英语演讲
期中演讲
说实话，我还是很惊讶英语竟然会有期中考试
当然，考试内容只是做一篇演讲，而且不限选题这就给了我很大的发挥（整活）空间
要求
告知型演讲，原创，脱稿，不用ppt，所以我用博客没关系吧（滑稽）
演讲内容
主题鲜明、突出、政治正确，有新意，符合告知型演讲类型（如事物、过程、事件、概念等）。6分
内容充实、事例具有代表性；开篇点出主旨句 (thesis)，有新意，能引起观众注意和兴趣。6分
演讲稿结构严谨，行文流畅，用词恰当，层次分明，详略得当，结尾有力。3分
语言艺术
演讲语言规范，吐字清晰，表达流畅。5分
语言技巧运用得当，语速恰当，语音、语调、节奏能根据演讲内容的不同，有起伏变化，能熟练表达演讲内容。5分
形象风度与现场效果
形象得当、穿着得体，能恰当运用形体语言、动作、手势等表达演讲稿内容。与观众有目光交流，不受怯场的影响。2分
能把控演讲时间（3-5分钟），演讲效果良好，具有一定的吸引力、感染力与号召力，能引发观众的兴趣或思考。3分
补充说明
近期重温了一下猫和老鼠，长大了之后感觉看懂了更多
猫和老鼠之所以成为经典，绝不仅仅是作为一个儿童动画，其背后的隐喻着实令人深思
但我想讲讲里面的音乐，可以说，背景音乐是猫和老鼠成功的一半
这里贴一下参考文献
稿子
五分钟的稿子，差不多1200词左右，我打算 200 （开头）+ 900（正文）+ 100（结尾）
开头
说到《猫和老鼠》，你们第一反应都想到了什么？
脸被锅打成圆柱型的汤姆？被钢琴键连续捶打的杰瑞？无论你想到的是哪个场景，它一定是充满了极端的暴力、夸张的滑稽、诙谐的讽刺、却又有无脑的快乐。
Speaking of Tom and Jerry, what comes to your mind first?
It must be Tom and Jerry playing around, full of extreme violence, exaggerated funny, but brainless happiness.
那么问题来了：
1、几乎所有美产动画片都有这样的角色设立和剧情，是什么让《猫和老鼠》中的矛盾和暴力脱颖而出？
2、既是如此暴力，为何不会让我们觉得反感恶心，甚至越暴力就越好笑？
3、很多暴力的画面都夸张到不符实际，那我们又是如何在这个超现实的动画中感同身受的呢？
4、猫和老鼠几乎没有对话，我们又是怎么知道汤姆和杰瑞在想什么的？
But, have you ever thought :
Almost all American cartoons have such character settings and plots, what makes the contradictions and violence in this cartoon stand out?
Even if it is so violent, why doesn’t it make us feel disgusting, futhermore, even the more violent it is, the funnier it is?
Many violent images are exaggerated to the extent that they are not realistic, so how can we empathize with them in this surreal animation?
And how do we know what Tom and Jerry are thinking?
这些看似很难回答的问题，其实答案很简单：因为音乐。
These seemingly difficult questions are actually answered very simple: music.
Now, I’m going to play the episode which I think brings the music to its best use to explain it.
正文
接下来，我会分别更详细的回答上面问题
重量、暴力和痛苦
当我们在电影中看见一个东西掉下时，它所产生的声音必须要让观众感受到“重量、暴力、和痛苦”，我们才能感受到这个画面的真实感。因为画面中的物体毕竟不是实物，是没有重量或体积的，所以我们必须通过声音才能感受到它的重量和它的下落所带来的影响；通过声音让我们相信眼前的画面，从而感受到剧情。
When we see something fall in a movie, the sound it produces must make the audience feel “weight, violence, and pain” in order for us to feel the reality of the picture. Because the object in the picture is not a physical object after all, it has no weight or volume, so we must feel its weight and the impact of its fall through sound; By this way, we can believe in the picture in front of us and thus feel the plot.
