The last picture is of the "loyal dog Hachiko" who is familiar to the world.
The story of Hachiko is a household name, and the corresponding movie depicting Hachiko's life is also very touching.
However, even though Hachiko showed a kind of emotional loyalty, Hachiko's behavior still cannot be classified as "emotional" for most researchers.
Because they believe that Hachiko's behavior is a fixed algorithm rather than an elusive "emotion".
Speaking of this algorithm, it is actually reflected in the above four examples.
Horses that can do arithmetic problems, orangutans that can fight "guerilla", cats that love to look in the mirror, and rats that can save their companions can all use algorithms to indicate their behaviors.
Although Hans knew arithmetic problems not through simple training and memory, Hans did not understand human mathematics in essence, because mathematics is a tool for humans to simplify the world and is directly matched with humans.
The reason why it can do arithmetic problems is because it knows how to "observe words and colors", and based on this, it has established its own algorithm.
That is, when you find that your tapping sound is close to the correct answer, the questioner's expression will change, and then he stops and "the answer is correct."
This is a formula that performs "observation" a, triggers "expression" b, and obtains "arithmetic answer" c.
Chimpanzees who are known to fight "guerrilla" attack tourists with stones because this behavior can make them feel excited. At the same time, as one of the few primates on earth other than humans who can make and use tools, chimpanzees will attack tourists with stones to use them.
It’s not surprising that I feel happy both physically and mentally.
Although this chimpanzee can "hide things", "hiding stones" does not mean that it has discovered human observations of its behavior, because it only finds that its things are easy to lose when it is in an "exposed" state, so it hides them.
Things are "hidden".
This may sound like a forced explanation, but in fact, many animals have the habit of "hiding" things.
For example, squirrels will store pine nuts for winter, and domestic dogs will bury their favorite bones and other things in the soil.
From this point of view, it is not a big deal that chimpanzees hide "stones" that make them feel physically and mentally happy.
But maybe someone may ask at this time, is the physical and mental pleasure felt by chimpanzees considered an "emotional" expression?
I think most researchers still won't admit it, because compared to this special chimpanzee, there are even more incredible bonobos in the world.
Bonobos are very special among primates because they are one of the few animals, other than humans, that can engage in sexual behaviors for fun without the purpose of reproduction. They even use this behavior for two purposes.
Diplomacy between orangutan "tribes" means that they will send female bonobos from their own "tribe" out to establish in-depth communication with each other.
From this point of view, guerrilla warfare with rocks is really not an "emotional" behavior...
Because the purpose of "throwing stones" a is to obtain "physical and mental pleasure" c, no matter what kind of special "travel wars" or xo diplomacy b links there are in the middle, it is not enough to consider chimpanzees to have "emotions".
What about cats who love looking in the mirror?
Does KK's "self" consciousness really exist?
In order to verify this, Russian experts prepared a special experiment for KK.
That is to let those cats who still go their own way live with KK and observe KK’s behavior.
Cats’ behavior is erratic. Even if you are not a researcher, you should know this very well. So will KK’s behavior change after gaining self-awareness?
After a month-long observation, the researchers found that except that KK was not unfamiliar with "self" in the mirror, he did not appear to be in an independent state of being too "selfish".
It will still sleep with its companions, and will play with them occasionally. It has even found its own mate among these cats, and they get tired of licking each other's fur together almost every day.
Looking at it this way, KK’s “self-awareness” is really quite thin.
So how to explain that KK is no stranger to himself in the mirror seems to be unimportant, because it makes no sense.
At this time, for kk, its abnormal behavior unexpectedly led to "looking in the mirror" c. However, this behavior did not have the premise of "active" a and the cognitive link of "self" b, and even the final result was "looking in the mirror"
"c is also incomplete and inaccurate, because we cannot think that just because a cat is sitting in front of a mirror and "being in a daze" that it sees that it is itself in the mirror.
So does the rat rescuing its companions prove that rats have "emotions"?
As mentioned above, some scientists believe that the reason why a rat saves its companion is because it wants to relieve the "alarm" issued by its companion, and this "alarm" has a greater impact on the rat than "food".
Some people may question this statement, but in fact, when many animals encounter natural enemies, the "alarm" issued by their companions does have this power, because they know that "living" is far more valuable than "eating less".
