评论
打印
I imagine that the way analogy works in our brains is something like this. When two or more sets of ideas have the same pattern of logical connections, the brain may very likely economise parts by using some of them twice over, to remember the logical connections both in the one case and in the other.
对于我们的大脑而言，联想是这样的一个过程，当有两个或多个想法，具有同样的逻辑模式时，大脑就会利用其中的一部分，来理解另外一部分，这样可以减少工作量。
One must suppose that some part of my brain was used twice over in this way, once for the idea of double negation, and once for crossing the road, there and back;
一个是双重否定，一个是过马路，
I am really supposed to know about both these things but can't get what it is the man is driving at, so long as he is talking about all these dreary nots and not-nots. Somehow it doesn't get through to the right part of the brain.
当人们说到那些枯燥的"否"和"否否"时，我无法理解那是什么意思，似乎这个想法不知道为什么，就是无法进入大脑。
But as soon as he says his piece about crossing the road it gets through to the right part, but by a different route. If there is some purely mechanical explanation of how this argument by analogy goes on in the brain, one could make a digital computer do the same.
但他一说到过马路，这个想法马上就进入大脑了，但是走了一条不同的路径。如果能够在机械层面上解释这种路径，那就有办法让计算机进行这样的联想过程。
Wittgenstein had talked about 'explaining' double negation in 1939.62 But Jefferson brought the discussion back to earth with the problem of appetites.
维特根斯坦在1939年也谈过对于双重否定的解释问题。接下来，杰弗逊用"欲望"的问题，把讨论拉回实际。
If we are really to get near to anything that can be truly called "thinking", the effects of external stimuli cannot be missed out.
如果我们想要实现真正的所谓“思维”，那就不能忽略外在刺激的影响。
