Do animals perceive the same objects as humans perceive?

[ontological_realist]

Do animals perceive the same objects as humans perceive?

 

[fast]

Do animals perceive the same objects as humans perceive?

Yes. The objects humans perceive are the very same objects animals perceive. Of course, there is likely variation in the perceptions, but that's an answer to a different question.

 

[fromderinside]

One the one hand frogs are dominated by moving stimuli whereas humans are really sensitive to motion only in peripheral vision. Bony fish react differently to patterns than do humans in that in many cases when perceiving a temporal patterns fish become negatively motivated, their chromataphores darken, and they tend to hide from whatever pattern they perceived.

On the other hand humans possess similar capabilities to find edges first found with elasmabranchs, turn heads similarly to acoustic stimuli as do most mammals an react positively to patterns tending to either remember them or make use of them in the future (grouping memory).

Most mammals do not have color vision so they can't see the world as we do, few mammals have very much long term memory so they don't tend to get a around or plan as we do. But a few species differentiate self from others in situations with mirrors. Also it's pretty safe to assume that Octopus treat the world very differently than we do given their abilities with color control and being able to pour themselves out of small places.

Finally I suspect insects are very different from mammals in the way they perceive since their sensing tends to be mediated near the receptor rather than as the result of processing to through some mediating center.

My bottom line is other species may perceive the same objects humans do if they are relevant to to them in some way. By no means do animals perceive the same things as do humans beyond rudimentary similarities in basic processing like later a inhibition providing integration of edge differentiation or strong differentiation by way of many processors and receptors in this or that dimension giving better resolution of such as color or texture.

 

[DBT]

The objects of the physical world are there regardless of who or what perceives them, or how they are perceived, visual wavelength range, etc, perception never being complete information.

 

[untermensche]

As far as color we have no idea what color some other animal's brain creates for the animal to experience.

We don't even know what colors other people experience.

Color is a purely subjective experience.

It is impossible to look at another animal's subjective experience.

 

[J842P]

Do animals perceive the same objects as humans perceive?

Probably not, and probably less so the more divergent you get from the primate branch.

 

[J842P]

The objects of the physical world are there regardless of who or what perceives them, or how they are perceived, visual wavelength range, etc, perception never being complete information.

Our perception of the world consisting of objects, i.e. things with boundaries, etc is just that, a matter of perception. A very useful model at that. And of course, the underlying physical phenomena exist, but how they would be divided into "objects" is a matter of perception.

 

[Kharakov]

Do animals perceive the same objects as humans perceive?

Not necessarily. Those of us who were around a couple decamillenia ago during the technological apex of human civilization, remember when a vast nanonetwork of integrated computational devices was launched. Current generation humans are not privy to the nanonetwork, or the fact that the majority of their experiences are generated by direct mind interface of aforementioned nanonetwork.

The majority of animals are simply scripts nowadays, after the great extinction event ~6k ago, when the nanonetwork crashed, and shit got weird. Some animals are occupied by perceptive entities- the point being that the old adage "animals don't have souls" applies in many cases. I think it was supposed to be law, so that the scripts wouldn't be confused with beings, and this is what crashed the system (endless loop of saving things that weren't actually beings- something like that... turtles all the way down, if I remember correctly).

They are scripts, not perceptive beings, unless a perceptive being is funneled their code....

[/end bullshit]

 

[fast]

Do animals perceive the same objects as humans perceive?

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily, huh. Well, the question is "do they ...", not, " necessarily, do they ...", and the answer to the question asked (even if what was asked doesn't match what he meant to ask) is just as I said, which is namely, "yes."

Those of us who were around a couple decamillenia ago

ah yes, 20 million years ago 2(10*1,000,000). Lovely time, and I think I still look good for my age. Wait, dang, milinia is 1000? Ok, so math isn't my strong suit: 2(10*1,000) or 20,000 years ago. I feel younger already.

during the technological apex of human civilization, remember when a vast nanonetwork of integrated computational devices was launched. Current generation humans are not privy to the nanonetwork, or the fact that the majority of their experiences are generated by direct mind interface of aforementioned nanonetwork.

We were taught in school that we have five senses. Science has since taught us that we (humans) have at least a couple more. Some animals have kinds of senses we don't have, and some animals don't have some that we do. Since there is a variation in the number of senses, there will be variations in perception. Even differences in the intensity or magnitude of the senses between animals will account for a variance in perception. Two different people looking at the very same object may in fact have a different perception of the very same thing being perceived, especially after all the variables are taken into consideration.

