With Hans's example reversed, the next four examples are easy to understand.

Chimpanzees may indeed attack tourists for "entertainment", and this seemingly meaningless behavior for the survival of chimpanzees is actually a good reflection of their high intelligence and "emotional" ability.

Because human beings will often do some behaviors that are meaningless to life, and even harmful to physical health, but can make people feel happy.

The simplest example is smoking.

At present, there is no real evidence in the world that smoking is beneficial to the human body, on the contrary, it is the main cause of lung cancer.

However, there are still many people around the world who smoke every day, is there an "emotional" factor behind this behavior?

If not, then what makes humans choose to smoke? Is it because of the genetic habit caused by the father's smoking? Or behavioral imitation?

However, in a survey report, most families where fathers have a habit of smoking and drinking, their children tend to stay away from this vice, because they are disgusted with the family disharmony caused by this behavior from an early age.

It can be seen that both chimpanzees who do not throw stones at tourists for food, and bonobos who do not have the main purpose of reproduction but prefer XXOO behavior, should have some emotional factor, although we are not sure yet, but at least humans who also have this behavior do.

And KK, who likes to look in the mirror, and humans who dress up in the mirror every day, it is not difficult to find that maybe KK's other behaviors are no different from ordinary cats, but they are no strangers to the mirror, and it is already a very strange "emotional" behavior if they are not repulsed.

In order to make ourselves well-dressed and beautiful, it cannot be said that dressing up in the mirror is also a meaningless habit.

KK's preference for looking in the mirror may be due to the fact that he cares about his own decentness in the mirror, and this is subtle, but the researchers didn't notice the change in KK's eyes.

Although these are jokes, they are also worth pondering.

As for the rats that save their companions, there may be a lot of evidence that this is a biological genetic selection, because only those who know how to save their compatriots and pay attention to warnings can survive in the cruel natural environment, and those who choose food have long been eliminated.

But by analogy, when we meet a beggar on the way to work, what kind of charity do we do? Or what kind of attitude do we have?

If, according to the rat's algorithm, we give to others because we cannot ignore the beggar's "begging" voice, or because we have to eliminate this "begging" so that it does not "bother us", then our "good deeds" seem to have suddenly turned sour!

In fact, there are many people who think that alms are often a disguised display of advantage, just as lawns are to humans, and we grow lawns that don't produce food on fertile land, not because we really like them, or because lawns have other value, but because we express that we are rich through this "waste" of natural resources.

"Almsgiving" is also a kind of "rich" psychology from above, not a "helping" mentality.

In this way, our act of giving has not only changed its taste, but has even become a bit of an abomination.

But if this is not the case, remove the selection formula of rats, and our behavior becomes "emotional" and "human".

Conversely, if we accept the rat's selection formula, then we are a bunch of robots with their brains programmed by binary code to guide their behavior, and better algorithms tell us that we don't have to give out our own resources to "handout" inferior robots who are destined to be eliminated by society.

It's a scary thought...... But there are already many people who are deeply involved in it and don't know it.

Of course, this part is a foreign language.

After talking about the rat, it's Hachiko in the end.

Hachiko's loyalty makes human beings sigh and reflect, but if Hachiko's algorithm is really true, then it will definitely be directly abandoned by humans and skip the link of loyalty.

Hachiko will not repeat the previous day's actions at sunrise the next day, and it will make a better choice, which is to show favor to a loving human being and expect him to be able to take him home, so that Hachiko will have "home", "food" and "master's love" again.

This is the optimal selection algorithm, which is exactly the same as the de-"emotional" algorithm of rats.

In the human world, the loyalty of the Hachikos is no longer common, and the selection algorithm is even more.

If the "loyalty" algorithm is regarded as a dead end, the advantages of choosing the algorithm are obvious.

But at this time, what caused Hachiko's behavior? Is it because Hachiko is not smart enough?

So on the other hand, many people in the human world who adopt the eight-public algorithm are also because they are not smart enough?

I don't think so, what really drives the "loyalty" result of the Eight Commons algorithm is the "emotional" factor.

Those who are loyal, those who are loyal, it's not that they're not smart enough, it's the "emotional" factor that makes their actions meaningful.

At the end of all five photos, Bagong can better reflect Zeng Yijie's good intentions.