音乐与画面的同步叙述，不仅让剧情更加生动形象地呈现在我们面前，从听觉上增强了视觉的真实性，更是巧妙地补充了画面以外的故事，因此，我们通过音乐、音高、旋律、主题、节奏、速度等音乐元素的变化，就可以直观地感受到了两方在斗争中施加的力量，以及带来的痛苦（此处应有Tom经典的叫声）。
The synchronous narration of music and pictures not only makes the plot more vivid ,enhances the visual authenticity, but also cleverly supplements the story outside the picture, so we can clearly feel the power exerted by the two sides in the struggle through the changes of musical elements such as music, pitch, melody, theme, rhythm, and speed and the pain brought by it .
越暴力，越容易接受
音乐上的铺垫，一方面放大了音效出现时的效果，把剧情更加推向高潮，让视觉上的冲击更加强烈；另一方面也让观众能够很自然地预测到接下来即将发生什么，从而做好心理准备，接受更大的暴力冲击。更有趣的是，布拉德利通常会将音乐上的撞击提前1、2秒钟——让观众“先听到再看到”这一动作。
The musical foreshadowing, on the one hand, amplifies the effect of the sound effect, pushes the plot to a climax, and makes the visual impact more intense; On the other hand, it also allows the audience to predict what will happen next, so as to be mentally prepared to accept the greater impact of violence. What’s even more interesting is that the producer usually advances the musical impact by 1 or 2 seconds — allowing the audience to “hear before see.”
也就是说，布拉德利在用音乐放大动画里的“暴力”的同时，也在用音乐“保护着”观众，让观众预知要发生什么，先听到再看到，来缓解视觉上的冲击。
That is to say, while producer uses music to amplify the “violence” in the animation, he is also using music to “protect” the audience, so that the audience can predict what will happen, hear first and then see, to alleviate the visual impact.
用音乐交流
众所周知，猫和老鼠几乎没有台词，似乎本来就不应该有台词。
和语言一样，音乐是有一定的逻辑句法规则的，也就是我们常说的“乐理”。
As we all know, Tom and Jerry have almost no lines, and it seems that there shouldn’t be lines in the first place.
Like language, music has certain logical syntactic rules, which is what we often call “music theory”.
比如，大调的音乐通常让人感觉比较明亮开朗；小调通常让人感觉比较伤感、灰色一点；有些和弦让人感觉不和谐，需要被解决；交响乐的最终会回到一级和弦让你感觉到它结束了，等等，猫和老鼠就是通过这种方法，用音乐和观众交流，让我们感受到角色的喜怒哀乐、剧情的跌宕起伏。音乐代替了台词，甚至超过台词，真正的做到了此时无声胜有声。
For example, music in major tones usually makes people feel brighter and cheerful; The minor key usually feels sad and gray; Some chords feel dissonant and need to be addressed; The symphony will eventually return to the first chord to make you feel that it is over, and it is through this method that Tom and Jerry can communicate with the audience, allowing us to feel the joys and sorrows of the characters and the ups and downs of the plot. Music replaces lines, even surpasses lines, and really achieves that silence is better than sound at this time.
结尾
It can be said that the success of Tom and Jerry is inseparable from the role of music. If you have the time, I highly recommend you rewatch it. Maybe this time, you are able to appreciate it more deeply, realizing what it really wants to show behind cartoons.
课前模仿
原视频
演讲稿
So far we’ve had humans that write like humans, we have computers that write like computers, we have computers that write like humans, but we also have, perhaps most confusingly, humans that write like computers. So what do we take from all of this? Do we take that William Blake is somehow more of a human than Gertrude Stein? Or that Gertrude Stein is more of a computer than William Blake?
These are questions I’ve been asking myself for around two years now, and I don’t have any answers. But what I do have are a bunch of insights about our relationship with technology. So my first insight is that, for some reason, we associate poetry with being human. So that when we ask, “Can a computer write poetry?” we’re also asking, “What does it mean to be human and how do we put boundaries around this category? How do we say who or what can be part of this category?” This is an essentially philosophical question, I believe, and it can’t be answered with a yes or no test, like the Turing test. I also believe that Alan Turing understood this, and that when he devised his test back in 1950,he was doing it as a philosophical provocation.
So my second insight is that, when we take the Turing test for poetry, we’re not really testing the capacity of the computers because poetry-generating algorithms, they’re pretty simple and have existed, more or less, since the 1950s.What we are doing with the Turing test for poetry, rather, is collecting opinions about what constitutes humanness. So, what I’ve figured out, we’ve seen this when earlier today, we say that William Blake is more of a human than Gertrude Stein. Of course, this doesn’t mean that William Blake was actually more human or that Gertrude Stein was more of a computer. It simply means that the category of the human is unstable. This has led me to understand that the human is not a cold, hard fact. Rather, it is something that’s constructed with our opinions and something that changes over time.
