Karen the nerd

影片出處：http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=LTO_dZUvbJA

原譯文 p.103
假如我們不假思索就認定，一百億個這種簡單裝置只能做一百億件簡單的事，我們永遠也想不到，幾十億個會展現出兩個、十個或一萬個所展現不出的特性；這種突顯特性就是意識。這種現象有部分純粹是由人腦中互相連結的神經元「數量」所造成，而且不存在於任何部分或者只有少數互相連結的神經元中。
原文 p.74
If we blithely go on to assume that ten billion of these simple devices can only do ten billion simple things, we would never guess that billions of them can exhibit a property that two, ten, or ten thousand cannot. Consciousness is precisely this sort of emergent property--a phenomenon that arises in part as a result of the sheer number of interconnections among neurons in the human brain and that does not exist in any of the parts or in the interconnection of just a few.
試譯
假如我們繼續不假思索地認定，一百個這種簡單裝置只能做一百件簡單的事，我們永遠也想不到，幾十億個這樣的裝置能夠呈現出某種特性，那是單單兩個、十個或一萬個裝置無法呈現的。「意識」正是這種聚現的特性，這種現象就某種程度上來說，是因人腦內部大量神經元的相互連結所引起，它不存在於腦內任何一部分，若只有少數的神經元連結也無法引起意識這樣的特性。
評析
1. emergent property有許多不同的解釋方式：突現特性、突顯特性、聚現特性...等，但由於本文所指的是當聚集一定數量的神經元時所產生的特徵，個人認為將之處理為「聚現特性」會比突顯特性來的恰宜。
2.sheer number of interconnections among neurons 作者之所以將number斜體，應當是欲強調大量的神經元連結，單純將之處理為由人腦中互相連結的神經元「數量」所造成未將原意呈現。

part I 
原譯文p.115
這些受試者被問到的問題是：「當紅色車子停在禮讓標誌前面時，是不是有另一輛車經過?」
原文p.87
The question these volumteers were asked was this: "Did another car pass the red car while it was stopped at the stop sign?"
試譯
這些受試者被問到的問題是：「當紅色車子停在停車標誌前時，是否有另一輛車經過?」
譯評
很顯然，譯者在這兒是看錯原文了，雖然只是一個小小的錯誤，但卻會造成讀者「霧殺殺」的感覺。在我第一次讀譯本時便將之劃線，因為我看了好多遍都看不懂整段在說什麼，後來對照原文才知道是譯者誤譯了。一個小小的誤看和誤譯可能造成整個章節的概念無法呈現，或者誤導讀者往另一個方向；這是譯者所應當小心翼翼避免的。
- -
part II
原譯文p.115
實驗人員問的問題顯然改變了受試者稍早體驗的記憶。假如大腦是重織體驗的繡帷，體驗就是我們能預期的；假如大腦是「擷取」體驗，就不是我們有辦法預期到的事。
原文p.88
Clearly, the question changed the volumteers' memories of their earlier experience, which is precisely what one would expect if their brains were reweaving their experience--and precisely what one would not expect if their brains were retrieving their experiences.
試譯
實驗人員的問題顯然改變了受試者稍早體驗的記憶。如果這些人的記憶存取，是透過大腦重組他們的經歷而產生，這種現象是可想而知的；但如果他們的記憶存取是透過大腦擷取過去的經歷而產生，那麼這種記憶受到改變的狀況就不會出現。
譯評
在上一段作者提到人類的記憶存取模式是重新編造體驗過的訊息，而不是擷取訊息；因此，在這作者欲表達的應該是，如果人腦是有效的擷取所需訊息的話，就不會發生「後來體驗的訊息改變早些時候的經驗」這樣的情況；而正因為人腦是重組大量的訊息，才會導致錯誤的記憶。
在這邊，譯者的處理方式除了未正確闡述原意之外，其中文語法也讓讀者有摸不著頭緒的情況。
- -
part III
原譯文
「大腦最大的智力成就即是現實世界。」
原文
"The crowning intellectual accomplishment of the brain is the real world."
試譯
「大腦最聰明的成就即是真實的呈現世界。」
譯評
1. crowning 最高的 ； intellectual 智力的；譯者將之處理為智力成就讓人摸不著頭緒，前後文皆未提及有關智力的任何訊息，因此若將之改為最聰明的成就，我想會較為妥當些。
2. 此章花了大篇篇幅在說明人的視覺「盲點」，而大腦補足了生理上的不足，用填補知覺的方式替人們呈現了幾近完全真實的畫面，因此在這邊我將real world處理為真實的呈現世界。

