What are you annoyed about?
你在生气什么？
What are you pissed off about?
你在生什么气？
What can't you get out of your head?
有什么是你无法摆脱的？
What is the thing that you now feel like you need to spend the next week of your life focused on because it went so sideways for you?" All of that was Twitter.
你现在觉得你需要在接下来的一周里重点关注什么事情，因为它对你来说如此不利？”所有这些都是推特。
Literally 100% of that was Twitter.
毫不夸张地说，其中 100% 都是 Twitter。
And so at one point, it was actually on Thanksgiving Day, I just looked at this and there was very little thought went into it, literally.
所以有一次，实际上是在感恩节，我只是看着这个，几乎没有想到它。
There was more thought involved in whether I wanted coffee when you asked me when I showed up here.
当我出现在这里时你问我是否想要咖啡时，更多地涉及到我是否想要咖啡。
At a certain point, I just saw it and I just ripped the Band-Aid off.
在某个时刻，我看到了它，然后就把创可贴撕掉了。
And to answer your other question, it's been almost wholly positive, as you might expect, given the litany of pain and discomfort I just ran through.
回答你的另一个问题，正如你所料，考虑到我刚刚经历的一连串的痛苦和不适，这几乎是完全积极的。
But it's surprising to recognize how much of a presence it was in my life, given the sense of what is now missing.
但考虑到现在所缺失的东西，我很惊讶地认识到它在我的生活中占有如此重要的地位。
There's no question there's an addictive component to it.
毫无疑问，它有令人上瘾的成分。
And when I look at what Elon's doing on Twitter, forget about his ownership of it.
当我看到埃隆在推特上做什么时，忘记他对推特的所有权。
I've got a lot to say about the choices he's making for the platform, but just his personal use of it is just so obviously an expression of...
关于他为这个平台所做的选择，我有很多话要说，但他个人对这个平台的使用就很明显地表达了……
I don't know if addiction is the clinically appropriate term, but his dysfunctional attachment to using the platform.
我不知道“成瘾”这个词在临床上是否合适，但他对使用该平台的依恋不正常。
Again, forget about changing it and owning it, but just the degree to which it is pointlessly disrupting the life of one of the most productive people in any generation.
再说一遍，忘记改变它和拥有它，而是忘记它在多大程度上毫无意义地扰乱了任何一代人中最有生产力的人之一的生活。
That was also instructive to me, because I know Elon and from a friend's-eye view of the situation, it's so obviously not good for him that he's spending this much time on Twitter.
这对我也很有启发，因为我了解埃隆，从朋友的角度来看，他在 Twitter 上花费这么多时间显然对他不利。
I just brought that back to me as like, "Well, if this is what it's doing to Elon and he's got all these other things he could be doing with his attention, how much of my use of Twitter is actually a good idea and optimized to my well-being and the well-being of the people around me?" So anyway, there was an addictive component to it, I think.
我只是这样回想起来，“好吧，如果这就是埃隆正在做的事情，而且他可以用他的注意力做所有其他事情，那么我对 Twitter 的使用在多大程度上实际上是一个好主意，并且对我和我周围人的福祉进行了优化？”所以无论如何，我认为它有一个令人上瘾的成分。
And so when that got stripped off, I do notice there are times I pick up my phone and I realize this is like the old me picking up my phone for a reason that no longer exists.
因此，当它被剥夺时，我确实注意到，有时我拿起手机，我意识到这就像以前的我因为不再存在的原因而拿起手机一样。
I have a Slack channel with my team and I've got email, obviously, but it's like that is not much of what I was doing with my phone, really, in the end.
我和我的团队有一个 Slack 频道，显然我也有电子邮件，但最终这并不是我用手机做的事情。
And so it's just my phone is much less of a presence in my life.
所以这只是我的手机在我的生活中的存在要少得多。
And so it's almost wholly good.
所以这几乎是完全好的。
But I think there is some danger in, or some possible danger in losing touch with certain aspects of culture.
但我认为与文化的某些方面失去联系存在一些危险，或者一些可能的危险。
Which again, I'm not even sure...
