Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/30/12 03:24 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

So you attack me like the monster you see me as, for you were hurt by natural discordance between you and I. Why become what you accuse me for being, for the sake of your own pain in disagreement? I have done nothing to harm you; life came with thorns, so I came with thorns.

Nobody likes you Insanctuary. Let me make that clear.

NOBODY!

At 10/30/12 03:24 PM, Insanctuary wrote: life came with thorns, so I came with thorns.

Well fine, so then I came with thorns too you mong

At 10/30/12 03:29 PM, Otto wrote: Well fine, so then I came with thorns too you mong

So much pain in your words. So much hatred. So much turmoil. Where do you get off calling me with pejoratives? What does it do in turn for your spite towards not me, but what you assume of me?

At 10/30/12 02:21 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:57 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:50 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I'm actually gonna try to dissect this post because I'm bored and have 30 minutes to kill.

At 10/30/12 01:32 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Perception is a wonderful tool of self-awareness.

No, self-awareness is a product of perception.

My thresholds of perception are delicate, and I consider even the smallest of symbolisms. Our self-awareness facilitates our tool of perception. Perception did not come before self-awareness.

Animals have perception, yet not self-awareness.

Animals do not have perception. They are deeply mechanical, which is why our advancements in society has revealed errors in their natural system of coding. Dogs still go around in circles as if they did back in the wild. They do not have perception of self-awareness. They can not adapt to our new world; and already adaptable animals can only adapt to what they are biologically able to adapt to.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. According to dictionary.com, to perceive is "to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses". Animals clearly do this. Information imputed into their brain via the senses is analyzed and turned into perception. For example, A deer looks in a wolf's direction, perceives that the wolf is present, and reacts to it by fleeing. Animals are not, however, self aware (or at least as far as we know).

How you see the world with the questions you ask, is more important than how the world really is;

This is apples and oranges.

I don't follow.

In other words you're saying one subject is "more important" than a completely different one.

They are very much the same.

Firstly, you really can't just claim something with no backing. Its not how this kind of thing works. Secondly, I really don't understand what the hell you're trying to say in the first place. You don't see the world "with the questions you ask". You see the world with your senses. If you're trying to say that our perception of the world is more important that how the world actual is, I would have to disagree. At one point we perceived the world to be flat. We now know it to be round. We once perceived the world to be the center of the universe. We no know this to be false. As we gain knowledge of the world around us, our perception of the world changes and we are able to apply our new-found knowledge in order to do things we couldn't do before.

As we question what we already see, we grant ourselves curiosity;

You have it backwards again. Curiosity causes questions.

I consider the frivolous aspects of life. Therefore curiosity, and the act of asking questions, are seperate symbolic features. Not all questions are curious, but all curiosities lead to questions.

I still don't understand. Curiosity is "the desire to learn or know about anything; inquisitiveness". We would not act upon our desire to know (i.e ask questions) if said desire didn't exist. Again, i don't know what the hell you're trying to say.

Then you define curiosity as imagination. Otherwise the words would be synonymous.

Imagination doesn't always come with questions. All questions are curious, but all curiosities lead to questions. When you are discussing with me, there is a point in time where you have to consider the smallest of details. I take every grain of sand of my ideological island into consideration.

our curiosity is endless

No, otherwise we'd be immortal.

We always will have the ability to question. There is not a time where we can't ask questions.

I have to agree with this one. Saying that someone's "curiosity knows no bounds" is a figure of speech. It doesn't imply that the person is immortal.

See, you just admitted that questions come from curiosity.

Asking questions does not lead to curiosity everytime. Much of us are not prepared to be curious, but many of us are prepared to ask questions. This is regardless if we are asking the wrong questions.

Ok, how about you tell us exactly what you mean by "curiosity" because you aren't using the word correctly.

We shouldn't ever settle with our one way of viewing the world as an individual.

This is true, but you reached this conclusion without a logical premise.

My premise is sound.

Nonsense.

Sense.

I don't see how you have any premise at all. Your post is a bunch of loosely connected statements. This one can't even be said to be a conclusion because you don't make any real propositions from which a conclusion can follow. That aside, I guess I agree with this particular statement.

I will show you. Place either hand infront of your forehead, now make the L symbol. Quickly, you will think of either 'Loser', or another derogative interpretation, but what if you were to change that 'L' into the representation of 'Life'?

What you said before this has nothing to do with social implications (ie: NOT independent perception).

You've misinterpreted it.

Okay, then I guess this example was just filler text.

All of what I've said coincides as a single aggregated concept of perception. It's sound.

