Thanks for reading the 'Emotional Origin Hypothetical Theory' series of articles, this series of articles is hypothetical, only for reading entertainment, the author tries to make each article independent, I hope you like the ideas and paragraphs here, the previous one is "Emotional Origin Hypothesis Theory, Emotional Learning Process, Perception and Adaptation"
As far as time is concerned, the emergence of life has no practical significance, and the existence of life does not change any law of matter. Life can only be an appendage between the two, and instinctively follows all the rules they make.
But no matter how it is followed, the meaning of life can only be given by life itself. In addition, no innate rules and forms of existence will recognize the existential value of life.
That is to say, the existence of life, the affirmation of its meaning, is nothing more than the internal subjective definition of life itself, and when the whole of life dies between them, the definition of its existential meaning will also disappear.
However, self-qualification, for existing "self-centered" life, the results of the definition are often quite different from the actual, so the existing life will inevitably refer to the rules that instinctively follow, and adapt to the fine-tuning of the definition.
So what are the rules that life follows? Ignoring the meaning of life according to the innate rules, the essence of time is not only for life, but for whether all matter is in motion, being moved, and whether it is changing.
Then the same substance in the same environment and conditions, produce different changes in motion or speed, can only be said to experience the two time is different. Speaking in terms of results — in terms of the sole measure of the change of matter in time — that the same substance moves or changes at the same rate under different conditions, can it be said that they have experienced the same flow of time in terms of the motion and velocity of matter? After all, the same movement of the same substance must be experienced in equal time.
Therefore, it is concluded that the changes in the motion of the same matter are not necessarily equal in different circumstances or conditions and the changes in motion at the same time.
This is a fallacy arising from the split definition, but because the existing time measurement is based on the motion of matter, another conclusion can be drawn after the split definition: that is, the current concept of time is a human definition rather than an innate rule.
That is, the current time measurement is based on the movement or change rate of a certain substance as a reference to quantify the various movement or change rates of other various substances, rather than measuring it in terms of time itself. Therefore, this artificial definition of time can be measured by any kind of uniform and fixed rate of movement or change of matter.
Therefore, when the movement or change of matter as a reference is in a different environment or condition from the change in motion of the referenced substance, it is unknown whether the time and second of the change in the movement of the two matters are equal.
Thus, we can also recognize another affirmation, the innate rules of the universe: time is chaotic, difficult to measure uniformly, and has regionality, difference, can be locally conditioned, and difficult to macroscopic measure.
Therefore, the meaning of time for life is only the meaning of the change of material movement, and the concept and measurement of time are only as a narrow overall plan and reference for life itself within the living environment, under visual change or movement. It is simply the movement and change of matter under the rules of matter.
Thus the tone is set: time ignores the meaning of life by its rules, and life only follows it passively, rather than actively. And the rule of time, the discovery, observation and definition of life are only from the material, so the overall combination is that life is only under the shadow of the rules of matter, wrapped up and covered by the rules of time, and definitely belongs to the rule of matter.
Another question arises: Does life follow only the rules of material rule?
Leaving the macroscopic realm back to the realm of life, although the world of life is shrouded in the rules of matter, it is far less affordable than the actual material for life, so for those rules, life is only followed as matter, not life itself wants to follow, and it is even possible that for the so-called "affordable" life prefers some matter to rebel against the rules of their own operation.
Therefore, the definition of life for itself must be found at the balance between the observance and non-observance of the rules of matter. So, what is life not to follow as matter, or to ask in another situation: what kind of rule is it that navigates that makes life as matter willing to deviate from the established track of "following"?
Although life is another existential situation of matter, it is different and unified in the category of matter; therefore there must be rules that are different from those that are also integrated with matter, replacing the classical rules of matter.
There will be new "material" rules to replace it, and life is not a chaotic situation of existence, always looming to follow some limited trajectory. So, in addition to the innate rules of matter, time and so on, is the birth of life really accompanied by its own innate rules? If there is indeed an innate rule of companion life, what is this rule?
"Innate rules do not interpret the meaning of life", so the rules that accompany life will not have the characteristics of reason, inquiry, logic, thinking, memory, etc. that can define other things. It will inevitably be confined to the realm of life and will not operate independently of life. Therefore, if there is such a companion rule, it can only be found in the realm of life, in life.
There are many forms of life, and although all kinds of life are another existential situation of matter, all life has a material characteristic that is not a material characteristic, that is, all living things must have a moderate living environment.
The so-called moderate living environment is nothing more than that organisms can adapt to various stimuli in this environment, that is, a variety of complex physiological stimuli to biological senses under various external natural conditions, and here a variety of regional environments that not only refer to climate temperature, air pressure altitude and other macro-control, but also the individualized perception of cool sunshine, humidity and dryness.
Any creature will live in what they perceive as a moderate environment and fine-tune itself to adapt to the changing environment in the change of the environment, but the 'individualized perception of the slight difference' that exists between them will not make this group synchronize in the process of self-fine-tuning and synchronize in the overall population.
This phenomenon of inability to synchronize, only time knows what kind of effect will be produced, and this is aside for the time being. So what prevents or exacerbates this individual perception. Is it the function of another rule of life itself, or is it a difference in purely sensory sensations?
Wind and sun, subject to and push, the changing circumstances of these individuals, or the natural selection, the law of the jungle, the normal environment, will not leave only a single and mechanical choice for species.
Those so-called escapes and non-escapes, rescue and non-salvation, and the choice between life and death are not the main influence of sensory sensations. Those so-called sunrise and sunset life rules will not make independent choices based on the fatigue of sensory sensations.
What kind of rule is there in the system of life, and disobedience belongs to the choice of the senses to feel themselves?
Morality, reason, intelligence, emotion, social structure, degree of civilization, all these factors in the world of life that rebel against the choice of sensory sensations, what dominates, and what is the collateral that accompanies derivation?
In fact, the right to choose is in the hands of life itself, but the direction chosen to conform to the sensory sensations must be mechanical and monotonous.
The monotonic selectivity of machinery will inevitably form a diverse and complex life system. So, what is it that violates the choices of the senses and sensations and makes the creatures willingly accept their own choices?
In the choice of autonomy and disobedience, life is willing to make its own choices without violation; of all choices, the so-called reason is not guided by it; all life in any social structure, degree of civilization, or superstructure has a choice that is reconciled under this rule.
Then this rule must not be with the evolution of civilization, these morals, rationality, culture and wisdom born of society, nor must it be physical characteristics, instinctive demands on material needs, because the struggle between life, there are universal physiological needs against the heart.
Thus, all the factors that occupy the entire life system and affect the choice of sensory sensations are selected and excluded. Only the remaining emotions, feelings, and emotions are prevalent in species, whether individuals or groups, always run through the entire river of life, and until now still affect the choice of intelligent organisms.
If this is the rule of life's companionship, what is the role of its existence, is it only to influence the choice of life, then what is the meaning of its existence?
However, what can be known now is that life does not only follow the rules under the rule of materials, but also affects, feelings, and emotions (the following three are collectively referred to as emotions) as a companion rule, which also governs the overall operation of the life system.
These two innate rules, as well as many (such as morality, law, etc.) artificial rules, can choose the conditions that life is most willing to follow is the emotional quality. Therefore, can life equivalent to matter under the rule of matter be considered to be only the product of a movable substance being endowed with an emotional quality?
Whether the meaning of life and their self-definition is the release of life to the rules of matter and the self-law of life under the exploration and cognition of material rules (the word law here means binding).
(Image source network, if the infringing contact author deletes)