再说一遍，我什至不确定......
There's this question of how much is Twitter real life and how much is it just a mass delusion?
问题是 Twitter 有多少是真实的，有多少只是大众的错觉？
I don't know.
我不知道。
But insofar as it actually matters what happens on Twitter, or insofar as I was actually getting a news diet, which I'm not going to be able to recapitulate for myself, or I'm just not, in fact, going to recapitulate for myself even if I could.
但就 Twitter 上发生的事情实际上很重要，或者就我实际上正在接受新闻饮食而言，我将无法为自己重述，或者事实上，即使我可以，我也不会为自己重述。
If any of that matters, I haven't discovered that yet.
如果其中有任何重要的话，我还没有发现。
But it was taking up an immense amount of bandwidth, and it's impressive.
但它占用了大量的带宽，令人印象深刻。
I think I said, it was like I amputated a phantom limb.
我想我说过，这就像我截掉了一条幻肢。
It was not a real limb, but it was this continuous presence in my life.
它不是真正的肢体，但它是我生命中持续存在的存在。
It's weird.
很奇怪。
It actually relates to the concept of self in surprising ways because I felt there was a part of myself that existed on Twitter, and I just performed a suicide of that self.
它实际上以令人惊讶的方式与自我概念相关，因为我觉得推特上存在着我自己的一部分，而我只是自杀了那个自我。
Like this is ending right now.
好像这件事现在就结束了。
There's no residue.
没有任何残留。
There's nothing to go back and check.
没有什么可以回去检查的。
It's gone.
它消失了。
I didn't go back and look at my...
我没有回去看看我的...
What's interesting to consider is that I'd been on Twitter for 12 years.
有趣的是，我已经使用 Twitter 12 年了。
I don't keep a journal.
我不写日记。
My timeline would've been a kind of journal.
我的时间表就像是一种日记。
I could've gone back to a specific hour and a specific day and looked at what I was paying attention to.
我可以回到特定的时间和特定的日子，看看我在关注什么。
That could've been an interesting record of just who I've been for a decade, and probably a pretty humbling record of who I've been for a decade in terms of the kinds of things that captivated my attention.
这可能是对我这十年来的有趣记录，也可能是对我这十年来吸引我注意力的事情的相当谦卑的记录。
But I didn't even think to go nostalgically just look at any of that or see if any of it was worth saving or archiving or thinking.
但我什至没有想过要怀旧地看看其中的任何一个，或者看看其中是否有任何一个值得保存、存档或思考。
I just delete.
我只是删除。
And it was And so my actual sense of who I am and my engagement with my audience, the world of people who could potentially know me, like what does it mean to have a platform?
所以我对自己的真实感受以及我与观众的互动，以及可能了解我的人们的世界，就像拥有一个平台意味着什么？
Where do I exist digitally?
我以数字方式存在于哪里？
My sense of all of that got truncated in a way that is much less noisy.
我对这一切的感觉都以一种不那么嘈杂的方式被截断了。
It's amazing how much can't get fucked up now in my life.
令人惊讶的是，现在我的生活中有多少事情是不能搞砸的。
It's like with Twitter, almost anything could happen, right?
就像 Twitter 一样，几乎任何事情都可能发生，对吧？
The next tweet was always an opportunity to massively complicate my life.
下一条推文总是一个让我的生活变得更加复杂的机会。
There is no analogous space for me now.
现在我没有类似的空间了。
And so what I'm going to say on your podcast, what I'm going to say on my own podcast, what I'm going to write next, that's much more deliberative and the opportunities to take my foot out of my mouth or to reconsider whether any of this is worth it.
因此，我要在你的播客上说的话，我要在我自己的播客上说的话，我接下来要写的内容，都是经过深思熟虑的，并且有机会不再说话，或者重新考虑这一切是否值得。
Is this the hill I really want to die on now?
这就是我现在真正想死在上面的山吗？
It can be much more considered and I think all of that's to the good.
可以更多地考虑这一点，我认为所有这些都是好的。
But even more important than that is I'm not getting this continuous signal that is always inviting a response, whether on Twitter or on my own podcast or anywhere else.
