The last picture is the well-known "Loyal Dog Hachiko".

Hachiko's story is a household name, and the corresponding movies describing Hachiko's life are also very touching.

However, even if Hachiko shows an 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, not an elusive "emotion".

In fact, this kind of algorithm is also reflected in the above four examples.

A horse that can do arithmetic, an orangutan that can play "guerrilla", a cat that loves to look in the mirror, and a rat that can save its companions can all use algorithms to indicate their behavior.

Although Hans did not solve arithmetic problems through simple training and memory, Hans did not understand human mathematics in essence, because mathematics is a tool for human beings to simplify the world, and it is a direct match for human beings.

The reason why it can do arithmetic problems is because it knows how to "read words and colors", and has built its own algorithm based on it.

That is, when the questioner finds that his tapping sound is close to the correct answer, the questioner's expression will change, and then stop it and "answer correctly".

This is a formula for "observation" A, triggering "expression" B, and getting "arithmetic answer" C.

The reason why a "guerrilla" chimpanzee attacks a visitor with stones is what it can do to make it exciting, and it is not surprising that a chimpanzee, one of the few primates on Earth other than humans, can make and use tools to make itself feel good.

Although the chimpanzee "hides", "hiding stones" does not indicate that it has discovered human observations of its behavior, as it only finds that it is easy to lose things when it is in an "exposed" state, so it will "hide" things.

This may sound like a forced explanation, but in reality, many animals have a 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.

In this way, it is not surprising that the chimpanzee hides the "stones" that make it feel good to the body and mind.

But perhaps at this point, someone will ask, is it an "emotional" expression for chimpanzees to feel happy?

I think most scientists still won't admit it, because there are more incredible bonobos in the world than this particular chimpanzee.

Bonobos are very special among primates, because they are one of the few animals other than humans who will engage in XXOO behavior and make fun of it without the purpose of reproduction, and they will even use this behavior for diplomacy between two orangutan "tribes", that is, they will send the female bonobos of their "tribe" to establish in-depth communication with each other.

From this point of view, fighting guerrilla with stones is really not an "emotional" act......

Because the purpose of "throwing stones" A is to get "physical and mental pleasure" C, as for the existence of a special "travelogue war, or XO diplomacy" B link in the middle, it is not enough to think that chimpanzees have "emotions".

And what about cats that love to look in the mirror?

Does KK's sense of "self" really exist?

To verify this, specialists from the Russian side prepared a special experiment for KK.

That is to let the cats who are still going their own way live with KK and observe KK's behavior.

Even if you're not a researcher, cats behave capriciously, and you should know that KK's behavior changes after becoming self-aware.

After a month-long observation, the researchers found that KK did not appear to be overly "self-sufficient" in a state of independence, except that he was not unfamiliar with the "self" in the mirror.

He still sleeps with his mates, occasionally fights with them, and even finds his mate among these cats, and gets tired of licking each other's fur 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 doesn't seem to matter anymore, because it doesn't make sense.

At this time, for KK, its abnormal behavior accidentally got "looking in the mirror" C, but this behavior does not have the premise of "active" A and the cognitive link of "self" B, and even the final result of "looking in the mirror" C is incomplete and inaccurate, because we can't think that a cat sees itself in the mirror because it is sitting in a "daze" in front of the mirror.

So can rat rescuing companions prove that rats have "emotions"?

As mentioned above, some scientists believe that the rat saves its companion because it wants to disarm the "alarm" from its companion, and this "alarm" affects the rat more than the "food".

Some people may question this claim, but in fact, when many animals encounter predators, the "alarms" issued by their companions do have this power, because they know that "living" is far more valuable than "eating less", which is a survival instinct.

Therefore, the behavior of rats can be classified as genetic, rather than "emotional".

In this way, the rat's formula can be defined as "behavior" C because "alarm" A is greater than "food" B.

Finally, when it comes to Hachiko, the loyal dog.

With the above four examples, Hachiko's behavior is much simpler to explain.

As an adopted Akita dog, Hachiko waited for his master to get off work at the station every day, but one day the owner died of illness, and Hachiko never waited for his master to return, so Hachiko waited at the station until he was old.

This story is very touching, but now it is not about the touching and thinking that Hachiko brings to people, but whether Hachiko's behavior can prove that animals have "emotions".

If we use a formula similar to the above four examples to explain Hachiko's behavior.

Then Hachiko is because it lacks the B link of the "master" coming back, so it is always maintained in the "waiting" stage of A, so its result "C" has changed, or there will never be a good result "C".

This is directly related to the domestication of dogs.

Humans have domesticated the various dogs that accompany humans today, and this process can be seen as a process of biological genetic selection.

At the beginning, the goal of human domestication was to get an obedient, well-behaved, and non-harming individual, so those who were disobedient and would hurt people would be screened out, and the rest would be reproduced and then screened out, and after several generations, there was the concept of "dogs" that obeyed human orders and were loyal to humans.

In other words, Hachiko's behavior is a domesticated consequence, not an "emotional" element.

At this point, it seems that all five examples prove that the "emotion" of an animal does not exist, so what is the significance of Zeng Yijie's explanation of the life of "Liji"?

In this regard, Zeng Yijie's commentary replied like this.

"I don't think our research is worthwhile if it's just to discover a different basic form of life, so my research has to prove from the very beginning that 'Peri-based life' has characteristics similar to or even superior to human beings, and the most important of these is 'emotion', which was once considered the most useless thing that human beings have in the body, because those who thought 'emotion' was useless were derived by algorithms." 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, the most timely, and the most 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, otherwise, go ' Emotional' stereotyped thinking will eventually wipe out our advantages, and losing to artificial intelligence will become an inevitable consequence, and that future is terrifying...... To sum up, I believe that the life that goes to the 'emotional' is not qualified to be comparable to human beings, and only when it is fully proved that the 'life' has emotion, it exists, and its existence and discovery are meaningful! ”

It can be seen that it is extremely necessary for Zeng Yijie to discuss the existence, meaning and characteristics of "emotion" at length.

But what do these five examples of animals not having "emotion" illustrate?

This is what I wrote in the following article.

About horses who can do arithmetic.

Zeng Yijie believes that Hans's ability to observe words and colors is precisely the best proof of "emotion", because human beings also know how to observe words and colors, and we will also respond differently because of the joy, anger or sadness presented by the facial expressions on the other side, and even be infected by the other party's emotional catharsis, we will laugh, be provoked or cry together.

At this time, the communication between people does not require the intervention of language, writing, etc.

Excellent actors will express an indescribable sadness and anger through laughter, and this emotional interpretation will directly convey the audience's heart and resonate.

At this time, looking at Hans's observational "calculation" with human beings, the essence of his "emotion" can be said to have been mastered.

Even better.

Although it is a bit far-fetched to rely on these comparisons alone to prove that Hans has "emotional" factors, on the other hand, if these cannot prove that Hans has "emotional" characteristics, then will human observation and emotional expression become a cold algorithm?

In other words, the expressive expression of an excellent actor is not because he understands the "emotional" factor of the people in the play and has it himself, but just completes an excellent calculation?

Obviously...... Most people can't accept this conclusion, so in turn, Hans should have an "emotional" factor, and "emotion" is also necessary and existential for human beings.