Always Dance

Ah, my bad. I apologize.

Hm. I would definitely be more wary of you, but I would probably come and talk to you about it to see how you reacted.

I see what you mean now. I would differentiate the you from that world from the you in this one. However, I would not consider this version of you 'more real', only 'more consistent' or more useful. Therefore I care more about you whether you are real or not. The you from this world will have more of an affect on my goals. But I will always be thinking, "I could wake up again," and you and the guy who raped and killed my family would both be dreams. So, while 'main dream' Slaughtermatic is not the same as 'minimal one-night dream' Slaughtermatic, this does not make either of you any more or less real than the other. It only means that you are two different entities, real or otherwise.

Imagine that I set up a theater production in which I expect you to kill someone. The catch is that I don't tell you it's a play. You kill them, thinking it is real. Then I show you that they were actually a manikin. Should I suddenly accept your apology because they aren't "really" dead?

----------
I would not exist in that dream. What you would be seeing is a vision of me, it may have the same characteristics of me, but it is not "Me", the same way if I draw a picture of me, it is not me.

Whether something is real or not is not an arbitrary value at all. Whether something is real or not should affect how you think about it. If you had a dream about me raping and killing your entire family, would that change your opinion of the actual me? Because if it would, that's pretty ridiculous. You should not let it change what you think of me because it is not real. The realism of something matters very much.
----------
Okay, so would I decide not to talk to you because you don't exist? No, I would still talk to you. You don't seem to get that there is no reason to treat a dream as differently than you would treat 'reality'.

Please read what you said back to yourself and note the number of times you made a claim that you do not know how to prove. I will count them for you. I count five. The only thing you said that has any basis is that it will affect how you think about it. And that is exactly my point. Why should you think differently about it? What benefit is there to thinking differently about an experience that is exactly the same?

If you were consciously choosing to do those things in that dream, then I would judge you as if you chose to do it in reality. They are functionally the same. I could consider you a danger just as much as if you had actually harmed them, because the choice is identical. You thought you were really doing it and you chose to do it. Oh, but then you woke up and found out it wasn't real? I shouldn't be as bothered because the choice didn't 'actually change things'? I find that ridiculous rather than what you suggested.

Another claim, you exist. If you have no counter-argument to the claim that you do not, then you are admitting a loss. Please note that pointing to the pointlessness of a thing does not prove or disprove its existence. It is a petty method to wiggle out of something that one cannot win. As soon as the average person realizes that they are at a loss, they first say, "I guess there is no point in talking to you if you don't exist, then, right?" I have heard it many times before. Because they cannot win, they appeal to ridicule or make a mockery of the logic. It helps them sleep at night, but it does not do anything else.

If I had a dream about you, you would exist in that dream, too. You would have all of the mannerisms that I already know you already do plus a little extra that my mind would make up on the fly. Just like now.

It is not useless because you are still forgetting something: I subscribe to practicalism. As long as you can entertain me, it does not matter if you exist or not. It does not matter if you have physical form or if I am hallucinating. The experience is the same. If I have a dream, think it a dream and then later find out that it actually happened, does that change what I experienced? No, it only changes the arbitrary value of whether it was "real" or not. Why does it matter so much if you are real?

I will continue to split hairs until you provide solid reasons as to why clinging to arbitrary values such as 'reality' is supposed help me to achieve ends rather than limit my ability to adapt to new variables.

It's fine. People get busy.

Morning brother =^^=

Oh well okay. Sleep well, dearest brother <3

Let's make this a little simpler: Why shouldn't I believe that this a dream that started off with me coming out of something called a mother and that she did not exist before the dream started, and neither did my father? And what about the notion that in that dream world, that is how all people wake up?

It is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the "every single person is formed this way" argument, if I allow you to assume it is valid.

Brother? You okies?

Again, those are claims. Let me ask for those "because"s again. Currently, you are laying out the kind of "because"s that assume many other claims by definition. Let me lay this out for you, and explain exactly how this will run down.

"You are wrong. After you die, the universe will continue to live on without you, as it lived for many years before you were born."

"I am not seeing a "because" in the works. Do you have any reasons as to why I should acknowledge such a claim?"

"There are several "Because"s. For one there is the existence of your parents. They had to have met each other and had sex before you were born. Therefore, they existed before you were born. It isn't really a logical stretch."

Here is the first mistake. Let's assume I was a test-tube child or a clone. I ask again, "Where is the "because"? Why do I need to be made by sex?" Your argument does not apply to me then. So, only children who are formed through sex can prove that the world existed before they did? I will assume that you will answer, "No." Why did you give something that did not cover all of the bases, then? And it goes on.

"Because in order for any person to be born, they must be formed as a zygote and gestate in their mother's womb."

Because? What about clones?

"There is not a single human on the planet who was not formed this way."

Poor clones, they don't even exist.

Why should I assume that my body is anything more than an extension of my will? Why should I believe that I am a physical being, that the term "organism" has any attachment to the concept of "consciousness"?

I will be more clear. I currently can flip on a dime regarding "gods" or all-powerful beings if it becomes convenient to assume they exist. Right now it is not useful or practical, so I am leaning towards atheist. To be even more clear, I look down on both atheists and theists who "believe" with any fierceness in their respective positions. You believe or accept that god cannot be proven. This is not the same as my agnosticism, because you believe with or without proof. I feel that all belief, with or without evidence, is fallacious and counterproductive. It keeps one from adapting to achieve ends at the very least.

Yes, it is. It is a logical stretch to assume that my parents exist and that I was born due to external factors. Why should I believe that?

Do not be sorry. =^^= You have done nothing wrong. And thank you. I will try as best I can~!

Okies! No pressies. =3 Just so I can stay in touch because I will misses you~ *adds*

I have not a clue ::L: I just don't know how my life went more wrong than before but things happen.

Oh do you have MSN or Skype? I wouldn't want to stop talking to my brother. ; ;

Not one bit. :3 But I'm in a lovey mood which is why I seem happy. Have you not seen my departure threads? x3

Oh I'm so sorry to hear that but things will clear up. *hugs*

Horrible! =D

How about you~?

Brooooooother~ hi.

Brooooooother~ hi.

I am not an atheist per se; I am an agnostic. To be most accurate I am a practicalist. I only "believe" that which it is useful to believe; that which is efficient to definite ends.

----------
You are wrong. After you die, the universe will continue to live on without you, as it lived for many years before you were born.
----------
I am not seeing a "because" in the works. Do you have any reasons as to why I should acknowledge such a claim? I would like to note that I do not necessarily believe that it lived before I was born, either.

I mean with your work on the video xD Not the actually video itself.

Greta job on the video, brother. =^^=