In other species, no animal will choose to die by itself, except that it is similar to the salmon migrating to die for the survival of the breeding species. Therefore, from this perspective, humans can think that when they decide to live or die, they are already out of the control of DNA. It is no longer its parasite, and the two have become mutually beneficial and symbiotic life forms: DNA has given up part of its control in order to obtain a better continuation. Humans dedicate their bodies to provide a living environment for DNA, and at the same time gain the right to autonomous control. The two are like partners of interest. In order to survive, they each retreated, so that human life no longer depends on rigid stress responses and biological instincts, and has evolved to be more adaptable to the external environment and gain greater survivability. Living space, from the spatial distribution and quantity, it can be seen that this regression of human DNA is a success, in line with natural selection.
But DNA itself has no autonomous consciousness, and its essence is just a rigid program, relying on self-replication, error mutation and death, and obtaining regeneration and evolution ability through environmental selection. Therefore, it is too persecuted and delusional to think of human beings as a conspiracy theory designed by DNA to survive.
In the sense of observability, human life is non-material, an independent personality attached to this special program, and has acquired self-selection ability without DNA. This kind of self-selection ability is exactly thought, which is manifested in: people no longer rely on genetic memory to respond to the outside world, but can self-encode and expand their main program to survive longer, and conversely, they can also encode a set of infinite death. Cyclic program sequence, let the host freeze and freeze, choose to die.
In my opinion, the biggest factor that distinguishes humans from other species is that they have acquired this ability to self-encode, resulting in absolute specificity, no longer a mere replication. By defining the existence of human life, if a computer or computer program can also pass this self-coding and learning ability, and can organically combine and use what has been learned to create and use, we can also position it as life, for the purpose of human-like life.
At this time, the problem arises. With the ability to choose independently, we will judge and analyze the environment and choose our own direction, but what is our ultimate goal? Or what is the meaning of life? What does man live by, will distinguish him from other human beings? Different knowledge, different level of knowledge, past experience, emotional experience? This may be the answer that anyone who has thought about the meaning of life wants!
It seems to me that if there is an answer, make one up to yourself, it is only suitable for the generator of that answer. Because everyone’s experience is different, and the values they can accept are also different, so if it is suitable for all members, in a broad sense, the answer, if any, is: life itself has no meaning. Human beings are just an outlier in the evolution of the earth, lonely and insignificant. The universe does not live or die because of you. Your existence will not change anything. You are just an accidental existence, like winning a lottery. No one defines your existence, you can only give yourself a reason to live.
Some people live very hard, can't think of the meaning of life, they have to die or live for it, but why do we need to worry about it? This is the ultimate question, but not one that must be answered. Living and not living is just a tumult of emotions. When people are happy, people will not seek the answer to this question at all. When they are unhappy and miserable, they will struggle with this question. As you can see, this answer is not necessary for most people. To live happily is a self-evident answer.
But happiness is rare after all, and numbness is the norm. As someone said, mediocrity is the norm in life. Physiologically speaking, being in a state of happiness and excitement consumes more energy, which is not conducive to biological survival. Therefore, the best state to live is to be calm and free of turbulence. The nature is not to be happy with things, not to be sad about yourself, to live easily, and to live comfortably (this is my point of view, you can accept or sneer, because survival The definition is what you give yourself). There is no freedom in the body, only in the spirit. There are so many people who are trapped in things and work on documents. It is a bottomless pit that has swallowed many people.
However, it is not the final choice for not being happy with things and not feeling sorry for yourself, this is just my concept. After all, everyone’s life experience is different, and they have acquired different beliefs and values. They can be for themselves, others, selfishness, and dedication. These are all possible and reasonable. As the saying goes: I agree that you have your own opinions, but I don't necessarily accept them.
In my opinion, I will draw a safety circle for myself: in order not to affect others at the same time, we must be selfish and dedicated under the common rules of society, and not hurt others, everything is fine. The reason why you have to follow the rules is just to have a more peaceful environment, not to interfere with each other's existence, not to deprive others of the living space, and to realize yourself freely, not the natural law that should be taken for granted. You can also choose not to abide by this. rule.
However, if you think you have the ability to harm others and achieve your life goals while avoiding punishment, or think it is worth paying a certain price, even your life, you don't need to comply. I acknowledge your meaning and do not deny your existence. However, for my own benefit, I will use all kinds of weapons, whether moral weapons or live ammunition, to try to destroy you.
So do it as long as you think it's worth it, but be willing to pay the price because it's your choice.
Note 1: This film has too many interesting things and rich connotations. It involves the body, soul, existence, future technology, the definition of life, the meaning of life, etc. It is full of philosophical speculation, and has the shadow of many Western philosophical thinkers. Talking about three days and three nights can only be the foot of the iceberg. Therefore, I only select the two aspects that I am most interested in: the definition of life and the meaning of life, and explain my rough cognition.
Note 2: The reason for choosing these two aspects is that there are three "people" in the movie, and the differences in their performance have refreshed my understanding of life. In my opinion, this movie is the same as "her", and it is aimed at Peigong, but it only uses the shell of future technology, and does not mainly talk about technology. Rather, it creates a reasonable context for the existence of an idea carrier, similar to a mathematical model, restricting and endowing a number with conditions to explore the representation and meaning of this number. The three most important conditions in Ghost in the Shell are: the presence of a prosthesis, a program with self-awareness, and memory that can be indoctrinated to delete. It is the appearance of these three conditions that makes the appearance of the above-mentioned three kinds of "people" reasonably explained. There are three individuals involved: the garbage truck driver who has no self-consciousness in tangible individuals, the "ghost" who has self-awareness in intangible individuals, and the heroine "Grass" in which tangible individuals have self-consciousness. The most brilliant and exciting part of the film is the author's dialectical exploration of the definition of human-like life by the three.
View more about Ghost in the Shell reviews
