【翻譯】科技究竟奴役了我們還是幫助我們？〈你聽得見我在說什麼嗎？〉(譯自：雪莉特克) Full Version

Can You Hear Me Now?(譯註一)
Sherry Turkle, written on 2007/05/07
中文翻譯(請注重著作權)：台大研三 蕭堯
Thanks to technology, people have never been more connected--or more alienated.
感謝科技，人們從未變得更有連結感──或是更從未變得更疏離彼此。

I have traveled 36 hours to a conference on robotic technology in central Japan. The grand ballroom is Wi-Fi enabled, and the speaker is using the Web for his presentation. Laptops are open, fingers are flying. But the audience is not listening. Most seem to be doing their e-mail, downloading files, surfing the Web or looking for a cartoon to illustrate an upcoming presentation. Every once in a while audience members give the speaker some attention, lowering their laptop screens in a kind of digital curtsy.

       坐了36個小時的飛機，到日本中部參加一個機器人科技的研討會。在最大間的會議廳中，當然是有無線網路的，然後台上的講者很自然，上網然後同時利用網路的資訊來呈現她的研究報告。在場好多人的筆電開著，每個人的手指就這樣在螢幕或是鍵盤上比劃著。但，觀眾並沒有在聽台上講者的內容。多半都是在收他們的電子郵件，下載檔案，上網瀏覽呀，或還有人是在尋找線上卡通，似乎是想要準備說明下一個即將上台的另個報告。每隔一段時間，觀眾會偶爾抬頭看一下台上的人在幹什麼，然後接著馬上就低頭看著螢幕，就像是遵守還是在進行某種「數位注目禮」一樣。

In the hallway outside the plenary session attendees are on their phones or using laptops and pdas to check their e-mail. Clusters of people chat with each other, making dinner plans, "networking" in that old sense of the term--the sense that implies sharing a meal. But at this conference it is clear that what people mostly want from public space is to be alone with their personal networks. It is good to come together physically, but it is more important to stay tethered to the people who define one's virtual identity, the identity that counts. I think of how Freud believed in the power of communities to control and subvert us, and a psychoanalytic pun comes to mind: "virtuality and its discontents."

       在會場的大門口，全體會議的門外，許多與會者講著電話，或是用他們手上的PDA或是筆電檢查他們的電子郵件信箱。然後站著一群人在那邊聊天，有的在計畫晚餐要去哪裡吃，「網絡化」在這個詞的古老意義來說──這意義等於是「一起分享大餐」。但在會議場中，很顯然地，大多數人們想要的，不是在公眾環境中群居，而是可以從公眾環境下還可以單獨活在他們個人的小小世界與網絡裡。當然，在物理空間上一起活動是很好的，但其實將自己鎖在一個小空間裡，和一些可以定義並認同自己虛擬身分的人們相處，相形之下更為重要，而這虛擬認同是可數的，可能是多數的。我突然想到佛洛伊德是如何相信，一個社群的力量是如何支配與控制我們的，然後一個心理分析學派的雙關語就這樣浮上我心頭：「虛擬性/幾近滿足與其不滿足」。

The phrase comes back to me months later as I interview business consultants who seem to have lost touch with their best instincts for how to maintain the bonds that make them most competitive. They are complaining about the BlackBerry revolution. They accept it as inevitable, decry it as corrosive. Consultants used to talk to one another as they waited to give presentations; now they spend that time doing e-mail. Those who once bonded during limousine rides to airports now spend this time on their BlackBerrys. Some say they are making better use of their "downtime," but they argue their point without conviction. This waiting time and going-to-the-airport time was never downtime; it was work time. It was precious time when far-flung global teams solidified relationships and refined ideas.