但比这更重要的是，无论是在 Twitter、我自己的播客还是其他任何地方，我都没有收到这种总是引发回应的持续信号。
And it's just much less noisy.
而且噪音要小得多。
Life is much less noisy and cluttered and that definitely feels better.
生活不再那么喧闹和混乱，这肯定感觉更好。
It's 100% better.
好100%了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'm happy to hear that.
我很高兴听到这个消息。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I know a number of people miss you there, but you sound happy.
我知道那里有很多人想念你，但你听起来很高兴。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I sense the genuine happiness in it.
我感受到其中真正的幸福。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Oh, yeah.
哦，是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Several things come to mind.
我想到了几件事。
First of all, thank you for sharing your rationale there.
首先，感谢您在那里分享您的理由。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Sure.
当然。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And how it went.
进展如何。
I think for a lot of people they think, "Oh, he must have walked around in circles for hours talking about it-"
我想对于很多人来说，他们会想，“哦，他一定绕着圈走了好几个小时谈论这件事——”
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
No
否
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
whether to do this, delete.
是否这样做，删除。
As many good decisions are executed.
许多好的决定都被执行了。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'm a big fan of Cal Newport's work.
我是卡尔·纽波特作品的忠实粉丝。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
"Deep Work".
“深度工作”。
In many ways, Cal's...
在很多方面，卡尔...
I've never met him, but we know each other through the internet space.
我从未见过他，但我们是通过互联网认识的。
He was really ahead of his time with this notion of deep work and limiting distractions.
他在深度工作和限制干扰方面的理念确实走在了时代的前面。
I think he's even got a book about a world without email or something.
我想他甚至有一本关于没有电子邮件或其他东西的世界的书。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Very extreme.
非常极端。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
So he deserves some credit because he had been somewhat a proximate cause to this.
所以他应该得到一些荣誉，因为他在某种程度上是造成这一切的直接原因。
He had been on my podcast and he had encouraged me to delete Twitter.
他曾参加过我的播客，并鼓励我删除 Twitter。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Ah, okay.
啊，好吧。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Because I had been sort of reaching some kind of crisis point with it prior to that podcast.
因为在那个播客之前我已经达到了某种危机点。
And so we've talked about it, and I had recorded that podcast but hadn't released it.
我们已经讨论过这个问题，我录制了那个播客，但没有发布。
I actually recorded the podcast the day before I wound up deleting Twitter, but hadn't yet released it.
事实上，我在删除 Twitter 的前一天录制了这个播客，但尚未发布。
So in my podcast with him, in the intro to it, I then give a postmortem on my deleting it.
因此，在我和他一起的播客中，在介绍中，我对删除它进行了事后分析。
But he was one of the last people who was in my head around these issues, and that was not by accident.
但他是我脑海中最后想到这些问题的人之一，这并非偶然。
I had invited him on the podcast because I increasingly wanted to think about whether this was totally dysfunctional.
我邀请他参加播客，因为我越来越想思考这是否完全不正常。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, I'm a big fan of Cal Newport's.
嗯，我是加州纽波特的忠实粉丝。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I am on social media.
我在社交媒体上。
I'm on Twitter.
我在推特上。
I've had some high friction interactions there and I have a process for dealing with those.
我在那里遇到了一些高摩擦的互动，我有一个处理这些问题的流程。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I tend to avoid high friction confrontations online.
我倾向于避免网上的高摩擦对抗。
But Instagram is a much friendlier place, by the way.
但顺便说一句，Instagram 是一个更友好的地方。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
If you want to come over to where like the nice kids-
如果你想像好孩子一样来到那里-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
like the cool kids actually hang out.
就像酷孩子们真正出去玩一样。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Strangely, I'm not looking for a substitute or people-
奇怪的是，我并不是在寻找替代品或人——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Good.
很好。
Okay, well
好吧，好吧
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
So.
所以。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Don't let me entice you over there.
