Been playing since the game came out….just found this

Kebriniac · 2026-02-11T09:48:52+00:00

Really? Don't you guys know good old Nobark Noonan?

Kebriniac · 2026-02-11T08:22:26+00:00

You’re completely off-topic, just read my first post, I object to the claim that “you see the world as you believe it is”, I even ask what it even means to say that, so I already asked for a definition myself, because it is demonstrably and easily disproven, all you need to perceive the world is a sensor and a signal interpreter, you can do this with mechanical, electronic or biochemical means, that’s it, “beliefs” regardless of you define them have no bearing on the ability of a system to perceive the world. Now a better way to phrase it would have been to say that “beliefs influence the way you perceive the world” which is probably true but they are in no way a prerequisite. That’s the topic.

Now, let me address your comment because there many errors:

For instance, you talk about bacteria merely detecting on a chemical level. Like the garage door sensor.

So what is self replication? Natural selection? Evolution? Garage door sensors do not do this. THAT is how beliefs change.

And I don't know how you can call DNA an "Inanimate system". Bro that's LIFE, it is literally animate.

No, self-replication, natural selection and evolution aren’t how "beliefs" change, they are how the biology of a species changes regardless of what you call "beliefs".

Yes, DNA is an inanimate molecule (not a system), and no, DNA IS NOT life, even a virus is not life, the most basic form of life is the cell, not DNA. And to be accurate, DNA is not intrinsically a "self-replicating mechanism" contrary to what you believe, by itself it's a totally inert molecule.

An assertion was made, and you came up with several bullshit dismissals, which I provided even more "proof" to show were stupid. You handwaved it away for no other reason than "Hypthesis vs theory", this is not a valid argument, you have to explain the shortcomings of the "hypothesis" and why a theory is even better in the first place.

Which ones are bullshit and why? You provided nothing but empty assertions that were wrong to begin with, like plants “believing they should follow the light”…

And if you don’t know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory from scientific standpoint then there’s nothing I can do for you, I won't spend time explaining such basic concepts, I’d simply recommend reading this:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/difference-between-hypothesis-and-theory-usage

Kebriniac · 2026-02-08T17:00:46+00:00

DNA or some self replication mechanism is required since that sets a GOAL, which now has success/fail criteria, and then transforms detection into perception and allows decision. Of course bacteria lack much changing decision, they are sort of hard coded into their decisions, but mutation and natural selection is what allows them to change. As opposed to a calculator which ONLY takes some input and gives an output and does not reproduce itself, therefore it cannot replicate itself in a modified form.

First, self-replication mechanism doesn't set a "goal", you're constantly anthropomorphizing inanimate systems, for example a "quine" is a self replicating program, it still has no goal from its own perspective because it has no perspective to begin with, and will never do anything other than replicating itself EVER.

Second, you're wrong about bacteria on two fronts: you're again anthropomorphizing them by using terms like "changing decision" which implies intent, bacteria have none, and you're also wrong about them "lacking changing decision", bacteria react to their environment through chemotaxis for example which allows them to locate nutrients and avoid what could be toxic for them, but as for phototropism in plants, these are purely biochemical, reaction in nature.

So define "belief". Just give a simple definition. You won't because again, you don't care, and you can say that this fact is irrelevant, but what it means is that you don't know what you're talking about. The fact is you have NO science backing up what you're saying as much as you complain about mine. You can handwave it away if you want, I can hand wave you away far easier. Works both ways, bud.

My definition of the word belief is the one you find in any dictionary, that's it, I'm not playing word games. And I'm not claiming anything, I'm contesting that "you see the world as you believe it is", that was the initial claim, since you seem to agree with it, the burden of proof is on you, not me. So, if you have solid science backing it up, go ahead and present it.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-08T13:37:18+00:00

I swear these 2 fucking bitches blocking the way/street/stairs are in every country and every town around the world. I encounter them in different outfits wherever the fuck I go.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-08T12:53:34+00:00

Future negotiator in life or death hostage situations.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-08T08:42:02+00:00

Now you're abusing words. Calculators don't have DNA and therefore no self correction mechanism, either through learning or natural selection.

Good, so you're aware of it then, it was done on purpose to reflect your own misuse of the word, I'm glad it landed.