        這個詞──「虛擬性及其不滿」(其實是雪莉特克在他1998年著名的著作《虛擬化身》的某章節名稱)在幾個月後回到我腦海當中，而那時候我正在和幾位商業顧問會面洽談，這些人看起來失去他們本有(與生俱來)，而可以維持與他人親密連帶，並可以促成更有競爭力的能力。他們抱怨「黑莓機」革命。即便他們接受這個科技革命似乎是不可擋的潮流，但卻相當譴責這些東西具有腐蝕人心的力量。這些顧問過去習慣，在等待向客戶介紹或是呈現報表之前，先和其他同事們聊聊天討論討論；但今天，他們花同樣的時間，卻是花在檢查電子信箱或是寄電子郵件。這些人以前在大轎車往機場的路上，曾幾何時是會在車裡打聲招呼互相寒暄，建立些關係的；但今天卻是埋首於操作他們手上那台黑莓機。有些人說，他們更能善用他們「業餘的時間」，但他們說這話的時候其實連自己都很遲疑。等待和坐在車上開往機場路上的時間過去從來不是「停機/業餘」的時間，在過去，這段時間還是處在工作時間內的。特別是當廣布在全球的團隊可以藉這時間凝聚彼此之間的關係，或是可以藉這時間互相修正彼此的想法等等，這些時間是非常寶貴的。

We live in techno-enthusiastic times, and we are most likely to celebrate our gadgets. Certainly the advertising that sells us our devices has us working from beautiful, remote locations that signal our status. We are connected, tethered, so important that our physical presence is no longer required. There is much talk of new efficiencies; we can work from anywhere and all the time. But tethered life is complex; it is helpful to measure our thrilling new networks against what they may be doing to us as people.

Here I offer five troubles that try my tethered soul.

我們住在一個科技熱衷到不行的年代，而且我們大多都會歡欣鼓舞的歡迎這些「小工具/小幫手」的到來。確實廣告賣給我們的設備讓我們可以在美好和遙遠的地點，發送我們的狀態並工作。我們彼此被連結在一起，但同時被限制住，很重要的是，這再也不需要我們的身體的呈現(現身)。很多人開始在討論我們的「新效率/效能」；我們可以在世界上任何一個時間和地方工作。但這種被侷限框住的生活是很五味雜陳的，它幫助我們去評估這些新而扣人心弦而又有點驚人的網絡，並對於他們如何以人的方式對待我們了些什麼。

這邊我提出五個被侷限的心靈所造成的問題。

There is a new state of the self, itself
一個自我的新狀態(譯者註二)，和物自身(譯者註三)

By the 1990s the Internet provided spaces for the projection of self. Through online games known as Multi-User Domains, one was able to create avatars that could be deployed into virtual lives. Although the games often took the forms of medieval quests, players admitted that virtual environments owed their holding power to the opportunities they offered for exploring identity. The plain represented themselves as glamorous; the introverted could try out being bold. People built the dream houses in the virtual that they could not afford in the real. They took online jobs of responsibility. They often had relationships, partners and even "marriages" of significant emotional importance. They had lots of virtual sex.

在1990年代時期，網路提供我們一個投射「自我」的場域。從線上遊戲當中，著名的像是「泥巴」──「多人遊戲地窖」(Multi-User Dungeon,或後有人稱Multi-User Domains，簡稱MUDs，中文取簡寫MUD字義翻譯：「泥巴」)，玩家可以創造一個置身於虛擬生活當中的「虛擬化身」(Avatar，阿凡達，英文原意是「化身」，同incarnation字義)。雖然游戲當中角色很多都是中古世紀的人物，玩家認為他們在這虛擬的環境中，持有一定的權力，得到機會去探險自我認同。在這世界裡，現實生活裡很平庸無奇的人會在裏頭把自己表現得很光鮮亮麗；而內向的人可以在這上頭展現它大膽的嚮往。人們在虛擬空間裡建立一個他們現實生活中根本買不起的夢想房子。他們在線上負起責任，具有責任感。他們常常和別人有互動與建立關係，當夥伴之外，更有可能還有為了某種情感需求而有的「結婚」。他們也會進行不少的虛擬性愛。

These days it is easier for people without technical expertise to blend their real and virtual lives. In the world of Second Life, a virtual world produced by Linden Lab, you can make real money; you can run a real business. Indeed, for many who enjoy online life, it is easier to express intimacy in the virtual world than in rl, that being real life. For those who are lonely yet fearful of intimacy, online life provides environments where one can be a loner yet not alone, have the illusion of companionship without the demands of sustained, intimate friendship.