I don't see how this example relates to statements preceding it. I don't see what the example is striving to prove. Yes, you can make the L represent a word other than "loser" if you want. What's your point? That an object or action can symbolize multiple things? Again, how do the previous remarks lead up to this?

At 10/30/12 03:50 PM, draco889 wrote:

At 10/30/12 02:21 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:57 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:50 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I'm actually gonna try to dissect this post because I'm bored and have 30 minutes to kill.

At 10/30/12 01:32 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Perception is a wonderful tool of self-awareness.

No, self-awareness is a product of perception.

My thresholds of perception are delicate, and I consider even the smallest of symbolisms. Our self-awareness facilitates our tool of perception. Perception did not come before self-awareness.

Animals have perception, yet not self-awareness.

Animals do not have perception. They are deeply mechanical, which is why our advancements in society has revealed errors in their natural system of coding. Dogs still go around in circles as if they did back in the wild. They do not have perception of self-awareness. They can not adapt to our new world; and already adaptable animals can only adapt to what they are biologically able to adapt to.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

Definitions are biased. Look up the term 'atheist', you will see that it says ''A person who denies there being a God'', which is improper and biased to say. How do you deny what never was proven to be existent? They are not denying a God, they are denying the claims of God. You really shouldn't rely on definitions too much.

How you see the world with the questions you ask, is more important than how the world really is;

This is apples and oranges.

I don't follow.

In other words you're saying one subject is "more important" than a completely different one.

They are very much the same.

You don't see the world "with the questions you ask".

As you question the world, new perceptions are revealed to thy self. Without curiosity, you live in confusion.

As we question what we already see, we grant ourselves curiosity;

You have it backwards again. Curiosity causes questions.

I consider the frivolous aspects of life. Therefore curiosity, and the act of asking questions, are seperate symbolic features. Not all questions are curious, but all curiosities lead to questions.

I still don't understand. Curiosity is "the desire to learn or know about anything; inquisitiveness". We would not act upon our desire to know (i.e ask questions) if said desire didn't exist. Again, i don't know what the hell you're trying to say.

The definitions are paper-weighted interpretations of the symbolism behind our colloque. You rest your ideas too much unto falliable premises.

Then you define curiosity as imagination. Otherwise the words would be synonymous.

Imagination doesn't always come with questions. All questions are curious, but all curiosities lead to questions. When you are discussing with me, there is a point in time where you have to consider the smallest of details. I take every grain of sand of my ideological island into consideration.

our curiosity is endless

No, otherwise we'd be immortal.

We always will have the ability to question. There is not a time where we can't ask questions.

I have to agree with this one. Saying that someone's "curiosity knows no bounds" is a figure of speech. It doesn't imply that the person is immortal.

See, you just admitted that questions come from curiosity.

Asking questions does not lead to curiosity everytime. Much of us are not prepared to be curious, but many of us are prepared to ask questions. This is regardless if we are asking the wrong questions.

Ok, how about you tell us exactly what you mean by "curiosity" because you aren't using the word correctly.

The intent to question.

We shouldn't ever settle with our one way of viewing the world as an individual.

This is true, but you reached this conclusion without a logical premise.

My premise is sound.

Nonsense.

Sense.

I don't see how you have any premise at all. Your post is a bunch of loosely connected statements. This one can't even be said to be a conclusion because you don't make any real propositions from which a conclusion can follow. That aside, I guess I agree with this particular statement.

The statements are well intact on my side. This is a problem with the perception on your side.

I will show you. Place either hand infront of your forehead, now make the L symbol. Quickly, you will think of either 'Loser', or another derogative interpretation, but what if you were to change that 'L' into the representation of 'Life'?

What you said before this has nothing to do with social implications (ie: NOT independent perception).

You've misinterpreted it.

Okay, then I guess this example was just filler text.

All of what I've said coincides as a single aggregated concept of perception. It's sound.

I don't see how this example relates to statements preceding it. I don't see what the example is striving to prove. Yes, you can make the L represent a word other than "loser" if you want. What's your point? That an object or action can symbolize multiple things? Again, how do the previous remarks lead up to this?

To allow people to break the old perception, and give birth to new perceptions.

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Please, remove all irrelevant quotes, as if it was not already confusing enough to remember which indentions represented which responses from which persons.

At 10/30/12 04:27 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Definitions are biased. Look up the term 'atheist', you will see that it says ''A person who denies there being a God'', which is improper and biased to say. How do you deny what never was proven to be existent? They are not denying a God, they are denying the claims of God. You really shouldn't rely on definitions too much.