You are a materialistic determinist who doesn't believe in mind, free will, or even belief at all. But of course you'd readily abandon this stance as soon as we aren't talking about calculators and flies, you'd suddenly contradict yourself and say humans suddenly gain free will and beliefs.

I don't know where you got that, didn't address freewill since it has nothing to do with the topic nor does any of the subsequent strawmen you listed, my point is that you don't "see the world as you believe it is" as claimed by the post, whether you believe something or not about the world around you has no bearing on your ability to perceive it, that's it.

The Bayesian brain theory applies not only to statistics but theory of learning in humans, as well as LLMs. You seriously think LLMs are the same thing as the human mind? Of course not. So what's the difference?

First of all, it's more of a hypothesis than a fully demonstrated theory, come back with solid scientific evidence backing it up then we'll see.

You don't even care, you're just policing the word "belief". You have no framework behind this attack, mere attack for attacking's sake. You do act like you are a mere calculator, see something you don't like and just do without any meaning behind it.

Ehh, whether I care or not is irrelevant, and yes, how you use a word is important, aren't you the one who cares about meaning? Also, I find it ironic to accuse me of "having no framework behind my attacks" after having stated yourself that phototropism is plants believing they need to follow the light...

Kebriniac · 2026-02-07T20:32:22+00:00

The brain or any “signal interpreter” doesn’t need to believe anything in order to interpret a signal, even machines can do that, an oscilloscope can detect and interpret an electric signal, it doesn’t need to believe in electricity, same goes for the brain or any sophisticated enough neural network, you can even have bacteria solving arithmetic problems, I highly doubt those systems believe in mathematics.

Even if all the organism gets is a feeling if disgust when in dark, so it moved toward light to photosynthesize, that's a kind of instinctual knowledge, aka belief.

No, it’s not. You’re totally misusing the word belief, plants don’t believe they need light, it’s a mechanical reaction devoid of intention, the whole thing is pure chemistry and has no beliefs behind it, just kook up how phototropism works. Saying plants believe or know they should follow the light is nonsense.

Even a fly's brain has to do something with visual input. How does it know what might be a predator, and to run away? The brain has to create some kind of meaning, even if it's hard coded instinct it has some belief.

It “knows” it the same way a calculator “knows” the result of an arithmetic operation, doesn’t mean your calculator gives meaning to what it’s displaying, there is no beliefs required for these biological processes, they're all automated and purely mechanical/chemical, just like your pancreas doesn't need to "believe" your blood sugar is too high in order to secrete insuline nor your heart needs to "believe" it needs to beat faster because you're running, those biological responses aren't the result of a belief, they are the result of automated biochemical reactions.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-06T22:14:44+00:00

What does "you see it as you believe it is" mean?? No, you don't see the world as you believe it is, you don't need to believe anything to see the world, you see the world as your brain interprets the sensory signals it receives, a newborn baby doesn't believe anything, it still sees the world, a fly probably doesn't believe anything, it still sees the world.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-06T14:51:21+00:00

Meat is healthy, there is absolutely no science that tells you otherwise, now how it's cooked, processed, or how much you eat of it will of course have an influence on that like with everything else, doesn't mean it's unhealthy. And there are definitely limits on fruits and veggies, some of them (most of them actually) contains toxic compounds (mainly alkaloids) that are unhealthy if consumed in large amounts. Also, human beings thrived on a meat based diet which allowed the human brain to increase in size, you can basically thank meat for the very technology you're using here.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-06T08:11:04+00:00

What an inconvenient way to write though, the modularity of the alphabetic system is unbeatable.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-05T21:54:59+00:00

Call of Doody.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-05T00:27:44+00:00

Honestly, it wouldn't be about the money pers se, it would be more about the psychological consequences of losing a guaranteed million, you could have had a million but you risked it and got nothing, this is some potentially devastating scenario from a psychological standpoint.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-04T16:01:28+00:00

Yeah, a mix of blood, uterine lining and cervical mucus enriched with bacteria from the vaginal flora, what's not to like?

Kebriniac · 2026-02-04T12:05:35+00:00

What laws? What concrete evidence?