這些日子，對人們來說相當自在，因為他們不需要科技相關專業人員來教他們如何混和虛擬和真實。在「第二生活」(the 2nd Life，是作者《虛擬化身》書裡的特殊名詞，指的其實是別於現實生活的虛擬生活)中，虛擬世界是由林肯實驗室製造出來的產物，你可以賺到真的錢；你可以真實的開一家店。事實上，對一些享受虛擬生活的人來說，在虛擬空間中表達親密性，比在實際生活(RL，Real Life)還要更自在。對某些獨來獨往而害怕親密關係建立的人來說，線上的生活提供一個可以完全單獨但又偶爾不會這麼孤獨的環境，在這世界中，它可以有著一個不用怕去維持的親密關係和同伴相處，隨時可以抽身的想像。

Since the late 1990s social computing has offered an opportunity to experiment with a virtual second self. Now this metaphor doesn't go far enough. Our new online intimacies create a world in which it makes sense to speak of a new state of the self, itself. "I am on my cell … online … instant messaging … on the Web"--these phrases suggest a new placement of the subject, wired into society through technology.

在1990年代末期，社會電腦化提供一個「虛擬第二自我」實驗的好機會。現在，這個比喻事實上還未有夠多長足的結果。我們新的線上親密關係創造出一個世界，在這當中讓一個自我的新形態得以發聲，但卻變成了物體的自身。「我在手機上...線上...即時通訊軟體上...網路上」──這些隻字片語都暗示著，一個主體性被新的主體性給取代，而這個主體藉由科技的「連線」進入社會。


Are we losing the time to take our time?

我們是不是在不斷流失我們的時間然後慢慢來？

The self that grows up with multitasking and rapid response measures success by calls made, e-mails answered and messages responded to. Self-esteem is calibrated by what the technology proposes, by what it makes easy. We live a contradiction: Insisting that our world is increasingly complex, we nevertheless have created a communications culture that has decreased the time available for us to sit and think, uninterrupted. We are primed to receive a quick message to which we are expected to give a rapid response. Children growing up with this may never know another way. Their experience raises a question for us all: Are we leaving enough time to take our time on the things that matter?

        自我和這些「多工」(同時多工一起進行：Multi-tasking)和因應電話、電子郵件回覆和訊息的回傳等的結果，訓練出一身「快速回應」的特質。自尊，從此就可以藉由這些科技提出的形式來度量，這樣看起來，自尊是可以被更容易測度出來。我們生活有著一個奇怪的問題：始終堅持我們的世界越來越複雜，我們卻創造一個讓我們更沒有時間坐下來思考的溝通文化。如果剛好是在這時段長大的孩子們，根本不知道之前的日子反而是較有時間思考和沒這麼忙碌的，他們已經根本不知道有另外的型態曾經出現過。這個經驗也因而讓我們全體必須正視一個問題：我們是不是留下足夠的時間來讓我們可以有足夠時間慢慢來，尤其是對那些重要的事情的進行上？

We spend hours keeping up with our e-mails. One person tells me, "I look at my watch to see the time. I look at my BlackBerry to get a sense of my life." Think of the BlackBerry user watching the BlackBerry movie of his life as someone watching a movie that takes on a life of its own. People become alienated from their own experience and anxious about watching a version of their lives scrolling along faster than they can handle. They are not able to keep up with the unedited version of their lives, but they are responsible for it. People speak of BlackBerry addiction. Yet in modern life we have been made into self-disciplined souls who mind the rules, the time, our tasks. Always-on/always-on-you technology takes the job of self-monitoring to a new level.

        我們花時間追蹤電子郵件信箱裡的信。有人就告訴我：「我看我的手錶時間。接著我看了我的黑莓機得到我生活的感覺與意義」。想想看，一個黑莓機使用者，正看著播放他自身生活種種的黑莓電影，就如同某人正看著一個由黑莓機「它」拍攝自己的生活的電影一樣。人們和他們自有的經驗相疏離開來，並且對他們某種「捲動速度比他們可足以處理的速度還要來得快許多」的生活感到焦慮。他們無法跟上那些未知(未編輯)的生活，但他們卻又要對那些未知的生活擔起責任(有所回應)。人們談到「黑莓旋風」。然而在當代生活當中，我們已經被馴化成一個在意規則、時間和任務工作下「自我規約」般的心靈狀態。永遠「在線上」/永遠活在自己的「科技上」，讓這種自我監視的工夫攀升到一個新的層級。

BlackBerry users describe that sense of encroachment of the device on their time. One says, "I don't have enough time alone with my mind"; another, "I artificially make time to think." Such formulations depend on an "I" separate from the technology, a self that can put the technology aside so as to function apart from its demands. But it's in conflict with a growing reality of lives lived in the presence of screens, whether on a laptop, palmtop, cell phone or BlackBerry. We are learning to see ourselves as cyborgs, at one with our devices. To put it most starkly: To make more time means turning off our devices, disengaging from the always-on culture. But this is not a simple proposition, since our devices have become more closely coupled to our sense of our bodies and increasingly feel like extensions of our minds.