Value is a survival instinct.
Therefore, the behavior of rats can be completely classified as genetics, rather than "emotional" effects.
In this way, the rat's formula can be defined as, because "alarm" a is greater than "food" b, so "behavior" c is performed.
Finally, let’s talk about the loyal dog Hachiko.
With the above four examples, it becomes easier to explain Hachiko's behavior.
As an adopted Akita dog, Hachiko waited for his master to get off work at the station every day. However, one day his master passed away due to illness. Hachiko could no longer wait for his master to come back, so Hachiko waited at the station until he got off work.
Get old.
This story is deeply touching, but what we are discussing now is not the touching and thinking that Hachiko brings to people, but whether Hachiko's behavior can prove that animals have "emotions".
If we use formulas similar to the above four examples to explain Hachiko’s behavior.
Then Hachiko is missing the link b of the "master" returning, so it always remains in the "waiting" stage of a, so its result "c" has changed, or there will never be a good result "c".
This is actually directly related to the domestication of dogs.
Through domestication, humans have obtained the various dogs that accompany humans today. This process can be regarded as a biological genetic screening process.
In the beginning, the goal of human domestication was to obtain an obedient, well-behaved individual who would not harm humans. Therefore, those who were disobedient and would hurt others would be screened out, and the remaining ones would be reproduced and then screened out. After several generations,
There is obedience to human orders and loyalty to human beings
The concept of "dog".
In other words, Hachiko's behavior is a result of domestication, not an "emotional" element.
At this point, it seems that all five examples prove that animal "emotions" do not exist. So what does this mean for Zeng Yijie's explanation of "Liji" life?
In response to this, Zeng Yijie’s comment states:
"I believe that our research is of no value if it is just to discover another life with a different basic form. Therefore, my research will prove from the beginning that 'lion-based life' has capabilities similar to or even superior to humans."
characteristics, and the most important of them is 'emotion'. 'Emotion' was once considered to be the most useless thing in the human body, because those who think 'emotion' is useless use algorithms to derive 'emotion'
' is a kind of dessert that comes with the behavior, which can only increase the experience, but is not the main basis for the behavior. I don't agree with this view. I think that perhaps the behavior that removes the 'emotional' factor is the best choice most of the time.
The most reasonable, timely and appropriate, but human behavior should have 'uncertainty', divergence and possibility, because only in this way can our chess players have the upper hand when playing against artificial intelligence AI
, Otherwise, the stereotyped thinking of getting rid of 'emotion' will eventually make our advantages disappear, and losing to artificial intelligence AI will also become an inevitable result, and such a future is terrible... In summary, I think that getting rid of 'emotion'
Life is not qualified to compete with human beings. Only when it is fully proved that 'Liao-based life' has emotions can it exist, and its existence and discovery are meaningful!"
From this we can see that it is extremely necessary for Zeng Yijie to discuss the existence, meaning and characteristics of "emotion" at length.
But what can these five examples that prove animals have no "emotions" illustrate?
This is what is written in the following pages.
About the horse that can do arithmetic.
Zeng Yijie believes that Hans's ability to observe words and colors is the best proof of "emotion", because humans also know how to detect words and colors, and we will respond differently to the joy, anger or sadness shown on the face of the opposite person, and even be affected by it.
Infected by the other person's emotional catharsis, they will laugh together, be irritated or shed tears.
At this time, communication between people does not require the intervention of language, writing and other things.
Excellent actors will express an indescribable mixture of sorrow and anger through laughter, and this emotional interpretation will directly convey the audience's heart and arouse resonance.
At this time, looking at Hans's observational "calculation" in conjunction with humans, it can be said that he has mastered the essence of "emotion".
Even better.
Although it is a bit far-fetched to rely solely on these comparisons to prove that Hans has "emotional" factors, but conversely, if these cannot prove that Hans has "emotional" characteristics, then will human observation and emotional expression become indifferent?
algorithm?
In other words, the expressive performance of an excellent actor's expression is not because he understands the "emotional" factors of the people in the play and has it himself, but just completes an excellent calculation?
Obviously... most people cannot accept this conclusion, so by inference, Hans should have "emotional" factors, and "emotion" is also necessary and exists for human beings.