别让我在那里引诱你。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But I think that this notion of really being able to access what Cal calls deep work, what Rick Rubin talks about, being able to touch the source of creativity and focus-
但我认为真正能够接触卡尔所说的深度工作，里克鲁宾所说的，能够触及创造力和专注力的源泉——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
on a regular basis, does require that one have certain types of, and in some cases, zero interaction with certain platforms.
定期，确实要求人们与某些平台进行某些类型的交互，并且在某些情况下，与某些平台进行零交互。
That merely being on a platform and blocking people that just won't provide, I think a lot of energy opens up and I'm fascinated by this concept of energy.
仅仅在一个平台上并阻止那些不愿意提供的人，我认为很多能量被打开，我对这种能量概念着迷。
We only have so much energy-
我们只有这么多能量——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
neural energy to devote.
投入的神经能量。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And in many ways, what you described bears really, I think, striking parallels to what we've been talking about all along these last hours, which is that sometimes the thing that feels so powerful, that has such a gravitational pull and that we think this is experience, this is life, this is just the way it is, actually is an illusion.
我认为，在很多方面，你所描述的确实与我们过去几个小时一直在谈论的内容惊人相似，那就是有时感觉如此强大、具有如此引力的东西，我们认为这就是经验，这就是生活，这就是它的本来面目，实际上是一种幻觉。
And when you step away from it, you realize that there's this whole other dimension of interactions that-
当你远离它时，你会意识到互动的另一个维度——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
was available all along, but that we for whatever reason, we're intervening in by way of our reflexive distracted behavior.
一直以来都是可用的，但无论出于何种原因，我们都会通过反射性的分心行为进行干预。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So I think there's a poetry there.
所以我认为那里有一首诗。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
No, I was a hard case, but yeah, I got religion on this point and it's a good change.
不，我是一个很难对付的人，但是，是的，我在这一点上有宗教信仰，这是一个很好的改变。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, Sam, I want to say a couple of things.
好吧，萨姆，我想说几件事。
First of all, every time you talk, I learn so much.
首先，每次你说话，我都能学到很多东西。
And that's in the dimensions of neuroscience, even hardcore neural circuitry-
这是神经科学的维度，甚至是核心神经电路——
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
type stuff, which is sort of my home.
打字的东西，这是我的家。
When you talk about philosophy or meditation or psychedelics and even politics, a topic that I'm woefully undereducated in, but you have this amazing ability to blend and synergize across things.
当你谈论哲学、冥想、迷幻药，甚至政治时，我对这些话题的教育程度很低，但你却拥有这种惊人的能力，能够将事物融合在一起并发挥协同作用。
And I think today what occurs to me is that not only is that no accident because of your training and the rigor and the depth at which you've explored these different topics, but also your openness to it.
我想今天我想到的是，这不仅不是偶然，因为你所受的训练以及你探索这些不同主题的严格性和深度，而且还因为你对它的开放态度。
But I think, at least for me, above all, is because I think you are able to encapsulate this idea of the self and the different ways in which we each and all can potentially interact with the environment and our inner landscape.
但我认为，至少对我来说，最重要的是，因为我认为你能够概括自我的概念，以及我们每个人与环境和我们的内心景观潜在互动的不同方式。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Your description of meditation, I have to say is ...
我不得不说，你对冥想的描述是......
now has forever changed the way I think about meditation.
现在永远改变了我对冥想的看法。
I would no longer just think of it as a perceptual exercise.
我不再仅仅将其视为一种感性练习。
On the podcast, I've been talking about it as something to do for these various benefits, the benefit set of more focus-
在播客上，我一直在谈论它是为了获得这些不同的好处，更多关注的好处-
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
lower stress, et cetera, of which certainly exists.
降低压力等等，这是肯定存在的。
But what you described today has such an allure and holds such a promise that, as I mentioned, I'm certainly going to change my behavior.
但你今天所描述的内容具有如此大的吸引力，并具有如此大的希望，正如我所提到的，我肯定会改变我的行为。
And I know I'm speaking on behalf of many, many people when I just want to extend my thanks for your coming here today to teach us even more, because of course, you have your podcast and the app, the Waking Up app.