       黑莓機用戶敘述這個「手機設備」(科技設備)逐漸侵蝕他們的「時間」。其中一個說，「我幾乎沒有我獨立思考的時間」；另個接著說「我必須自己想辦法，以『人工化』的方式來找出時間才能思考」。這樣的形態必須端看一個由科技分離出來的「我」(自身)，是一個可以將科技擱置在一旁而不受其功能和要求所影響的「自身」。但這和許多正在進行的，那種「活在電腦螢幕前」的現實生活情境出現衝突，不管是活在筆電、掌上型電腦、手機或是黑莓機都是一樣。我們正在學習去將自身化約成一群跟著這些科技設備而成的「賽伯格」(Cyborgs)。說得更明白一些：要能有更多時間，意即就是要先關掉我們手上或桌上的這些「設備」，擺脫這種「永遠都要上線」的文化。但這不容易做到，因為我們的設備已經和我們的身體之間已經越來越無法分離，並逐漸成為我們心靈的一種延伸。

Our tethering devices provide a social and psychological Global Positioning System, a form of navigation for tethered selves. One television producer, accustomed to being linked to the world via her cell and Palm (nasdaq: PALM -news - people ) handheld, revealed that for her, the Palm's inner spaces were where her self resides: "When my Palm crashed it was like a death. It was more than I could handle. I felt as though I had lost my mind."

       這種侷限心靈的科技提供一個社會和心理上的「全球定位系統」(Global Postition Sysytem；GPS)，提供這些被困住的心靈與「自身們」一個遨遊的形式。電視的製作人，已習慣去藉由她的手機和掌上型股票分析機PALM與世界連結，顯示出，對她而言，PALM的內在空間才是她自身居住的地方：「我的PALM摔壞，就跟要我死一樣。這個(PALM)是要比我能處理的範圍來得多很多。即便這樣感覺起來，我好像心靈被掏空了一樣」。

The tethered adolescent
被困住的青年

Kids get cell phones from their parents. In return they are expected to answer their parents' calls. On the one hand this arrangement gives teenagers new freedoms. On the other they do not have the experience of being alone and having to count on themselves; there is always a parent on speed dial. This provides comfort in a dangerous world, yet there is a price to pay in the development of autonomy. There used to be a moment in the life of an urban child, usually between the ages of 12 and 14, when there was a first time to navigate the city alone. It was a rite of passage that communicated, "You are on your own and responsible. If you feel frightened, you have to experience these feelings." The cell phone tether buffers this moment; with the parents on tap, children think differently about themselves.

小朋友接聽他們父母的來電。而反過來他們被期待一定會回撥電話給父母。一來，這種安排給了新一代的青少年一種「新的自由」。另外一方面，這樣一來，基本上他們沒有過「獨處」或是「為自己負責」的經驗，因為總是有父母在電話那頭提供協助。這提供在危險世界中一個安然的安慰，然而這樣一來，在這種「自主性」發展上就必須付出一定的代價。以往，大概在一個時間點，可能是介於12到14歲之間，城市的孩子們通常會學習獨自上街去探險。這很像一個成長的成年禮，「你開始要學著自己做些事情，並對這些事情負責。如果你害怕，你都必須經歷這些過程。...」，而手機的出現困住並延緩了這個時間，當父母永遠隨侍在側，小孩對他們自我的認知也會隨之改變。

Adolescents naturally want to check out ideas and attitudes with peers. But when technology brings us to the point where we're used to sharing thoughts and feelings instantaneously, it can lead to a new dependence. Emotional life can move from "I have a feeling, I want to call a friend," to "I want to feel something, I need to make a call." In either case it comes at the expense of cultivating the ability to be alone and to manage and contain one's emotions.