The object being perceived, however, is what it is and can at that moment be no more or less than just what it is. The moon is the moon is the moon. To the bat's perception, be it what it may, and to the kitty or frog, perceive the moon as they might, it's still the object we all humans call the moon. The same object, yes. Differences in perception change that, not.

Now, you bring up an interest point. It's no longer like it used to be. We used to perceive the moon, but now that our beautiful world has been infested with nanotechnology run amuck, we can no longer perceive (at least not as directly as we once could) the actual objects; instead, nanotechnology has run interference allowing us to (and unknowingly by many to boot) access only the interface.

Where do we go from here? I have the answer, and the answer is to go back to the question. Never mind the things that lead us astray. Nevermind the way things now are, and chunk the principle of charity to the wind. When man does indeed look at an object, can the perception be different than the perception of animals doing the same? That's not what was asked, and with principles being tossed to the wind, we'll forgo the path leading to answer that. When man now looks upon what he believes to be an object, does he directly see what he thinks he's seeing? Wait, let us not answer that either, for recall (and recall only) just what the question invites us to ponder. If to answer the question we must suppose it during an era prior to nanotechnology advancement and implementation, then so be it.

The majority of animals are simply scripts nowadays, after the great extinction event ~6k ago, when the nanonetwork crashed, and shit got weird. Some animals are occupied by perceptive entities- the point being that the old adage "animals don't have souls" applies in many cases. I think it was supposed to be law, so that the scripts wouldn't be confused with beings, and this is what crashed the system (endless loop of saving things that weren't actually beings- something like that... turtles all the way down, if I remember correctly).

They are scripts, not perceptive beings, unless a perceptive being is funneled their code....

If the question were, "do scripts, ...." I might have more to say.

 

[J842P]

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily, huh. Well, the question is "do they ...", not, " necessarily, do they ...", and the answer to the question asked (even if what was asked doesn't match what he meant to ask) is just as I said, which is namely, "yes."

Those of us who were around a couple decamillenia ago

ah yes, 20 million years ago 2(10*1,000,000). Lovely time, and I think I still look good for my age. Wait, dang, milinia is 1000? Ok, so math isn't my strong suit: 2(10*1,000) or 20,000 years ago. I feel younger already.

during the technological apex of human civilization, remember when a vast nanonetwork of integrated computational devices was launched. Current generation humans are not privy to the nanonetwork, or the fact that the majority of their experiences are generated by direct mind interface of aforementioned nanonetwork.

We were taught in school that we have five senses. Science has since taught us that we (humans) have at least a couple more. Some animals have kinds of senses we don't have, and some animals don't have some that we do. Since there is a variation in the number of senses, there will be variations in perception. Even differences in the intensity or magnitude of the senses between animals will account for a variance in perception. Two different people looking at the very same object may in fact have a different perception of the very same thing being perceived, especially after all the variables are taken into consideration.

The object being perceived, however, is what it is and can at that moment be no more or less than just what it is. The moon is the moon is the moon. To the bat's perception, be it what it may, and to the kitty or frog, perceive the moon as they might, it's still the object we all humans call the moon. The same object, yes. Differences in perception change that, not.

Now, you bring up an interest point. It's no longer like it used to be. We used to perceive the moon, but now that our beautiful world has been infested with nanotechnology run amuck, we can no longer perceive (at least not as directly as we once could) the actual objects; instead, nanotechnology has run interference allowing us to (and unknowingly by many to boot) access only the interface.

Where do we go from here? I have the answer, and the answer is to go back to the question. Never mind the things that lead us astray. Nevermind the way things now are, and chunk the principle of charity to the wind. When man does indeed look at an object, can the perception be different than the perception of animals doing the same? That's not what was asked, and with principles being tossed to the wind, we'll forgo the path leading to answer that. When man now looks upon what he believes to be an object, does he directly see what he thinks he's seeing? Wait, let us not answer that either, for recall (and recall only) just what the question invites us to ponder. If to answer the question we must suppose it during an era prior to nanotechnology advancement and implementation, then so be it.