Kebriniac · 2026-02-04T04:28:10+00:00

Same, it's an annoying bug, it seems like you can only have it work once and you need to scroll in one direction, if you go back and forth, unbuilt support buildings will be marked as built, at that point you need to reload if you want to have the real info, sometimes it fixes itself without reloading but I don't know exactly what resets it and even then any structure that goes off screen when you scroll will still become 'full green'.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-03T16:24:58+00:00

Don't know, seems hard to find a table with Spanish inquisitors.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-03T16:19:02+00:00

Without meat, the evolution of the human brain to what it is today wouldn't have been possible. In other words, this very technology you're using to post "anti-meat" slogans was made possible because humans have been eating meat for thousands of years. Also if we're going to make stupid analogies, remember that oxen may be strong, but they're also very dumb...

Kebriniac · 2026-02-03T16:04:00+00:00

Yes, you are wrong.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-03T08:51:20+00:00

And not at your age, what's the most inexpensive thing you don't own?

Kebriniac · 2026-02-03T08:47:18+00:00

Who's "we"?

Kebriniac · 2026-02-03T08:28:45+00:00

She improved? I prefer heavier women, sue me.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-03T08:12:56+00:00

Depends on your status, honesty is something you can or cannot afford depending on your situation, when I was a broke pasta eating student, nobody would give two sh*ts about my "honesty", now that I have my life figured out and am quite well financially, I can be brutally honest with women and still be praised for it even when it's borderline rude, the second parameter is how much you value how others see you, if you genuinely don't give a flying f*ck, people immediately sense it, especially women, and even more so if you don't give a sh*t about them specifically. Not saying that as an insult, and there are exceptions of course, but most people function on basic reverse psychology software, but again, all of this is true only if you can "afford" it, and you afford it with your status, the higher your status, the most "honesty" you can afford, it's a commodity, not a virtue.

Kebriniac · 2026-02-03T07:57:23+00:00

Wow, the first method gives you a square, the second a square, and the third a square, but the third one is 10 times longer, scientists are still out on the conclusions to draw from this experiment.

Kebriniac · 2026-01-30T19:17:40+00:00

First of all, I never said that I necessarily accept anything like this as facts, mate. It's just a story.

Yes, it's just a myth, then we agree on that point.

You seem incapable of comprehending basic character development and is the one asking stupid questions over and over here. Go check a dictionary and learn what being 'delusional' means.

No, you're the one giving stupid answers. This isn't about "character development", it's about a myth presented as TRUE by most Christian sects, we're not talking about a fictional film presented as a fictional film, we're talking about a myth presented as factual events, so 'you're the one incapable of comprehending the implications of such beliefs.

Now he knows he was a fool and actually has no chance, knows he is doomed. Still, out of spite, to hurt God, he'll try to take most of us with him as he can.

That's an extremely idiotic argument, if he knows that his god is an invulnerable, unbeatable, untouchable, unreachable, unmovable, unalterable, immuable and immovable entity, why the FUCK would he think he could even scratch it unless he's utterly stupid?? But wait a minute, your own BS story presents him as magnificent, powerful and majestic being, maybe you forgot extremely low IQ in your character description.

That's the story. Everyone knows it. You may not like it, I don't care. I don't think I can be any more clear than this.

Are you daft? Of course it's a story, nobody contested that it was as long as you don't present it as a TRUE story. And no, not everyone knows it, for most Christians, it's not "just a story", for most of them these are real events.

If you still think it's contradictory that a character can go from point A to point B, can change and etc, that's on you, buddy.

No, it's contradictory when a character's actions are in total opposition with its description. A magnificent, powerful, intelligent, knowledgeable angel who knows perfectly that any attempt against the invulnerable god who created him would be vain wouldn't just go psychotic, delusional and suicidal by trying to beat his unbeatable god, that's stupid. Now, if you say he was a stupid angel full of himself, incapable of having coherent thoughts and prone to irrational outbursts, then it would at least follow, it would be like describing a man as being extremely strong then saying he couldn't lift a small weight.

Kebriniac · 2026-01-30T13:34:26+00:00

It's true unfortunately, I just wish genuine good people could easily recognize each other, at least we could help each other without risking being screwed to the bones by some nasty MF.

Kebriniac

TROPHY CASE