青少年自然而然會和同儕一同思考和分享一些態度和看法等。但當科技帶給我們一個習慣於「即時」分享看法與感覺的點時，這會製造出另種「依賴」性。生活上情緒表達可能從「我有點感傷，我要打給我朋友」到「我想要感覺到一些什麼，好，那我打給朋友好了...」。這些事例其中，看得出來要能涵化個體獨處、管理與容納自己情緒的這些能力，都漸漸越來越難以成形。

And what of adolescence as a time of self-reflection? We communicate with instant messages, "check-in" cell calls and emoticons. All of these are meant to quickly communicate a state. They are not intended to open a dialogue about complexity of feeling. (Technological determinism has its place here: Cell calls get poor reception, are easily dropped and are optimized for texting.) The culture that grows up around the cell phone is a communications culture, but it is not necessarily a culture of self-reflection--which depends on having an emotion, experiencing it, sometimes electing to share it with another person, thinking about it differently over time. When interchanges are reduced to the shorthand of emoticon emotions, questions such as "Who am I?" and "Who are you?" are reformatted for the small screen and flattened out in the process.

        

那在自我反身性(反省)的時間點，年輕人究竟可以學到什麼？我們藉由即時通訊和「登入」手機來電和情緒表達等等來溝通。這些全部都是迅速溝通的狀態。他們並不企圖在線上討論複雜的情緒問題。(科技決定論者在這裡就說到：手機訊號很不穩定，容易不穩斷訊，所以大家都習慣傳簡訊打簡訊)隨手機而來的文化就是一種通訊文化，但這不必然是一個自我反思的文化──需端看是否有過感情和確實經驗過這部分，有時選擇將這些與他人分享，並可以經過長時間且不同階段的思考。當這些互相轉化的過程減少到成為情感情緒的缺乏，這時像是「我是誰？」或「你是誰？」這樣的問題也就會在這過程中，被這些小螢幕和扁平化給重新格式化而消失。

Virtuality and its discontents
虛擬性及其不滿

The virtual life of Facebook or MySpace is titillating, but our fragile planet needs our action in the real. We have to worry that we may be connecting globally but relating parochially.

在臉書和MySpace的虛擬生活讓人心癢癢的，但我們脆弱的星球需要我們在現實社會中的互動。我們必須想，去擔憂，我們雖然是藉由「全球網際網路」而全球互聯，但事實上卻是只有在狹小的區域裡自己跟自己人玩在一塊而已。

We have become virtuosos of self-presentation, accustomed to living our lives in public. The idea that "we're all being observed all the time anyway, so who needs privacy?" has become a commonplace. Put another way, people say, "As long as I'm not doing anything wrong, who cares who's watching me?" This state of mind leaves us vulnerable to political abuse. Last June I attended the Webby Awards, an event to recognize the best and most influential Web sites. Thomas Friedman won for his argument that the Web had created a "flat" world of economic and political opportunity, a world in which a high school junior in Brooklyn competes with a peer in Bangalore. MySpace won a special commendation as the year's most pathbreaking site.

我們逐變成一群展演自身的藝術鑑賞家，習慣在公眾的眼光下生活。「我們全部幾乎是無時無刻不被觀看著，這樣誰還需要隱私權呢？」這想法開始變成相當習以為常。把它擺到另個角度來看，人們說，「只要我沒做錯事，我哪管誰在旁看我？」這種心靈的狀態，讓我們對政治濫權無力反抗。去年六月，我參加Webby獎的頒獎典禮，這個獎其實是專門頒給一些最具影響力或最棒的網站經營者的。Thomas Friedman(福萊德曼，《世界是平的》的作者)確實說對了，網站確實創造一個「扁平」的經濟世界和政治機會，創造了一個布魯克林區某個高中高一學生和Bangalore的同儕相競爭的世界。MySpace贏得特殊評價，獲選為年度最佳最具開創性網站。

The awards took place just as the government wiretapping scandal was dominating the press. When the question of illegal eavesdropping came up, a common reaction among the gathered Weberati was to turn the issue into a nonissue. We heard, "All information is good information" and "Information wants to be free" and "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." At a pre-awards cocktail party one Web luminary spoke animatedly about Michel Foucault's idea of the panopticon, an architectural structure of spokes of a wheel built out from a hub, used as a metaphor for how the modern state disciplines its citizens. When the panopticon serves as a model for a prison, a guard stands at its center. Since each prisoner (citizen) knows that the guard might be looking at him or her at any moment, the question of whether the guard is actually looking--or if there is a guard at all--ceases to matter. The structure itself has created its disciplined citizen. By analogy, said my conversation partner at the cocktail hour, on the Internet someone might always be watching; it doesn't matter if from time to time someone is. Foucault's discussion of the panopticon had been a critical take on disciplinary society. Here it had become a justification for the U.S. government to spy on its citizens. All around me there were nods of assent.