我知道我代表很多很多人发言，我只是想感谢你们今天来到这里教导我们更多，因为当然，你们有自己的播客和应用程序，即“醒来”应用程序。
And the fact that regardless of the political landscapes, regardless of what neuroscience feels about psychedelics or where things are at any point in time, you strike me as somebody who is very committed to sharing knowledge and thoughtful, deep discourse so that people can benefit, and there are very few people like you.
事实上，无论政治形势如何，无论神经科学对迷幻剂有何看法，或者事情在任何时间点处于什么位置，你给我的印象都是一个非常致力于分享知识和深思熟虑的深入话语的人，以便人们能够受益，而且像你这样的人很少。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
In fact, there's probably only just one, and so I feel very grateful to be sitting across the table from him for these last hours.
事实上，可能只有一个，所以我非常感激能在最后几个小时坐在他对面。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Oh, nice.
哦，不错。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Nice.
不错。
Well, I really enjoyed this, and I want to congratulate you on what you've built here, because your podcast is everywhere.
嗯，我真的很喜欢这个，我想祝贺你在这里所做的一切，因为你的播客无处不在。
I'm a fan, and even more than that, I'm continually seeing the evidence of you reaching people and benefiting people, and it's really amazing.
我是一个粉丝，更重要的是，我不断看到你影响人们并造福人们的证据，这真的很神奇。
This is one of the best examples of new media just carving out a space that people didn't really know existed.
这是新媒体最好的例子之一，它只是开辟了一个人们并不真正知道存在的空间。
Because this is not television, it's not radio, and all of a sudden people have time to hear a conversation of great length that goes into nitty gritty, scientific detail on hormones.
因为这不是电视，也不是广播，突然之间，人们有时间听到一段很长的对话，深入探讨荷尔蒙的具体科学细节。
Who would've thought that was even possible?
谁会想到这是可能的？
And so, yeah, just congratulations.
所以，是的，恭喜你。
It's fantastic to see, and I'm just very happy for the opportunity to talk to you and your people.
很高兴见到您，我很高兴有机会与您和您的员工交谈。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, thank you.
嗯，谢谢。
It's very gratifying to hear, and I feel very blessed, in no small part because of our conversation today.
听到这个消息我感到非常高兴，我感到非常幸运，这在很大程度上是因为我们今天的谈话。
Thank you so much.
太感谢了。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Nice.
不错。
Well, to be continued.
嗯，待续。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
To be continued.
待续。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
We'll do it again.
我们会再做一次。
Dr. Sam Harris:
萨姆·哈里斯博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And again, and again.
一次又一次。
Thank you for joining me today for my discussion with Dr. Sam Harris.
感谢您今天加入我与山姆·哈里斯博士的讨论。
I hope you found it to be as enlightening as I did.
我希望你发现它和我一样具有启发性。
And be sure to check out the Waking Up app that Dr. Sam Harris has made free to any Huberman Lab listeners for 30 days by going to wakingup.com/huberman.
请务必访问 wakingup.com/huberman 查看 Sam Harris 博士向所有 Huberman Lab 听众免费提供的 Waking Up 应用程序，为期 30 天。
Please also check out his incredible podcast, the "Making Sense" podcast, and you can find any number of Sam Harris's different books on meditation, consciousness, philosophy, neuroscience, politics, and more.
另请查看他令人难以置信的播客“Making Sense”播客，您可以找到任何数量的萨姆·哈里斯关于冥想、意识、哲学、神经科学、政治等的不同书籍。
You can find links to those books by going to samharris.org.
您可以访问 samharris.org 找到这些书籍的链接。
If you're learning from and/or enjoying this podcast, please subscribe to our YouTube channel.
如果您正在学习和/或喜欢此播客，请订阅我们的 YouTube 频道。
That's the best, zero-cost way to support us.
这是支持我们的最佳、零成本方式。
In addition, please subscribe to the podcast on Spotify and Apple.
此外，请订阅 Spotify 和 Apple 上的播客。
And on both Spotify and Apple, you can leave us up to a five-star review.
在 Spotify 和 Apple 上，您都可以给我们五星级的评价。
If you have questions for us or comments, or topics that you'd like me to cover, or guests you'd like me to invite onto the Huberman Lab podcast, please put those in the comments section on YouTube.