Why use the word "perception" if you're not following the definition of "perception"? I think that you just used the word incorrectly and now you're claiming that "perception" is equivalent to whatever-the-fuck-you-meant so that is doesn't appear as if you were ever wrong.

Stop looking into dog's minds. That's my way of saying stop skullfucking your dog man.

At 10/30/12 04:39 PM, Entice wrote: Stop looking into dog's minds. That's my way of saying stop skullfucking your dog man.

That definition is primarily for human beings. You are misconstruing it to fit with your concept for animals, but this is falsifiable. Perception is not equal to senses. Animals have senses, but they do not have the awareness to have perception. They see a picture, and they act on their greatly ingrained agents to react to the symbolism, but they are not able to do anymore than that.

At 10/30/12 04:47 PM, Insanctuary wrote: That definition is primarily for human beings.

There's nothing in the definition that says so. In the English language it's usually used for humans but there's no rule that animals cannot perceive, because they do.

You are misconstruing it to fit with your concept for animals, but this is falsifiable.

How so?

Perception is not equal to senses. Animals have senses, but they do not have the awareness to have perception. They see a picture, and they act on their greatly ingrained agents to react to the symbolism, but they are not able to do anymore than that.

Yes, that is the same as perception.

Dogs can use their senses to perceive the world around them. The reactions you mentioned are proof. They "identify [the world] by means of the senses". That's the dictionary definition mentioned above.

If they weren't able to perceive the world they wouldn't be able to react to it. They'd be like blind robots with no sensory input.

At 10/30/12 04:54 PM, Entice wrote:

At 10/30/12 04:47 PM, Insanctuary wrote: That definition is primarily for human beings.

There's nothing in the definition that says so. In the English language it's usually used for humans but there's no rule that animals cannot perceive, because they do.

What you define as perceiving is not perceiving. It is reacting to their instinstive agents and symbolism.

You are misconstruing it to fit with your concept for animals, but this is falsifiable.

How so?

Animals don't have perception.

Perception is not equal to senses. Animals have senses, but they do not have the awareness to have perception. They see a picture, and they act on their greatly ingrained agents to react to the symbolism, but they are not able to do anymore than that.

Yes, that is the same as perception.

No, perception is awareness, which is what animals do not have.

Dogs can use their senses to perceive the world around them. The reactions you mentioned are proof. They "identify [the world] by means of the senses". That's the dictionary definition mentioned above.

If they weren't able to perceive the world they wouldn't be able to react to it. They'd be like blind robots with no sensory input.

Yes, they can react to it in the same as an evolved computer form of plant life.

B is for bestality.

You're argument is one giant circle.

You: Animals don't have perception.
Us: Yes they do. The definition of "perceive" includes "identify by means of the senses" and animals clearly have senses.
You. That does doesn't apply to animals.
Us: Why?
You: Animals don't have perception.

See anything wrong?

At 10/30/12 05:13 PM, Entice wrote: Us: Yes they do. The definition of "perceive" includes "identify by means of the senses" and animals clearly have senses.

Insanctuary is just saying that animals don't have perception so he feels less guilty when he's fucking dogs.

At 10/30/12 05:20 PM, koopahermit wrote: Insanctuary is just saying that animals don't have perception so he feels less guilty when he's fucking dogs.

He could also have a sexual objectification fetish that drives him to reduce dogs to the status of mindless machines.

Insanctuary, do you have a doggy gimp suit?

At 10/30/12 04:47 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 04:39 PM, Entice wrote: Stop looking into dog's minds. That's my way of saying stop skullfucking your dog man.

That definition is primarily for human beings. You are misconstruing it to fit with your concept for animals, but this is falsifiable. Perception is not equal to senses. Animals have senses, but they do not have the awareness to have perception. They see a picture, and they act on their greatly ingrained agents to react to the symbolism, but they are not able to do anymore than that.

You're trying to say that animals don't have perception or "awareness" because they do not analyze sensory input but rather react in a predetermined fashion. This is false. Sight of a wolf does not directly make a deer flee. Rather, the image of the wolf is analyzed, this analysis precipitates fear within the deer, and the deer instinctively acts upon this fear by running away. If all wolves suddenly stopped eating deer, then deer would eventually stop running away from wolves because they would no longer perceive wolves to be a threat.

At 10/30/12 05:23 PM, Entice wrote: Insanctuary, do you have a doggy gimp suit?