 這個獎，剛好就在政府竊聽醜聞案風行於媒體報導之上時開始舉辦。當對於非法竊聽的相關問題被提出，在群集的商業網路經營者(Weberati)之中最一般的做法就是馬上把這議題轉為「不值得討論的議題」(不是議題的議題)。我們聽到過「所有的資訊都是好資訊」這句話，以及「資訊想要自由」、「如果你沒有事情是好隱藏的，你根本沒啥好怕的」(莫要人不知，除非己莫為)。在一個頒獎前的慶祝酒會上，一個網站的著名人物熱烈且相當生動的說道米歇爾‧傅柯的「全視監獄」(panopticon)的觀念，就是輪盤形狀的一種建築結構，從中心一個的集散處同心圓建構出來，這用來隱喻當代國家如何規訓市民。當這種「全景監獄」是作為監獄的一種形式，在中間有個管理監看者站在那邊。而因為每個囚犯(市民)都知道「中間的看守者」「有可能」隨時都正在看著「自己」(他/她)，問題是，看守者是不是真在看？──或是只是有一個看守者而已──這些都不是重點。這種結構自身已經創造出一群有教條規綠化的市民。類比來說，就拿我在那場宴會中的談話對象來說好了，在網路上，某個人可能總是會在監看你，但這和是不是有人總是在看你這件情本身是無關的。傅柯對於「全景監獄」的探討，在一個規訓化的社會中，已經是一個重要的概念。這邊(提到這概念)只是要顯示，美國政府對於美國市民的的監看。在我身旁的都一致同意，然後紛紛點頭稱是。

High school and college students give up their privacy on MySpace about everything from musical preferences to sexual hang-ups. They are not likely to be troubled by an anonymous government agency knowing whom they call or what Web sites they frequent. People become gratified by a certain public exposure; it is more validation than violation.

高中和大學學生在MySpace(社交網站)上放棄他們的隱私權，從音樂喜好到性向與性傾向等等都全然公諸於網站上。他們不太可能被某個匿名，但知道他們打電話給的對象或他們常逛網站的政府單位人員找麻煩。人們開始經由公眾暴露變得相當高興(欣慰)，變得相當可接受「被觀看」這件事，而不認為這是一種被侵犯/侵犯他人的行為。

Split attention
分散的注意力

Contemporary professional life is rich in examples of people ignoring those they are meeting with to give priority to online others whom they consider a more relevant audience. Students do e-mail during classes; faculty members do e-mail during meetings; parents do e-mail while talking with their children; people do e-mail as they walk down the street, drive cars or have dinner with their families. Indeed, people talk on the phone, hold a face-to-face meeting and do their e-mail at the same time. Once done surreptitiously, the habit of self-splitting in different worlds is becoming normalized. Your dinner partner looks down with a quick glance and you know he is checking his BlackBerry.

當代的學術生涯，在一些事例的遭遇與經驗上相當豐富，層出不窮；人們總是會忽略或忘記他們正在面談的對象，而把對話的優先性讓給了線上的那些他們覺得更相關的觀眾等的其他人。學生在上課時收發電子信件，教職員在開會時也同樣在查看信箱；家中的家長在跟他們孩子聊天的時候，也在做同樣的事情；人們在走在馬路上時還繼續收電子郵件，開車或是跟他們的家人共進晚餐時都是一樣。事實上，人們用電話聊天，將面對面實境和收電子信件同時處理。某次你可能是偷偷摸摸把它完成，但這種在不同世界當中「切割自身」(自我切割)逐漸成為一種習慣。你的晚餐約會對象不時往桌下瞄個幾眼，你會知道她就是在檢查她的黑莓機啦。

"Being put on pause" is how one of my students describes the feeling of walking down the street with a friend who has just taken a call on his cell. "I mean I can't go anywhere; I can't just pull out some work. I've just been stopped in midsentence and am expected to remember, to hold the thread of the conversation until he wants to pick it up again."