如果您对我们有疑问或意见，或者您希望我涵盖的主题，或者您希望我邀请的嘉宾加入 Huberman Lab 播客，请将这些内容放入 YouTube 的评论部分。
I do read all the comments.
我确实阅读了所有评论。
Please also check out the sponsors mentioned at the beginning and throughout today's episode.
另请查看今天节目开头和整个节目中提到的赞助商。
That's the best way to support this podcast.
这是支持这个播客的最佳方式。
Not so much during today's episode, but on many episodes of the Huberman Lab podcast, we discuss supplements.
在今天的节目中，我们讨论的不是很多，而是在 Huberman Lab 播客的许多节目中，我们讨论了补充剂。
While supplements aren't necessary for everybody, many people derive tremendous benefit from them, for things like enhancing the depth and quality of sleep, for enhancing focus, and for hormone support, and many other aspects of mental health, physical health, and performance.
虽然补充剂并不是每个人都需要的，但许多人从中获得了巨大的益处，例如增强睡眠深度和质量、增强注意力、激素支持以及心理健康、身体健康和表现的许多其他方面。
The Huberman Lab podcast is proud to announce that we are now partnered with Momentous Supplements, because Momentous Supplements are of the very highest quality, they ship internationally, and they have single-ingredient formulations.
Huberman Lab 播客很自豪地宣布，我们现在与 Momentous Supplements 合作，因为 Momentous Supplements 具有最高的质量，它们在全球范围内发货，并且具有单一成分配方。
Which turns out to be important if you're going to develop the most cost-effective and biologically effective supplementation regimen.
如果您要开发最具成本效益和生物有效的补充方案，这一点就显得很重要。
If you'd like to access the supplements discussed on the Huberman Lab podcast, you can go to Live Momentous, spelled O-U-S, so livemomentous.com/huberman.
如果您想访问 Huberman Lab 播客上讨论的补充内容，您可以访问 Live Momentous，拼写为 O-U-S，即 livemomentous.com/huberman。
If you're not already following us on social media, we are hubermanlab on Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook.
如果您还没有在社交媒体上关注我们，我们在 Instagram、Twitter、LinkedIn 和 Facebook 上是 hubermanlab。
In all of those places, I talk about science and science-related tools, some of which overlap with the content of the Huberman Lab podcast, but much of which is distinct from the content of the Huberman Lab podcast.
在所有这些地方，我谈论了科学和与科学相关的工具，其中一些与胡伯曼实验室播客的内容重叠，但其中大部分与胡伯曼实验室播客的内容不同。
Again, it's hubermanlab on all social media handles, all platforms: Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
同样，它是所有社交媒体手柄、所有平台上的 hubermanlab：Instagram、Twitter、Facebook 和 LinkedIn。
If you haven't already subscribed to our Neural Network newsletter, that's a monthly newsletter.
如果您还没有订阅我们的神经网络时事通讯，这是每月的时事通讯。
It's completely zero cost and includes summaries of podcast episodes as well as toolkits for things like enhancing your sleep, enhancing your focus and ability to learn, hormone support, fitness, and on and on.
它完全是零成本，包括播客剧集摘要以及用于改善睡眠、增强注意力和学习能力、激素支持、健身等等的工具包。
You simply go to hubermanlab.com, go to the menu, click on the menu, and scroll down to Newsletter.
您只需访问 hubermanlab.com，进入菜单，单击菜单，然后向下滚动到新闻通讯。
Provide your email, and you can start receiving our monthly Neural Network newsletter.
提供您的电子邮件，您就可以开始接收我们的每月神经网络时事通讯。
Thank you once again for joining me for today's discussion with Dr. Sam Harris, all about meditation, consciousness, free will, psychedelics, social media, and much, much more.
再次感谢您参加今天与山姆·哈里斯博士的讨论，讨论的主题包括冥想、意识、自由意志、迷幻药、社交媒体等等。
And as always, thank you for your interest in science.
一如既往，感谢您对科学的兴趣。