Computers have the same functionality as animals do. They both can respond to symbolism and aspectual representatives. The computer does not have perception, and neither do animals. They react to their sensory organs and do not act with awareness. They are programmed to act within a very complicated system of boundaries and capabilities that can only go so far.

At 10/30/12 05:29 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 05:23 PM, Entice wrote: Insanctuary, do you have a doggy gimp suit?

I now fuck computers.

Lol, alrighty then.

At 10/30/12 05:30 PM, koopahermit wrote:

At 10/30/12 05:29 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 05:23 PM, Entice wrote: Insanctuary, do you have a doggy gimp suit?

I now fuck computers.

Lol, alrighty then.

I found Insanctuary's dildo

Definitions are biased. Look up the term 'atheist', you will see that it says ''A person who denies there being a God'', which is improper and biased to say. How do you deny what never was proven to be existent? They are not denying a God, they are denying the claims of God. You really shouldn't rely on definitions too much.

1) That definition of atheist is accurate. Something doesn't have to exist for you to deny its existence. I can refuse to admit that unicorns exist, and I wouldn't be wrong (most likely).

2) In order to have a discussion, we need to agree on a common meaning for words. You can't just use "curiosity" in an unconventional manner and expect people to understand what you're trying to say. Maybe instead you should mention any redefinition of terms, and then we can all decide whether or not to accept the redefinition for purposes of discussion.

Is it just me or Insanctuary actually misses the ban vacation?

At 10/30/12 05:37 PM, draco889 wrote:

Definitions are biased. Look up the term 'atheist', you will see that it says ''A person who denies there being a God'', which is improper and biased to say. How do you deny what never was proven to be existent? They are not denying a God, they are denying the claims of God. You really shouldn't rely on definitions too much.

1) That definition of atheist is accurate. Something doesn't have to exist for you to deny its existence. I can refuse to admit that unicorns exist, and I wouldn't be wrong (most likely).

This is false. Denial of something implicates existence of something. To deny the existence of something is implying there may be an existence that you choose to deny. The definition is biased and inaccurate and should word it like this: ''A person that does not apply themselves to faith in antithetical values.''

2) In order to have a discussion, we need to agree on a common meaning for words. You can't just use "curiosity" in an unconventional manner and expect people to understand what you're trying to say. Maybe instead you should mention any redefinition of terms, and then we can all decide whether or not to accept the redefinition for purposes of discussion.

Curiosity is the intent to question. Question is to question, but not always followed by intent.

At 10/30/12 05:29 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 05:23 PM, Entice wrote: Insanctuary, do you have a doggy gimp suit?

Computers have the same functionality as animals do. They both can respond to symbolism and aspectual representatives. The computer does not have perception, and neither do animals. They react to their sensory organs and do not act with awareness. They are programmed to act within a very complicated system of boundaries and capabilities that can only go so far.

Again, this is false. An animal can learn and adapt to new situations. A computer cannot. An animal can attach unique meaning to another object or life-form. A computer cannot. When groups of animals are placed together, they can potentially develop complex strategies to achieve a goal. When groups of computers are placed together they do not. An animal can have a personality. A computer cannot. The brain of a goldfish is more complex than the "brain" of a computer.

At 10/30/12 05:57 PM, Insanctuary wrote: This is false. Denial of something implicates existence of something.

Dictionary tiem

de·ni·alâEU' âEU'[dih-nahy-uhl]
noun
1.
an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false: Despite his denials, we knew he had taken the purse.
The politician issued a denial of his opponent's charges.

"Said, believed alleged, etc." This definition does not imply that a statement must be true in order to be denied.

2.
refusal to believe a doctrine, theory, or the like.

Same thing here.

3.
disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing.

And again.

4.
the refusal to satisfy a claim, request, desire, etc., or the refusal of a person making it.
5.
refusal to recognize or acknowledge; a disowning or disavowal: the traitor's denial of his country; Peter's denial of Christ.

Need I elaborate?

This is false. Denial of something implicates existence of something. To deny the existence of something is implying there may be an existence that you choose to deny. The definition is biased and inaccurate and should word it like this: ''A person that does not apply themselves to faith in antithetical values.''

No, wrong. To deny the existence of something implies that there is no existence. To deny the existence of something means that you are denying the idea that something exists. This is implicit. Normally I wouldn't harp on these kinds of details, but considering that you appear to be speaking a different form of English from the rest of us, I think its important to get straight.

At 10/30/12 05:29 PM, Insanctuary wrote:
Computers have the same functionality as animals do. They both can respond to symbolism and aspectual representatives. The computer does not have perception, and neither do animals. They react to their sensory organs and do not act with awareness. They are programmed to act within a very complicated system of boundaries and capabilities that can only go so far.