"Emotions are by no means meaningless, on the contrary, they are the greatest strength of human beings!"

This is what Zeng Yijie wants to convey.

……

After demonstrating the meaning of "emotion" to human beings, as Zeng Yijie explained before, the important premise that "radical life" exists and can be compared with human beings is obvious.

That is to prove that "Pyro-Life" has an "emotional" factor.

But before that, Zeng Yijie also showed five graphic pictures.

The figures in these five images are: a circle, a sphere, three parallelograms parallel to each other in a three-dimensional structure, two opposite cones that resemble funnels, and a point.

This section is much less annotated, but it provokes no less thought than it did in the previous case of the "emotional" part.

The first is the round shape.

A circle in a two-dimensional plane is thought of as a ring, a plane, a range, or a "door".

The concept of a ring is to take the edge of a circle, the concept of a surface is for the internal composition of the edge, a range is relative to the whole picture, and "a door" is to see the three-dimensional world behind the two-dimensional plane through this circle.

Here, Zeng Yijie specifically pointed out that this part of the research conclusion was not completed by him alone, but by all researchers in China and two spatial structure experts from Russia.

The first circle is a two-dimensional image of the human world, and because we are in a higher dimension, we can see all the multifaceted states expressed by this two-dimensional image, and even extend it to a larger and broader concept.

This includes doors.

When you think of the "door", it is obvious that you think of the "door" on Lake Don Juan.

So what does this door have to do with this "circle"?

Zeng Yijie wrote this in the commentary.

"We can abstractly extend the concept of a two-dimensional circle into a door because the three-dimensional world has a third element that does not exist in the two-dimensional world, that is, the 'height' in addition to 'length and width', which is the most critical factor in the composition of a three-dimensional figure, and on its basis, the circle has the concept of a door, so can we think of the 'door' on Lake Don Juan as a three-dimensional representation of the two-dimensional image? What does this two-dimensional existence look like? ”

As can be seen from this passage, the first picture brings not a conclusion, but a problem.

Two-dimensional exists in the state of representation in a three-dimensional world.

So we have a second picture.

A concrete, spherical type.

Spherical shapes are not unfamiliar to most people, and there are too many spherical objects in our daily life.

Take basketball as an example, if I want to draw a basketball on paper, excluding details such as colors, textures, etc., what do we need to draw first?

That's right, it's a circle!

It can be seen that the expansion of a two-dimensional circle in the three-dimensional world is spherical.

So if the ball is the ascending unfolding of a circle, then what is the unfolding of the "door" on Lake Don Juan?

Some people may say that it is the expansion of the figure of the word "door".

In this regard, Zeng Yijie's team put forward a completely different view.

First of all, this is definitely not the expansion of a "door" figure, because when the "door" figure is unfolded in the three-dimensional world, it can not only be represented by the "door" on Lake Don Juan, but it should be more accurately expanded in a channel whose length cannot be determined.

In other words, if it is really the ascending development of the "door", then we may still see the "door" type structure from the front, but from the side, we will see an endless passage.

This is a more reasonable state of expansion.

Therefore, it is inaccurate to directly identify the "door" as a two-digit "door" type expansion.

So we have the third picture.

Three parallelograms parallel to each other.

From a visual point of view, this diagram looks a bit like the three sections of a parallelogram cube, or the top, bottom, and middle sections, but only if they exist in a parallel state.

At this time, there is a very special contact between the three-dimensional two-dimensional figure and the three-dimensional world, that is, the restrictive composition.

If we want to upgrade the two-dimensional structure in the third figure, then the three-word two-dimensional figure will overlap, and then we can determine the beginning and end of the ascending expansion.

It sounds like a bit of a complication of a simple problem.

But in fact, this is a simplified description in the notes, and Zeng Yijie also added a link to the research report here, and specifically explained the in-depth analysis of the reverse dimensionality reduction of the "gate" on Lake Don Juan.

The only conclusion drawn from simplifying this research report is that Zeng Yijie's team agrees that dimensionality reduction is definitely not simply taking pictures of three-dimensional objects, because it only requires a mobile phone, and similarly, dimensionality reduction is not simply expanding a circle into a sphere.

Because the cross-section of the sausage is also round, most sausages are not made into a ball shape.