【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 experiences, might strike you as kind of weird.
　　這是在把你自己當(dāng)做 擁有所有這些人生經(jīng)歷的事物，以及把你自己當(dāng)做所有這些人生經(jīng)歷的合集 之間的一種轉(zhuǎn)換。 你是所有部分的集合。 當(dāng)然，這些也可以是身體的部分，比如大腦，軀干，肢體等等，但事實(shí)上這些都不那么重要。假設(shè)你做了心臟移植，你還是那個你。但如果你做了記憶移植，你還是那個你嗎?如果是信仰移植呢，你還是原來的你嗎?所以，這個關(guān)于我們是什么 以及如何認(rèn)識自身的想法，它認(rèn)為我們不是什么擁有經(jīng)歷的永恒個體， 而是這些經(jīng)歷的集合， 這種想法可能會讓你覺得有點(diǎn)兒奇怪。
　　But actually, I donamp。39。t think it should be weird. In a way, itamp。39。s mon sense. Because I just invite you to think about, by parison, think about pretty much anything else in the universe, maybe apart from the very most fundamental forces or powers. Letamp。39。s take something like water. Now my science isnamp。39。t very good. We might say something like water has two parts hydrogen and one parts oxygen, right? We all know that. I hope no one in this room thinks that what that means is there is a thing called water, and attached to it are hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and thatamp。39。s what water is. Of course we donamp。39。t. We understand, very easily, very straightforwardly, that water is nothing more than the hydrogen and oxygen molecules suitably arranged. Everything else in the universe is the same. Thereamp。39。s no mystery about my watch, for example. We say the watch has a face,and hands, and a mechanism and a battery, But what we really mean is, we donamp。39。t think there is a thing called the watch to which we then attach all these bits. We understand very clearly that you get the parts of the watch, you put them together, and you create a watch. Now if everything else in the universe is like this, why are we different?
　　但事實(shí)上，我覺得一點(diǎn)都不。 某種程度上，這也是常識。 我請大家通過比較，想想宇宙中其它的諸多事物， 不用考慮那些最基本的力或者功。 舉個例子吧。 我的科學(xué)素養(yǎng)很一般。我們可以說水含有兩份氫 和一份氧，對吧?這個我們都知道。 希望這個屋子里沒有人會理解為 有一種叫做水的東西，附著著氫原子和氧原子， 認(rèn)為這就是水。 我們當(dāng)然不會這么想。 我們都能輕易而直接的理解，水不過是 氫和氧以恰當(dāng)?shù)男问脚帕卸傻摹?宇宙中的其他任何事物也一樣。 比如，我的手表也沒有什么神秘的。 我們說它有表面指針，還有機(jī)械裝置以及電池。 不過我們的真正意思 并不是認(rèn)為一種叫做表的東西，上面附著上所有這些元件。我們很清楚 當(dāng)你把所有這些元件組合起來，就可以得到一個手表。 如果宇宙中所有事物都是這樣， 我們又有什么特殊的呢?
　　Why think of ourselves as somehow not just being a collection of all our parts, but somehow being a separate, permanent entity which has those parts? Now this view is not particularly new, actually. It has quite a long lineage. You find it in Buddhism, you find it in 17th, 18thcentury philosophy going through to the current day, people like Locke and Hume. But interestingly, itamp。39。s also a view increasingly being heard reinforced by neuroscience. This is Paul Broks, heamp。39。s a clinical neuropsychologist, and he says this: amp。quot。We have a deep intuition that there is a core, an essence there, and itamp。39。s hard to shake off,probably impossible to shake off, I suspect. But itamp。39。s true that neuroscience shows that there is no centre in the brain where things do all e together.amp。quot。 So when you look at the brain, and you look at how the brain makes possible a sense of self, you find that there isnamp。39。t a central control spot in the brain. There is no kind of center where everything happens. There are lots of different processes in the brain, all of which operate, in a way,quite independently. But itamp。39。s because of the way that they relate that we get this sense of self. The term I use in the book, I call it the ego trick. Itamp。39。s like a mechanical trick. Itamp。39。s not that we donamp。39。t exist, itamp。39。s just that the trick is to ma