Human is belonged to animal, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_%28biology%29#Six_kingd oms

hehehe

At 10/30/12 06:02 PM, Entice wrote: Need I elaborate?

No, this is you taking things out of context again. When it comes to something like religion in this world, it is not as easy to deny something and have everyone agree with the logic behind the denial of X. So instead of denying X, for X never existed in the first place as there is zero evidence, you deny the assertions being made of an X.

I have to against you in this case. Good god, people who never know how a single computer chip works in their life argue about AI, fuck me please.

At 10/30/12 05:29 PM, Insanctuary wrote:
Computers have the same functionality as animals do. They both can respond to symbolism and aspectual representatives. The computer does not have perception, and neither do animals. They react to their sensory organs and do not act with awareness. They are programmed to act within a very complicated system of boundaries and capabilities that can only go so far.

Artificial intelligence (AI) does not function the same way as natural intelligence (NI) does. AI does not, and never 'learn' the same ways as NI does; don't even mention about reaction.

You want AI? here, I give you a working one: stdin > process > stdout | if fail >> stderr | else > ignore. Given this much info, it does not mutate and learn more about things that it never encounter before. Anything doesn't work with the given system, will be dumping errors. This is the computer reaction, the most basic reaction of all AIs, in order to help it functioning well.

Sum it all up computer can, and never leap out of the 'given zone'.

But any living thing, does.

At 10/30/12 06:23 PM, dem0lecule wrote: I have to against you in this case. Good god, people who never know how a single computer chip works in their life argue about AI, fuck me please.

At 10/30/12 05:29 PM, Insanctuary wrote:
Computers have the same functionality as animals do. They both can respond to symbolism and aspectual representatives. The computer does not have perception, and neither do animals. They react to their sensory organs and do not act with awareness. They are programmed to act within a very complicated system of boundaries and capabilities that can only go so far.

Artificial intelligence (AI) does not function the same way as natural intelligence (NI) does. AI does not, and never 'learn' the same ways as NI does; don't even mention about reaction.

I'm not talking about a comprehensive similarity. I said they both share the symbolic and reactional system.

You want AI? here, I give you a working one: stdin > process > stdout | if fail >> stderr | else > ignore. Given this much info, it does not mutate and learn more about things that it never encounter before. Anything doesn't work with the given system, will be dumping errors. This is the computer reaction, the most basic reaction of all AIs, in order to help it functioning well.

You've misunderstood my expressive concepts. I never said they were entirely identical. This would be preposterous.

Sum it all up computer can, and never leap out of the 'given zone'.

But any living thing, does.

They both still react to symbolism and are both unaware of everything else.

At 10/30/12 06:07 PM, draco889 wrote: No, wrong. To deny the existence of something implies that there is no existence. To deny the existence of something means that you are denying the idea that something exists. This is implicit. Normally I wouldn't harp on these kinds of details, but considering that you appear to be speaking a different form of English from the rest of us, I think its important to get straight.

Then I guess when the year is 3000, and your kid's kid's kid's kid's kid's kid's kid's kid's kid's kid's kid is trying to open up one of the computer operated doors, then you must not exist if the computer voice says ''Access denied''.

Insanctuary must be loving the fact that everybody is stupid enough to actually put effort into serious replies against his BS.

He's probably kicking himself laughing at every refute. You guys know that, right?

At 10/30/12 06:28 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm not talking about a comprehensive similarity...

Computers have the same functionality as animals do < who wrote this then?

You've misunderstood my expressive concepts. I never said they were entirely identical. This would be preposterous.

See first reply.

They both still react to symbolism and are both unaware of everything else.

Proof or never happens.

Also, see
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1322671/2#bbspost2430305 8_post_text

At 10/30/12 06:43 PM, dem0lecule wrote:

At 10/30/12 06:28 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm not talking about a comprehensive similarity...

Computers have the same functionality as animals do < who wrote this then?

I did, but you took it out of its original context. After I've stated this, I mentioned the properties and symbolism they both apply themselves to without any state of awareness.

You've misunderstood my expressive concepts. I never said they were entirely identical. This would be preposterous.

See first reply.

They both still react to symbolism and are both unaware of everything else.

Proof or never happens.

Dogs are unaware of danger that is outside of their programmed selves. Chasing after people in cars is the result of their system not keeping up with today's advances. They can't go beyond their programming. They are old computers in a world being developed by new and improved computers that are self-aware.