In this blog post, I’d like to examine the relationship between the soul and the body through ‘Ghost in the Shell’ and consider the definition of a living being and how far those criteria can be expanded.
The English title of ‘Ghost in the Shell’ is ‘Ghost in the Shell’. It implies that the “ghost”—meaning the soul—resides within a shell, or the “cyberbody” as it is referred to in the film. It prompts us to consider the nature of life by separating the soul and the body—which are inseparable in real humans—and examining them in isolation. The following phrase on the English-language poster succinctly captures this theme: “Who are you? Who slips into my robot body and whispers to my ghost?” Can a machine without a soul truly be considered a living being? Conversely, what about a soul without a body? The film asks whether cyborgs—created through industrial production—are living beings. What is a living being, and how can life be defined?
The film is set in a future society where so-called “brain digitization” and “cyborgization” technologies have advanced. However, these two key future technologies—which form the core of the film—are not clearly or specifically explained throughout the movie. “Brain digitization” refers to the process of digitizing the human brain to increase its efficiency and enable rapid information processing, while “cyborgization” can be understood as the technology of assembling a human body like a doll. The protagonist, a member of the Ghost in the Shell unit, is a cyborg created through these two technologies, with a cyberized “Ghost” residing within her cyberbody. Meanwhile, the other protagonist, the “Ghost of the Net,” is a network-based entity—unlike the cyborg—that emerged spontaneously from vast amounts of information. Simply put, it is a “mutation” of the film’s futuristic technology. The story unfolds as this Ghost of the Net asserts its right to existence. Here is an excerpt from a dialogue between the Ghost of the Net and the cyborg protagonist toward the end of the film.
Ghost of the Net – I call myself a living being, but in my current state, I’m incomplete. My system lacks the fundamental life processes of leaving behind offspring and experiencing death.
Cyborg – You leave behind copies, don’t you?
Net Ghost: “A copy is merely a replica. It can be wiped out by a single virus, and it lacks individuality or diversity. To exist eternally, one must become more complex and diverse, while discarding what is unnecessary. Cells repeat metabolic processes, are reborn, and die again. Erasing much of one’s experiential data upon death and leaving only genes and replicas is a defensive mechanism for eternal existence.”
Cyborg—So you want individuality and diversity in order to exist forever.
Based on this dialogue, I’d like to reflect on the definition of a living organism. Current biology defines the characteristics of a living organism as follows. An organism must satisfy all of these requirements simultaneously—not just some of them—to be recognized as a living being under today’s academic concepts.
All living organisms: 1. Are composed of cells, which are structural and functional units. 2. Perform their own metabolism. 3. Respond to external stimuli. 4. Possess homeostasis, the ability to maintain a constant internal environment. 5. They undergo development and growth. 6. They reproduce and pass on their genetic information. 7. They adapt and evolve.
Looking at the dialogue in the show, Net’s Ghost states that he is not a complete living organism because he cannot leave behind offspring and die; this relates to criterion 6 above. The individuality and diversity mentioned as necessary for living organisms to exist eternally across generations correspond to criteria 6 and 7.
In fact, thanks to species diversity—such as mutations—living organisms evolve into forms suited to changing environments; therefore, individuality is absolutely necessary for eternal existence. However, even if Net’s Ghost were to meet the additional criteria of points 6 and 7, it is self-evident from an academic standpoint that it is not a living organism, as it still falls short in other respects.
Here, it is necessary to reexamine the academic definition. By its very nature, academia establishes clear definitions for its subjects and requires universal acceptance of these definitions; consequently, the definitions established here tend to be quite stringent. The same applies to living organisms. According to the current definition, a mule—born of a horse and a donkey—is not considered a living organism because it lacks reproductive capacity and cannot produce offspring. Yet, do people not fully recognize mules as living organisms? Absolutely not. Generally, most people do consider mules to be living beings, and this is precisely the limitation of academia. The criteria applied in real society encompass not only academic fields but also various additional standards—such as ethical and customary considerations—and society itself is constantly changing. Consequently, established academic concepts are often redefined, and the current definition of a “living being” is no exception. “Ghost in the Shell” is a work produced long ago that depicted a future society. Given the rapid advancements in science and technology since the film’s release, the idea that the future portrayed in the movie might become a reality in the not-too-distant future is not merely a wild guess. As biotechnology and cloning techniques continue to advance and the mechanization of society as a whole deepens, it is possible that characters like those in the film might actually appear in the real world. If such “semi-living beings” (?)—different from humans—were to truly exist in the future, what conclusions should we draw regarding their vitality? One thing is clear: we must revise the current definition of a living being. The questions posed by other science fiction films depicting future societies, such as ‘I, Robot’ and ‘The Island’, ultimately all boil down to this. However, just as these films merely raise these issues without reaching any definitive conclusions, this topic is quite complex and cannot be easily resolved. To offer a highly subjective conclusion: any entity capable of feeling “emotions” should rightfully be included in the category of living beings. We cannot treat beings with emotions carelessly, no matter how insignificant they may appear. The reason we develop a sense of concern while watching the films mentioned above and feel sympathy and sadness for the “semi-living beings” (?) that appear is that we empathize with their emotions and tragic circumstances. Emotion is distinct from “objective senses,” which perceive external changes, and “reason,” which enables discernment. In other words, emotion is a stirring of the heart—that is, a subjective feeling of joy, anger, sorrow, and pleasure. In fact, the concepts of emotion, sensation, and reason are quite abstract and cannot be strictly distinguished; however, the term “objective sensation” as used here refers to the narrow sense of simply reacting to external stimuli, while “reason” refers to the narrow concept of judgment that even computers can perform. In the past, psychology did not distinguish between sensation and emotion, but J. Ward and W. Wundt distinguished them, arguing that sensation is objective while emotion is subjective.
One point to clarify here is that the new definition of a living being proposed above fully acknowledges the vitality of organisms already recognized as living beings under existing definitions. When it is argued that beings capable of emotion should be regarded as living organisms, some might counter by asking whether beings incapable of emotion cannot be considered living organisms. For example, single-celled organisms—which it would be a stretch to consider capable of feeling emotions—would likely be the subject of such questions; however, according to the author’s argument, since these organisms are already recognized as living organisms, they can be excluded from such discussions.
On the other hand, since using emotion as the sole criterion for definition risks making judgments ambiguous, specific criteria must be established to clarify the definition. However, not only has such a future era not yet arrived, but the author also lacks the ability to establish those specific criteria. Therefore, for now, I will conclude by stating that the current definition of a living being presents some problems when applied to a changing society, and that “beings capable of emotion” should also be added to the current category of living beings.
Thus far, we have examined the category of living beings through the lens of the film ‘Ghost in the Shell’. The reason we can perceive this issue regarding the definition of living beings is fundamentally because the film depicts conflicts arising from this very problem. The same applies to the other films introduced earlier. However, science and technology themselves do not inherently involve value-based interests. In other words, the source of the conflict lies in the social systems that develop and utilize science and technology, and this rift is deepened by selfish individuals who have lost their moral compass. Therefore, as science and technology continue to advance, various ethical issues will inevitably arise. Citizens’ moral character and ethical awareness must be fostered accordingly, and society must also support these efforts with appropriate institutional changes, such as the redefinition of life discussed earlier.