The majority of animals are simply scripts nowadays, after the great extinction event ~6k ago, when the nanonetwork crashed, and shit got weird. Some animals are occupied by perceptive entities- the point being that the old adage "animals don't have souls" applies in many cases. I think it was supposed to be law, so that the scripts wouldn't be confused with beings, and this is what crashed the system (endless loop of saving things that weren't actually beings- something like that... turtles all the way down, if I remember correctly).

They are scripts, not perceptive beings, unless a perceptive being is funneled their code....

If the question were, "do scripts, ...." I might have more to say.

No. That the world consists of objects is an artifact of our perception. Underlying physical reality is there, but the mapping to "objects" is done by our perception.

 

[fast]

No. That the world consists of objects is an artifact of our perception. Underlying physical reality is there, but the mapping to "objects" is done by our perception.

You seem to be suggesting that while objects are perception dependent, physical reality is not. I agree that physical reality is not perception dependent, but I disagree with the notion that where there is no perception, there is no object. Consider the earth and moon--and the space between. There is, as you say, physical reality, a clump of atoms tightly bound and another larger clump of atoms tightly bound separated by an area with no clumps of atoms tightly bound in between. Our recognition that these tightly bound clumps are objects is most certainly perception dependent, but that they are objects isn't a function of perception but the reality that they are clumped as they are.

 

[Kharakov]

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily, huh. Well, the question is "do they ...", not, " necessarily, do they ...", and the answer to the question asked (even if what was asked doesn't match what he meant to ask) is just as I said, which is namely, "yes."

Those of us who were around a couple decamillenia ago

ah yes, 20 million years ago 2(10*1,000,000). Lovely time, and I think I still look good for my age. Wait, dang, milinia is 1000? Ok, so math isn't my strong suit: 2(10*1,000) or 20,000 years ago. I feel younger already.

during the technological apex of human civilization, remember when a vast nanonetwork of integrated computational devices was launched. Current generation humans are not privy to the nanonetwork, or the fact that the majority of their experiences are generated by direct mind interface of aforementioned nanonetwork.

We were taught in school that we have five senses. Science has since taught us that we (humans) have at least a couple more. Some animals have kinds of senses we don't have, and some animals don't have some that we do. Since there is a variation in the number of senses, there will be variations in perception. Even differences in the intensity or magnitude of the senses between animals will account for a variance in perception. Two different people looking at the very same object may in fact have a different perception of the very same thing being perceived, especially after all the variables are taken into consideration.

The object being perceived, however, is what it is and can at that moment be no more or less than just what it is. The moon is the moon is the moon. To the bat's perception, be it what it may, and to the kitty or frog, perceive the moon as they might, it's still the object we all humans call the moon. The same object, yes. Differences in perception change that, not.

Now, you bring up an interest point. It's no longer like it used to be. We used to perceive the moon, but now that our beautiful world has been infested with nanotechnology run amuck, we can no longer perceive (at least not as directly as we once could) the actual objects; instead, nanotechnology has run interference allowing us to (and unknowingly by many to boot) access only the interface.

Where do we go from here? I have the answer, and the answer is to go back to the question. Never mind the things that lead us astray. Nevermind the way things now are, and chunk the principle of charity to the wind. When man does indeed look at an object, can the perception be different than the perception of animals doing the same? That's not what was asked, and with principles being tossed to the wind, we'll forgo the path leading to answer that. When man now looks upon what he believes to be an object, does he directly see what he thinks he's seeing? Wait, let us not answer that either, for recall (and recall only) just what the question invites us to ponder. If to answer the question we must suppose it during an era prior to nanotechnology advancement and implementation, then so be it.

The majority of animals are simply scripts nowadays, after the great extinction event ~6k ago, when the nanonetwork crashed, and shit got weird. Some animals are occupied by perceptive entities- the point being that the old adage "animals don't have souls" applies in many cases. I think it was supposed to be law, so that the scripts wouldn't be confused with beings, and this is what crashed the system (endless loop of saving things that weren't actually beings- something like that... turtles all the way down, if I remember correctly).

They are scripts, not perceptive beings, unless a perceptive being is funneled their code....

If the question were, "do scripts, ...." I might have more to say.

Wait. You have proof that the great nanonetwork crash of 6144 years ago did not happen? Otherwise, I'm pretty sure the animals are scripts. They are designed to look like they feel, but until furries came into existence and started inserting consciousness into them, they didn't feel.

 

[fast]

Not necessarily, huh. Well, the question is "do they ...", not, " necessarily, do they ...", and the answer to the question asked (even if what was asked doesn't match what he meant to ask) is just as I said, which is namely, "yes."

