How would you feel, if the person you been married to for ten years was really a dragon in disguise?

Not a problem if she can produce children.

I earned more than enough of my share by enduring your soaring every night.
Also your pet wyver always shat in my shoes.

...

So I DIDN'T need to wear a condom!

I guess I'd feel pretty stupid for not realizing it was a pair of Groucho Marx glasses the entire time

Ok

Ask her for proof?

Why haven't we had half dragons walking around?

Why haven't we done anything fun with this?

Well, she needed you to, or she'd have had to answer awkward questions about why your son has scales covering half his body.

spelunking

>How would you feel if you were married for ten years
I have no idea ;_;

If the dragon is male how has his partner not had their vagina/asshole split in twain by now

Horny

somethin similar to this

>Dragon Dick

I feel like mating.

Because he didn't marry Robin Sarrow.

If you've been married to them for ten years without knowing they're a dragon, they must have some kind of effective disguise for their inhuman size and appearance that would cover that. Supernatural shape-shifting is probably involved.

Nope. Just really good bluff like Sir Bearington.

Well, that would be great.

I've asked myself the same question, in various different variants.
>Non-sentient robot
Very angry and disillusioned, I'd probably start breaking it with some blunt instrument out of rage.
>Sapient robot
Probably just accept her if it wasn't a malevolent deceit.
>Non-humanoid alien entity
I'm already assimilated so why struggle?
>Humanoid alien entity
Divorce.
>Clone of the woman I wanted to marry
MARY JAAAAAANE!
>Angel
Terrified of the implications.
>Demon
Terrified of the implications.
>Metallic Dragon
Very miffed by the prospect of being chosen by some fucking dragon as a pet project in a retarded attempt to play House to study people or some shit.
>Chromatic Dragon
Obviously feel betrayed that I was some sort or cover for the dragon's attempt to infiltrate society and try to kill her to regain my sense of reality.
>Lower level monstergirl
Full loving acceptance.
>Silent Hill facsimilie of my dead wife
Full loving acceptance.

We've been married for ten years and she doesn't know that dragons are my fetish? What the fuck is this?

Change back now, we have a lot of wasted time to make up for

A bit let down it's taken her this long to trust me, but then my dragoness fetish kicks in and I overlook that little detail
Also and if it's safe,

>Angel
>Terrified of the implications.
>Demon
>Terrified of the implications.
I don't get it.

"That's pretty cool, honey!"
"Are our kids gonna be half-dragons? Is that why you're telling me now, since you're pregnant?"
"Can you turn me into a dragon too?"

>DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN
>wait how will the logistics work here
>does this mean the kids will be half dragons
>how will that affect them
>DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN
>dragons are real oh my god
>what else is real
>DAMN
>ten fucking years what the fuck
>does she have a hoard of gold somewhere
>DAAAAAAAAAMN GONNA GET ME ALL UP IN THAT
>but wait, logistics

Meanwhile, outside of the internal debate

Having proof that angels and demons exist sort of implies the existence of heaven and hell, in which case we are straight up fucked.

Remind myself scales could be jewelry

I'm gonna be angry when my first born son is a spiky fucker that breathes fire

...

"That's still no excuse for the pile of gold coins bed, woman. My back has had it! We are getting a sleep number and that's final"

What? In a figurative way? Or literally?

Ending up married to an Angel or a Demon implies that you are either too damned or too redeemed to have any free will. Your soul is spiritually bound to a being of pure good/evil meaning attempting to deviate from that becomes metaphysically impossible. You're either going to Heaven or Hell and you have no agency to do, think or believe anything that will change that.

HOLY FUCK THIS IS AWESOME

>Very angry and disillusioned, I'd probably start breaking it with some blunt instrument out of rage.
If fooled you thus far, user, it passed the turing test and might as well be sapient anyways.
Human's just have really messy and obfuscated code.

The turing test is bullshit. Just because it can fool someone that wants to believe they've found a real living woman that loves them doesn't mean squat. Ever heard of confirmation bias?
>Human's just have really messy and obfuscated code.
Ah, I see, you're a sociopath.

This made me chuckle thank you

user, unless you believe in something like a soul, there is no fundamental difference between something intelligent enough to act like a human, and an actual human.

Even if it's just some massively complex decision tree, if it's effectively human, it's human. Getting mad that it's not "real" is hypocritical, as you can't look into the mind of any other person and confirm that they're "real" either.

Yes

>dragon in disguise unwittingly married a pit fiend in disguise

Serious breach of trust, not telling me something like that for ten years. Assuming the reason was good enough, I think I could live with it, but it would take time to earn that trust back.
I'd probably get used to the new form, but I think I'd always prefer the human one.

>You're either going to Heaven or Hell and you have no agency to do, think or believe anything that will change that.

Squire, hold my scabbard.