So my final insight is that the computer, more or less, works like a mirror that reflects any idea of a human that we show it. We show it Emily Dickinson, it gives Emily Dickinson back to us. We show it William Blake, that’s what it reflects back to us. We show it Gertrude Stein, what we get back is Gertrude Stein. More than any other bit of technology, the computer is a mirror that reflects any idea of the human we teach it. So I’m sure a lot of you have been hearing a lot about artificial intelligence recently. And much of the conversation is, can we build it? Can we build an intelligent computer? Can we build a creative computer? What we seem to be asking over and over is can we build a human-like computer?
But what we’ve seen just now is that the human is not a scientific fact, that it’s an ever-shifting, concatenating idea and one that changes over time. So that when we begin to grapple with the ideas of artificial intelligence in the future, we shouldn’t only be asking ourselves, “Can we build it?” But we should also be asking ourselves,“ What idea of the human do we want to have reflected back to us?” This is an essentially philosophical idea, and it’s one that can’t be answered with software alone, but I think requires a moment of species-wide, existential reflection. Thank you.
目前为止，我们有人可以写出像是人写出的诗、我们有电脑可以写出像是电脑写出的诗、我们有电脑可以写出像是人写出的诗，但我们同时也有会让我们最容易混淆的写诗像写得像电脑写的人。所以，我们从这里面了解到什么呢？我们会认为William Blake比Gertrude Stein更像是个人吗？或者Gertrude Stein比William Blake更像是个电脑？
这些问题是这两年来，我一直在问我自己，但我没有任何答案，但我真的有领悟到很多有关于我们与科技的关系。所以，我的第一个领悟是，为了一些原因，我们把人与诗结合一起，所以，当我们问，＂电脑会写诗吗？＂我们也在问，人的定义是什么？我们要如何在这些类别之间划出界限？我们要如何分辨谁或是什么东西是属于这一类的？＂我相信，本质上这是一道哲学的问题，而且，这不是像图灵测试这样“对“或”错”的测试来回答我也相信，Alan Turing在1950年发明这个理论时，也了解这一点，他当时引发了一个哲学上的争议。
我的第二个领悟是，当我们在为诗做图灵测试时，我们并不是真的在测试电脑的能力，因为用演算法作诗相当简单，而且它们大约在1950年代早就已经存在了。我们现在为诗做的图灵测试，反而，比较像是在收集关于什么是构成人性的条件的看法。所以，我发现，稍早我们今天看到的，我们说William Blake比Gertrude Stein更像个人，当然，这并不代表William Blake比较有人性或者Gertrude Stein比较像电脑。这只能单纯的说明，对人类的界定是不稳定的。这让我明白了一件事，就是人性不是冷的、死板的事实，反倒是一种由我们的意见所构成的东西，而这个东西会随着时间而改变。
所以我最后的领悟是，电脑，或多或少只是一面反映出我们展示给它的人类思想的镜子。我们向它展示Emily Dickinson，它就展示Emily Dickinson给我们，我们向它展示William Blake，它同样也会显示给我们，我们向它展示Gertrude Stein，我们得到的回应仅是Gertrude Stein。还有其他更多的科技也是，电脑只是一面镜子，它只是展示我们教给他的任何东西。所以，我确定你们大部分人都曾听过很多有关人工智慧的事情。而大部分的对话就类似：「我们该建造它吗？」「我们可以建立一个智慧型电脑吗？」「我们可以建立一个创造型电脑吗？」我们一次又一次的被问到，我们可以建立一个类似人类的电脑吗？
但就我们刚刚看到的，人类不是一个科学事实，人类是一个会不断地变化、串联想法、随时间改变的物种。所以，当我们开始要努力克服未来人工智慧的这个想法时，我们不应该只问我们自己，我们可以建造它吗？」我们还得问我们自己，「我们希望可以得到什么样的人性回应？」这绝对是个哲学想法，而且不是单靠软件就可以回答出来的，但我认为，这需要一个各类物种共存的反应时刻，谢谢各位。