Those of us who were around a couple decamillenia ago

ah yes, 20 million years ago 2(10*1,000,000). Lovely time, and I think I still look good for my age. Wait, dang, milinia is 1000? Ok, so math isn't my strong suit: 2(10*1,000) or 20,000 years ago. I feel younger already.

during the technological apex of human civilization, remember when a vast nanonetwork of integrated computational devices was launched. Current generation humans are not privy to the nanonetwork, or the fact that the majority of their experiences are generated by direct mind interface of aforementioned nanonetwork.

We were taught in school that we have five senses. Science has since taught us that we (humans) have at least a couple more. Some animals have kinds of senses we don't have, and some animals don't have some that we do. Since there is a variation in the number of senses, there will be variations in perception. Even differences in the intensity or magnitude of the senses between animals will account for a variance in perception. Two different people looking at the very same object may in fact have a different perception of the very same thing being perceived, especially after all the variables are taken into consideration.

The object being perceived, however, is what it is and can at that moment be no more or less than just what it is. The moon is the moon is the moon. To the bat's perception, be it what it may, and to the kitty or frog, perceive the moon as they might, it's still the object we all humans call the moon. The same object, yes. Differences in perception change that, not.

Now, you bring up an interest point. It's no longer like it used to be. We used to perceive the moon, but now that our beautiful world has been infested with nanotechnology run amuck, we can no longer perceive (at least not as directly as we once could) the actual objects; instead, nanotechnology has run interference allowing us to (and unknowingly by many to boot) access only the interface.

Where do we go from here? I have the answer, and the answer is to go back to the question. Never mind the things that lead us astray. Nevermind the way things now are, and chunk the principle of charity to the wind. When man does indeed look at an object, can the perception be different than the perception of animals doing the same? That's not what was asked, and with principles being tossed to the wind, we'll forgo the path leading to answer that. When man now looks upon what he believes to be an object, does he directly see what he thinks he's seeing? Wait, let us not answer that either, for recall (and recall only) just what the question invites us to ponder. If to answer the question we must suppose it during an era prior to nanotechnology advancement and implementation, then so be it.

The majority of animals are simply scripts nowadays, after the great extinction event ~6k ago, when the nanonetwork crashed, and shit got weird. Some animals are occupied by perceptive entities- the point being that the old adage "animals don't have souls" applies in many cases. I think it was supposed to be law, so that the scripts wouldn't be confused with beings, and this is what crashed the system (endless loop of saving things that weren't actually beings- something like that... turtles all the way down, if I remember correctly).

They are scripts, not perceptive beings, unless a perceptive being is funneled their code....

If the question were, "do scripts, ...." I might have more to say.

Wait. You have proof that the great nanonetwork crash of 6144 years ago did not happen? Otherwise, I'm pretty sure the animals are scripts. They are designed to look like they feel, but until furries came into existence and started inserting consciousness into them, they didn't feel.

No, I have no proof, nor do I have evidence, but then again I'm not denying that it happened. In fact, I'm quite content in accepting that not only did it happen but that it happened just as you say it happened. We have a disagreement, but it's not about that.

As to animals being scripts, well, it is there that we part ways; however, that's not to say that I disagree with you about there being scripts; indeed, what appears to be scripts (to you and I) are in fact scripts. They appear to be animals to the unwary, but they are scripts, not animals. My position is that animals are animals and that scripts are scripts ... and no animal is a script and no script is an animal. What I deny is what you say, and as a reminder, here is a quote of exactly what you said, "animals are scripts." But, that is false. Sure, what appears to be animals are scripts. On that, I'm happy to side with you, but what appears to be animals are not therefore animals just because they appear to be.

 

[DBT]

The objects of the physical world are there regardless of who or what perceives them, or how they are perceived, visual wavelength range, etc, perception never being complete information.

Our perception of the world consisting of objects, i.e. things with boundaries, etc is just that, a matter of perception. A very useful model at that. And of course, the underlying physical phenomena exist, but how they would be divided into "objects" is a matter of perception.

Objects exist regardless of perception, how they are perceived is another matter.

 

[ontological_realist]

J842P wrote: "No. That the world consists of objects is an artifact of our perception. Underlying physical reality is there, but the mapping to "objects" is done by our perception."