「感覺被暫停了...」是我學生在敘述在她跟某個同學逛街時，她的同學突然接到電話時的感覺。「我想我根本不能亂動亂跑；我不可能瞬間抽掉幾份工作。但頓時，跟她說話才說到一半，就好像被打斷停止了一樣，等到她接完電話，我似乎還被期待可以提醒或是記起剛剛在講的是什麼，瞬間就要暫停對話串，一直要到她接完電話，而想要繼續再說這個話題，才可以繼續...」

Traditional telephones tied us to friends, family, colleagues from school and work and, most recently, to commercial, political and philanthropic solicitations. Things are no longer so simple. These days our devices link us to humans and to objects that represent them: answering machines, Web sites and personal pages on social networking sites. Sometimes we engage with avatars who anonymously stand in for others, enabling us to express ourselves in intimate ways to strangers, in part because we and they are able to veil who we really are. Sometimes we engage with synthetic voice-recognition protocols that simulate real people as they try to assist us with technical and administrative issues. We order food, clothes and airline tickets this way. On the Internet we interact with bots, anthropomorphic programs that converse with us about a variety of matters, from routine to romantic. In online games we are partnered with "nonplayer characters," artificial intelligences that are not linked to human players. The games require that we put our trust in these characters that can save our fictional lives in the game. It is a small jump from trusting nonplayer characters--computer programs, that is--to putting one's trust in a robotic companion.

傳統電話將我們和朋友、家人、從學校來或是工作的同事，以及最近；電話也讓我們和商業廣告、政治和慈善捐募之間連在一起。事情不再簡單了。近來我們的這些設備讓我們和他人與一些代表他們的物體(客體)連結：答錄器、網站與社交網站的個人網頁等。有時我們會涉於一個處在匿名情境群眾中的化身當中，讓我們可以以化身情境中對陌生人，以一種親密的方式來表達自身，部分因為我們和他們都可以遮蓋住我們真實的身分。有時我們會處在合成的聲音辨識協定當中，模擬真實人們的生活，像是他們也會試圖去抵擋我們在科技和管理上的相關議題等等。我們在當中點餐，買衣服和機票等等。在網路上，我們互動是靠一種網路機器人，一種擬人化而可以和我們對話溝通，聊東聊西的一套系統，可以從最日常生活的瑣事聊到羅曼蒂克的愛情故事。在線上遊戲的世界當中，我們和一些「非玩家」的角色結夥，這些角色是靠AI(人工智慧)而不需要靠真實世界的玩家操控。這遊戲需要我們信任這些角色可以讓我們在虛擬的遊戲世界中存活。從相信/信任這些非玩家操控的人工智慧角色──意即，電腦程式──到信任機器人的陪伴，這其實是一個相當些微而不費力的轉換。

When my daughter, Rebecca, was 14, we went to the Darwin exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History, which documents his life and thought and somewhat defensively presents the theory of evolution as the central truth that underpins contemporary biology. At the entrance are two Galápagos tortoises. One is hidden from view; the other rests in its cage, utterly still. "They could have used a robot," Rebecca remarks, thinking it a shame to bring the turtle all this way when it's just going to sit there. She is concerned for the imprisoned turtle and unmoved by its authenticity. It is Thanksgiving weekend. The line is long, the crowd frozen in place and my question, "Do you care that the turtle is alive?" is a welcome diversion. Most of the votes for the robots echo Rebecca's sentiment that, in this setting, aliveness doesn't seem worth the trouble. A 12-year-old girl is adamant: "For what the turtles do, you didn't have to have the live ones." Her father looks at her, uncomprehending: "But the point is that they are real."

當我的女兒──羅貝卡14歲的時候，我們到美國自然歷史博物館參觀達爾文展覽，這展覽紀錄了他(達爾文)的生平與思想，而某程度上，展覽相當捍衛他當初那套幾近可拆毀當代生物學的演化論中心思想。在入口處，擺了兩隻巴西象龜，其中一個是躲在視線之外，另一個則在他們聾子裡休息，不太會動。「他們其實是可以用機器人的」羅貝卡這樣說，覺得讓烏龜這樣整天坐在那邊根本是無稽的事情。他關注到這個被囚禁在籠裡的烏龜，並且對這兩隻烏龜的原始性(不是機器人，是真的烏龜喔)不感興趣。那周剛好是感恩節周末。展覽人潮排的很長很長，人群幾乎是動彈不得，我問「你在不在乎那烏龜是活著的呢？」這是一個很開放性的問題。多數的投票者跟羅貝卡的選擇與感覺一樣，在這個狀態下，「烏龜是真的活著」不是這麼重要。一個十二歲的小女孩更堅定地說：想看烏龜真的是做什麼的，長怎樣或是這些，根本不用看真實活著的...」他爸爸看了一下他，似乎不太理解：「但至少他們是真的呀~」。