>there is no fundamental difference between something intelligent enough to act like a human, and an actual human.
You just stated the fundamental difference.
I get the sense you've either never done any coding in your life or more likely you've never studied a neural synapse. If you had done both you'd know the "human mind code" isn't something that exists. Brains are not very strangely algorithmised computers, because there's no fucking algorithm. They are very strangely DESIGNED computers.
A comparison: if you took a CPU and gave it no software, not even an operating system, no matter how powerful a processor it wouldn't be able to do anything. A human brain doesn't need any code at all to function because its hardware components ARE the functions. This is the intrinsic difference between a sentient and a non-sentient intelligence, the latter performs from simple functions complex processes through algorithms while the former performs complex from complex components complex processes.
That's how I can look into the mind of any person and confirm that they're real, because I have enough of a goddamn education to know what makes the pieces different!

user are you having a stroke. You sort of drifted into incoherency for a second there.

I also think he meant it metaphorically. A person still takes inputs, modifies them with internal processes, and creates an output. In that way, we are very much just very strange machines - Also a meaningless statement because where you draw the line between natural and artificial is a very arbitrary thing.

That's absurd. By your reasoning, a grasshopper is sentient, since its behaviour is governed by chemistry rather than algorithms and logic gates

>A human brain doesn't need any code at all to function because its hardware components ARE the functions
This might sound pedantic but that's also true for any microchip designed down to the wiring and logic gates level. There's no abstraction of code in that case, just the electrical signals passing through it in response to input and/or output. And there are ways to turn abstract code into a wiring blueprint for a theoretical computer chip.
In this analogue, the computer hardware is the brain and the software is just what you teach it.

And in case you were touting the old final chapter of I Robot, I'll have you know there's nothing stopping me from taking a small sample of someone's brain. Because of brain plasticity, it wouldn't wound or inconvenience the subject one bit and I'd easily be able to determine what the brain is capable of compared to a motherboard or a processer just from a brief study of its components.There's nothing even significantly unethical about this and if more people willingly donated part of their living brains for science maybe neurology would've cured Alzheimers by now. AND we may all have genuine sapient robot waifus, as well!

I think metaphors are full of shit. We're talking about sentience and non-sentience, properties that are inherent to the being and don't have a continuum between them. Note that I also made the comparison of human brains being machinery, but I said it's a complex machine with no code whereas "really messy and obfuscated code" and "massively complex decision tree" implies you could get the same result with a simple machine with highly advanced code. You CAN'T. The machine has to be as complex as the human brain or it won't WORK.

>You just stated the fundamental difference.
No, I didn't, because there is no fundamental difference. Something sufficiently intelligent to mimic a mind is, in fact, a mind.

>I get the sense you've ... They are very strangely DESIGNED computers.
Like the other user said, it's metaphorical; the "code" is embedded in the structure of human neurology itself. Non-programmed artificial neural networks are a thing, and the only difference is scale and fundamental architecture.
>A comparison: if you took a ... ARE the functions.
You're comparing apples to oranges; if an artificial mind was intelligent enough to fool you for ten years, then it's not going to be running on an Intel or something.
> This is the ... processes.
Neurons aren't "complex components", user; they're simple cells that perform simple operations based on stimulus. The complexity comes from the gestalt of the system as a whole, not its constituent parts; intelligence is an emergent property, not an intrinsic one.

>That's how I can look into the mind of any person and confirm that they're real, because I have enough of a goddamn education to know what makes the pieces different!
But you can't look into anyone's mind, just as you likely wouldn't be able to look into the mind of the sufficiently advanced intelligence that fooled you. The pieces are different, yes, but the difference doesn't matter. Fundamentally, a simulated neuron is exactly the same as a real neuron. Given enough time and enough stones, you could simulate an entirely real and completely conscious human mind just by moving rocks around.

>And there are ways to turn abstract code into a wiring blueprint for a theoretical computer chip.
Yes, in the same way that you can abstract gravity as a force field. Except it's not actually a force field and is actually a pseudoforce caused by the curvature of space-time. My literal point is that no amount of code or code-type circuitry will reproduce a brain synapse.

I'm afraid I've never studied an insect neuron. I'm sure that grasshopers aren't sapient under the common definition but the definition of sentient seems to fit them as well, but your understanding of my reasoning is very reductionist. It's not just because it's chemistry.

Well is she a flying dragon?
If yes then sad about not getting to fly around on her back for ten years.
If not flying variety then it's okay I guess. Since it's pretty good she didn't eat me in ten years or torch down the village or demand a sacrificial virgin each year.

Not him, but most primitive computers were how you described the brain, early on there was no hardware/software divide, the design was the programming and most such machines were single purpose designs that could take different inputs and apply them to the same algorithm, the software/hardware divide was specifically so we could make machines that could use multiple different algorithms

Furthermore, the current leading model for how human mind works is that there are thousands non-sentient single purpose "hardware" based algorithms with multiple layers of "software/hardware" "processes" on top of it (the brain being a electro-chemical processor makes the line between software and hardware blurry), processing the aggregate data from the lower layers eventually ending up in a final top layer, commonly referred to as "consciousness" which oddly has minimal accesses to the layers below it.
Basically sentient consciousness is some unholy mix between the Chinese room problem and Russian Matryoshka dolls

This theory is supported by various studies done where the neural tissue connecting different parts of the brain is severed and studying how it affects the processes and ones done on people who naturally have brain damage that causes the same effects, as well as how we've managed to fully simulate the "operating system" of several simple lifeform's neural networks