I think that the world consists of objects is an artifact of our perception. Further, I think that Underlying Reality (something like Kant's noumenon) is there and the mapping to physical objects is done by the perceiver.

I do know that most of the people here will violently disagree with it.

 

[none]

well it is good you can admit to thought. there might be something to build upon unless thought is your artifact.

 

[DBT]

The Universe existed and evolved long before there were observers.

 

[Tigers!]

Dogs must perceive objects as having an existence independent of them since when you walk with them we both avoid the same potholes, fences etc.
Dogs alas perceive the same objects as having a different value to us. My dog insists on smelling the base every tree we met whereas I have no interest in smelling the base but might smell the flowers on said tree.
Though my original comment does not relate to Dalmatians. My sister's Dalmatian was incapable of avoiding fences, potholes. Stupidest dog i have every encountered.

 

[Kharakov]

Not necessarily, huh. Well, the question is "do they ...", not, " necessarily, do they ...", and the answer to the question asked (even if what was asked doesn't match what he meant to ask) is just as I said, which is namely, "yes."

Those of us who were around a couple decamillenia ago

ah yes, 20 million years ago 2(10*1,000,000). Lovely time, and I think I still look good for my age. Wait, dang, milinia is 1000? Ok, so math isn't my strong suit: 2(10*1,000) or 20,000 years ago. I feel younger already.

during the technological apex of human civilization, remember when a vast nanonetwork of integrated computational devices was launched. Current generation humans are not privy to the nanonetwork, or the fact that the majority of their experiences are generated by direct mind interface of aforementioned nanonetwork.

We were taught in school that we have five senses. Science has since taught us that we (humans) have at least a couple more. Some animals have kinds of senses we don't have, and some animals don't have some that we do. Since there is a variation in the number of senses, there will be variations in perception. Even differences in the intensity or magnitude of the senses between animals will account for a variance in perception. Two different people looking at the very same object may in fact have a different perception of the very same thing being perceived, especially after all the variables are taken into consideration.

The object being perceived, however, is what it is and can at that moment be no more or less than just what it is. The moon is the moon is the moon. To the bat's perception, be it what it may, and to the kitty or frog, perceive the moon as they might, it's still the object we all humans call the moon. The same object, yes. Differences in perception change that, not.

Now, you bring up an interest point. It's no longer like it used to be. We used to perceive the moon, but now that our beautiful world has been infested with nanotechnology run amuck, we can no longer perceive (at least not as directly as we once could) the actual objects; instead, nanotechnology has run interference allowing us to (and unknowingly by many to boot) access only the interface.

Where do we go from here? I have the answer, and the answer is to go back to the question. Never mind the things that lead us astray. Nevermind the way things now are, and chunk the principle of charity to the wind. When man does indeed look at an object, can the perception be different than the perception of animals doing the same? That's not what was asked, and with principles being tossed to the wind, we'll forgo the path leading to answer that. When man now looks upon what he believes to be an object, does he directly see what he thinks he's seeing? Wait, let us not answer that either, for recall (and recall only) just what the question invites us to ponder. If to answer the question we must suppose it during an era prior to nanotechnology advancement and implementation, then so be it.

The majority of animals are simply scripts nowadays, after the great extinction event ~6k ago, when the nanonetwork crashed, and shit got weird. Some animals are occupied by perceptive entities- the point being that the old adage "animals don't have souls" applies in many cases. I think it was supposed to be law, so that the scripts wouldn't be confused with beings, and this is what crashed the system (endless loop of saving things that weren't actually beings- something like that... turtles all the way down, if I remember correctly).

They are scripts, not perceptive beings, unless a perceptive being is funneled their code....

If the question were, "do scripts, ...." I might have more to say.

Wait. You have proof that the great nanonetwork crash of 6144 years ago did not happen? Otherwise, I'm pretty sure the animals are scripts. They are designed to look like they feel, but until furries came into existence and started inserting consciousness into them, they didn't feel.

No, I have no proof, nor do I have evidence, but then again I'm not denying that it happened. In fact, I'm quite content in accepting that not only did it happen but that it happened just as you say it happened. We have a disagreement, but it's not about that.

As to animals being scripts, well, it is there that we part ways; however, that's not to say that I disagree with you about there being scripts; indeed, what appears to be scripts (to you and I) are in fact scripts. They appear to be animals to the unwary, but they are scripts, not animals. My position is that animals are animals and that scripts are scripts ... and no animal is a script and no script is an animal. What I deny is what you say, and as a reminder, here is a quote of exactly what you said, "animals are scripts." But, that is false. Sure, what appears to be animals are scripts. On that, I'm happy to side with you, but what appears to be animals are not therefore animals just because they appear to be.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned furries.