When Animal Kingdom opened in Orlando, populated by breathing animals, its first visitors complained they were not as "realistic" as the animatronic creatures in other parts of Disney World. The robotic crocodiles slapped their tails and rolled their eyes; the biological ones, like the Galápagos tortoises, pretty much kept to themselves.

當奧蘭多的「動物王國」(某家動物園)開張，充滿「會呼吸」的動物們，初訪的遊客們抱怨，他們覺得這不如迪士尼樂園當中的「動畫」生物來得真實。「機械鱷魚」搖擺甩動牠的尾巴並捲動他的眼球；而真實的鱷魚呢，就像門口那兩隻巴西象龜一樣，比較喜歡「做他們自己」。

I ask another question of the museumgoers: "If you put in a robot instead of the live turtle, do you think people should be told that the turtle is not alive?" Not really, say several of the children. Data on "aliveness" can be shared on a "need to know" basis, for a purpose. But what are the purposes of living things?

我問了參觀博物館的遊客另個問題：「如果我們把這隻烏龜替換成機器人，你覺得人們應該要被告知說這烏龜其實是假的而不是活的嗎？」。不盡然，很多小朋友都這樣回答。在「活著」上的資料顯示，為了某些目的，可以在一個「需要知道」(必須告知)的基礎上是可以被分享而告知的。但是這些活生生的事物的目的是甚麼呢？

Twenty-five years ago the Japanese realized that demography was working against them and there would never be enough young people to take care of their aging population. Instead of having foreigners take care of their elderly, they decided to build robots and put them in nursing homes. Doctors and nurses like them; so do family members of the elderly, because it is easier to leave your mom playing with a robot than to leave her staring at a wall or a TV. Very often the elderly like them, I think, mostly because they sense there are no other options. Said one woman about Aibo, Sony (nyse: SNE - news - people )'s household-entertainment robot, "It is better than a real dog. … It won't do dangerous things, and it won't betray you. … Also, it won't die suddenly and make you feel very sad."

二十五年前，日本了解到人口統計的數字開始嶄露危機，而他們往後將不會有足夠的年輕人來照顧這些老化的高齡人口。為了可以取代引入外籍看護這目的，他們決定研發「機器人」並將它們設置在「醫護之家」或「安養院」當中。醫生和護士都很喜歡這些機器人，而家庭的老一輩的高齡者也很喜愛這些機器人；因為把年老的母親放在家裡跟機器人玩，總比留著媽媽在家裡單獨看電視來的輕鬆得多。越來越多的老一輩的高齡者喜歡這些機器人，我想，多半是因為他們知道他們也別無選擇了。提到一個SONY研發出來的家用/娛樂型「女機器人」──Aibo，「他比一隻真正的狗狗來得好多了。...他不會惹禍或是發生危險的事情，而且他不會背叛你。...當然，他也不會突然死去，然後讓你因而傷心不已...」。

Might such robotic arrangements even benefit the elderly and their children in the short run in a feel-good sense but be bad for us in our lives as moral beings? The answer does not depend on what computers can do today or what they are likely to be able to do in the future. It hangs on the question of what we will be like, what kind of people we are becoming as we develop very intimate relationships with our machines.

可能這樣的機器人的設計安排在短期之內，在往好處想，是有助於家中的小孩與老人的，但是可能產生的負面問題，或許是在道德的意義與存在價值上。這答案並不取決於電腦今天可以提供我們那些，或是這些電腦(或機器人)有可能可以在未來帶給我們那些好處。其實這等於是擱置這些「關於我們未來將往何處去」的問題，一些像是當我們逐漸發展出與這些機器人密切而親密的關係後，我們將會變成怎樣的人之類的問題。


Sherry Turkle is professor of the social studies of science and technology at mitand the author of the upcoming Evocative Objects: Things We Think With.