>Because of brain plasticity, it wouldn't wound or inconvenience the subject one bit and I'd easily be able to determine what the brain is capable of compared to a motherboard or a processer just from a brief study of its components.
It's not that hard to design software or hardware redundancy in a machine either user

>Yes, in the same way that you can abstract gravity as a force field. Except it's not actually a force field and is actually a pseudoforce caused by the curvature of space-time. My literal point is that no amount of code or code-type circuitry will reproduce a brain synapse.
That's not at all the point user was trying to make, but even still, you're still terribly wrong.
The human mind IS programmed, but the "programming" is encoded within the structure and connections between neurons itself, same as how artificial neural networks are """programmed""", as opposed to having a list of instructions in some registry.

You're cherrypicking my posts and I'm done talking to you. Not to mention my original post specifically made the distinction between a sentient and a non-sentient robot wife and I explicitly cited the possibility of human error being involved in not being able to tell them apart unless given reason for suspicion. Good day.

Except there is no distinction between a sapient and a non-sapient robot wife if the latter was able to fool you for ten years.
If you don't mind getting philosophical for a second, you can only ever truly know your own mind. The subjective minds of others are forever "black boxes" to outside observers.
If you were to believe her to be sapient, than she would be exactly as sapient as a real woman, substrate and hardware be damned.

I'd ask her if she knows how long ten years is for a human.

>My literal point is that no amount of code or code-type circuitry will reproduce a brain synapse.
Personally I take the view that we just haven't studied the brain enough. With enough knowledge of how a neuron interacts with its surrounding neurons and a ridiculous amount of processing power to make up for the fact that wiring isn't at the atomic interaction level, a brain-analogue can be written in code.

Nigger do you not get that complexity does not imply efficiency? You could absolutely get the same result using a simple machine with highly advanced code, assuming we're operating on the same definition of simple. A building-sized mass of CPUs and memory is still 'simple', but it gives you enough processing power that you could recreate the exact same input > output process of a human brain. Just because it doesn't have chemical and organic proteins doesn't make that process any less capable of creating real thoughts.

Being Asian I find myself extremely humbled and honored a dragoness would take me as her husband. She is effectively an angel and who am I to question why she would his her nature from me for so long?

Oh, and;
>cherrypicking my posts
But I'm not, at all; I'm literally quoting the entirety of your post and responding to each assertion or claim in turn; the ellipses are only there to save space, and do not omit anything in your post.

Yeah but it gives him an imaginary slight to answer with his dismissal of the entire argument as a farce

That's as good as winning, for some people

Not necessarily Christian heaven and hell.

I'd be okay with it. Then I'd realize that if she can make herself look human, then she can probably make herself look like *any* human, so I'd ask her if she'd be willing to turn into a variety of women for me.

I like to think she'd pose as a rich businesswoman or something to explain her wealth, and tell you that you don't have to work if you don't want to.

>tfw no shape-shifting dragon sugar mommy

>Implying she didn't reveal her true nature to you because she wants to experiment

Face it, together, you hit the jackpot.

If we assume modern day, can you really fucking blame what could be the last of er own kind hiding something this big?

You're lucky she tells you at all given the gravity and potential implications.

>How would you feel, if the person you been married to for ten years was really a dragon in disguise?
pic related

You'd feel like an ass?

As long as she can return to the form I married I will be ok and have no problem with it.

Dont mind me, I would still love my wife, but I'm not having sex with a dragon.

pleb

"Well uhhh...that happened...ummm, may I ask you something?"
"I'm not burning your boss alive!"
"Dammit"

Bitch, turn into a dragon and let me spank your scaly ass.

Damn, did tiki grow up into a fine woman.

>Mfw

The last ten years have been utter shot for me, including two stints of homelessness and a suicide attempt. I wouldn't be upset she was a dragon, I'd be pissed that she didn't offer to help.

I'd be even more turned on by him, and demand to have him in his Draconic form from now on.

This was my character's EXACT reaction when his wife turned out to be a dragon.
His pelvis getting shattered kinda tipped him off.
Her reaction to his admission was pic related.

Have better quality, mah nigga.

That depends on what type of Dragon that she is and what kind of wife she has been...

"Good, then you can buy those $200 pink shoes with your own gold hoard and not dip into our savings account or the vacation fund."

Is that why our kids look like this? I always thought it was because of those demonic deals I did back in highschool. That's a load of my shoulders.

...

...

There ain't nothing dragony about that.

God I love ugly Americans. I really want to play a Mark Lily expy one day.

Demonic pacted Warlock, with Lillith Maggotbone as his patron/gf?

My bad, meant Callie.

>ugly
>americans
redundant

>Clone of the woman I wanted to marry
I think you mean
>JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAN!!!

I once dated the human equivalent of a dragon for a year. I wouldn't recommend it. They'd ruin your life

GREENTEXT IT

What about the reverse of this?
>Your wife/husband of a decade turns out not to be a dragon, but a really clever illusionist.

Is she a cute dragon?

Depends on what you find cute.