 

[fast]

Not necessarily, huh. Well, the question is "do they ...", not, " necessarily, do they ...", and the answer to the question asked (even if what was asked doesn't match what he meant to ask) is just as I said, which is namely, "yes."

Those of us who were around a couple decamillenia ago

ah yes, 20 million years ago 2(10*1,000,000). Lovely time, and I think I still look good for my age. Wait, dang, milinia is 1000? Ok, so math isn't my strong suit: 2(10*1,000) or 20,000 years ago. I feel younger already.

during the technological apex of human civilization, remember when a vast nanonetwork of integrated computational devices was launched. Current generation humans are not privy to the nanonetwork, or the fact that the majority of their experiences are generated by direct mind interface of aforementioned nanonetwork.

We were taught in school that we have five senses. Science has since taught us that we (humans) have at least a couple more. Some animals have kinds of senses we don't have, and some animals don't have some that we do. Since there is a variation in the number of senses, there will be variations in perception. Even differences in the intensity or magnitude of the senses between animals will account for a variance in perception. Two different people looking at the very same object may in fact have a different perception of the very same thing being perceived, especially after all the variables are taken into consideration.

The object being perceived, however, is what it is and can at that moment be no more or less than just what it is. The moon is the moon is the moon. To the bat's perception, be it what it may, and to the kitty or frog, perceive the moon as they might, it's still the object we all humans call the moon. The same object, yes. Differences in perception change that, not.

Now, you bring up an interest point. It's no longer like it used to be. We used to perceive the moon, but now that our beautiful world has been infested with nanotechnology run amuck, we can no longer perceive (at least not as directly as we once could) the actual objects; instead, nanotechnology has run interference allowing us to (and unknowingly by many to boot) access only the interface.

Where do we go from here? I have the answer, and the answer is to go back to the question. Never mind the things that lead us astray. Nevermind the way things now are, and chunk the principle of charity to the wind. When man does indeed look at an object, can the perception be different than the perception of animals doing the same? That's not what was asked, and with principles being tossed to the wind, we'll forgo the path leading to answer that. When man now looks upon what he believes to be an object, does he directly see what he thinks he's seeing? Wait, let us not answer that either, for recall (and recall only) just what the question invites us to ponder. If to answer the question we must suppose it during an era prior to nanotechnology advancement and implementation, then so be it.

The majority of animals are simply scripts nowadays, after the great extinction event ~6k ago, when the nanonetwork crashed, and shit got weird. Some animals are occupied by perceptive entities- the point being that the old adage "animals don't have souls" applies in many cases. I think it was supposed to be law, so that the scripts wouldn't be confused with beings, and this is what crashed the system (endless loop of saving things that weren't actually beings- something like that... turtles all the way down, if I remember correctly).

They are scripts, not perceptive beings, unless a perceptive being is funneled their code....

If the question were, "do scripts, ...." I might have more to say.

Wait. You have proof that the great nanonetwork crash of 6144 years ago did not happen? Otherwise, I'm pretty sure the animals are scripts. They are designed to look like they feel, but until furries came into existence and started inserting consciousness into them, they didn't feel.

No, I have no proof, nor do I have evidence, but then again I'm not denying that it happened. In fact, I'm quite content in accepting that not only did it happen but that it happened just as you say it happened. We have a disagreement, but it's not about that.

As to animals being scripts, well, it is there that we part ways; however, that's not to say that I disagree with you about there being scripts; indeed, what appears to be scripts (to you and I) are in fact scripts. They appear to be animals to the unwary, but they are scripts, not animals. My position is that animals are animals and that scripts are scripts ... and no animal is a script and no script is an animal. What I deny is what you say, and as a reminder, here is a quote of exactly what you said, "animals are scripts." But, that is false. Sure, what appears to be animals are scripts. On that, I'm happy to side with you, but what appears to be animals are not therefore animals just because they appear to be.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned furries.

You did. It has the same relevance as when math problems include irrelevant information. We're on planet Earth, not some spacecraft. You should take this conversation more seriously, and just so you know, I don't drain the juice from canned blueberries, despite instructions otherwise.