part I
原譯文 p.96
我們把一塊小蛋糕丟進嘴裡、體驗甜美滋味、知道我們正在體驗甜美滋味，一切似乎連一點挑剔的餘地都沒有。
原文 p.66
We pop a ladyfinger into our mouths, we experience sweetness, we know we are experiencing sweetness, and nothing about any of this seems even remotely chanllenging.
試譯
我們把手指餅乾丟進嘴裡，體驗甜甜的滋味，也知道我們正在感受那甜甜的滋味，一切看起來再簡單不過。
譯評
1. ladyfinger是一種類似蛋糕口感的餅乾，在台灣也買的到。圖片如下：
圖片來源：http://bakesweet.blogspot.com/2008/05/ladyfinger-sandwiches.html
譯者應忠實將作者文字轉達給讀者，除非是該語系國家內沒有完全相同的名詞，才取最接近的詞代之。
2. remotely challenging指絲毫無需費吹灰之力便可以達成，譯者將之處理為「連一點挑剔的餘地都沒有」不甚恰當，因此在試譯時將之處理為看起來再簡單不過。
- -
part II
原譯文 p.99
心理學也製造了過去所沒有的問題，因為它揭露了我們以直覺來了解自己的缺點。
原文  p.69
Psychology has also created problems where once there were none by exposing the flaws in our intuitive understandings of ourselves.
試譯
心理學也引起了前所未有的難題，因為它讓大家了解到人類直覺式的自我認知是有缺點的。
譯評
揭露「我們以直覺來了解自己的缺點」以中文的語法來看，看似use intuition to understandand our defects. 因此在試譯中將之處理為讓大家了解到人類直覺式的自我認知是有缺點的使讀者清楚作者欲表達的是「人類一直以直覺在了解自己」，而這是有缺點的。

譯文 p.101
連時鐘都會是測量快樂的有用儀器，因為當受到驚嚇的人感覺到快樂時，眼睛往往會比感覺到恐懼或焦慮的人眨得慢。
原文 p. 72
Even a clock can be a useful device for measuring happiness, because startled people tend to blink more slowly when they are feeling happy than when they are feeling fearful or anxious.
試譯
就連時鐘都可以輔助測量快樂，因為當受驚的人感到快樂時，其眨眼的速度可能比感到害怕或焦慮時慢的多。
譯評
從原譯文來看，其所表達的意涵是「比較」兩種人眨眼的速度，但其實原文欲呈現的是startled people在兩種情況下，眨眼的速度有所不同。

-
"Stumbling on Happiness" - p.68

Further analysis regarding the translation of Stumbling on Happiness:
譯文p.92

What is so-called "paradigm shift"?
Info found on the Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
Paradigm shift, sometimes known as extraordinary science or revolutionary science, is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science.
It has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share.” (The Essential Tension, 1997). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, “a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself.” (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). A scientist, however, once a paradigm shift is complete, is not allowed the luxury, for example, of positing the possibility that miasma causes the flu or that ether carries light in the same way that a critic in the Humanities can choose to adopt a 19th century theory of poetics, for instance, or select Marxism as an explanation of economic behaviour. Thus, paradigms, in the sense that Kuhn used them, do not exist in Humanities or social sciences. Nonetheless, the term has been adopted since the 1960s and applied in non-scientific contexts.
An epistemological paradigm shift was called a scientific revolution by epistemologist and historian of science Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with (a principal argument Kuhn uses to reject Karl Popper's model of falsifiability as the key force involved in scientific change). Rather, according to Kuhn, anomalies have various levels of significance to the practitioners of science at the time. To put it in the context of early 20th century physics, some scientists found the problems with calculating Mercury's perihelion more troubling than the Michelson-Morley experiment results, and some the other way around. Kuhn's model of scientific change differs here, and in many places, from that of the logical positivists in that it puts an enhanced emphasis on the individual humans involved as scientists, rather than abstracting science into a purely logical or philosophical venture.
When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of crisis, according to Kuhn. During this crisis, new ideas, perhaps ones previously discarded, are tried. Eventually a new paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers, and an intellectual "battle" takes place between the followers of the new paradigm and the hold-outs of the old paradigm. Again, for early 20th century physics, the transition between the Maxwellian electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview was neither instantaneous nor calm, and instead involved a protracted set of "attacks," both with empirical data as well as rhetorical or philosophical arguments, by both sides, with the Einsteinian theory winning out in the long-run. Again, the weighing of evidence and importance of new data was fit through the human sieve: some scientists found the simplicity of Einstein's equations to be most compelling, while some found them more complicated than the notion of Maxwell's aether which they banished. Some found Eddington's photographs of light bending around the sun to be compelling, some questioned their accuracy and meaning. Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
After a given discipline has changed from one paradigm to another, this is called, in Kuhn's terminology, a scientific revolution or a paradigm shift. It is often this final conclusion, the result of the long process, that is meant when the term paradigm shift is used colloquially: simply the (often radical) change of worldview, without reference to the specificities of Kuhn's historical argument.

《原譯文》p.20
一九九五年, 當我的著手撰寫一篇有關科學的未成熟性(Prematurity in Science)的論文, 我援引許多例子來說明當氣候未成熟時，許多先知是被忽略了，在其中，我引用了高德伯的遞變理論。一九六九年，高德伯第一次提出這個理論時，他的指導教授盧瑞亞認為是不可能的，但是過去十年來，

昨日，在認知科學作品評析的課堂上，教授對同學們做了一個簡單的潛意識測驗，
進行的方式分為三個步驟：
1. 闔上眼，聆聽一首曲子，想像自己在沙漠中，你看見了什麼?