Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   bio evolution, light, sound and aroma
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 142 (717370)
01-26-2014 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by AndrewPD
01-25-2014 12:07 PM


noosphere?
To truly and honestly understand the causal origin of cars we would have to understand the mental states of of Henry Ford that were involved in him designing the thing and which motivated his actions causally.
And when we look at all the different makers of cars and see that they have different mental states but still make cars then we know that mental states are irrelevant.
Designing cars is an emergent property of developing means of transportation systems. It does not matter who makes the first step.
These kind of mental state type entities seem to be inexplicably ruled out in evolution with the assumption of blind unintelligent mechanical processes. ...
No, it is merely that they are not ruled in -- they are unnecessary to explain how life as we know it develops and with no evidence it is hard to ascertain how they would be effected: design needs to get from the drawing board to the prototype before anything is truly accomplished ... how is that done? By evolution?
... But because humans intelligently and mindfully create and design numerous things I see no reason to characterise the rest of reality as mindless and unintelligent which seems to be an unwarranted bias.
You are free to have your opinion, however I suggest you give some thought to this aspect of design as the immediate results do not show much intelligence imho.
Indeed a theory of consciousness becoming increasing popular among materialists is Panpsychism which posits that consciousness is another layer intrinsic to reality.
Or Noosphere ... curiously I read Taillard de Chardin when I was a child. Philosophy is not science. Science informs philosophy not the other way around. A philosophy that is based on known scientific falsehoods is invalid, being based on a false premise. Thus philosophy must first employ science to find scientific knowledge about reality and then proceed to philosophical musings about such things as why things evolve in the manner that we can observe from determining how they develop.
It is easy to retrospectively strip a process of any intelligence.
Especially when it doesn't exhibit any great observable degree of intelligence. What is observed is a rather haphazard approach to the development of new organisms.
It is easy to assume intelligence on the part of some unknown entity when you are ignorant of the processes that result in new living organisms. It is like looking through a kaleidescope at a random pile of blocks and seeing patterns that are a product of the viewing mechanism\viewpoint rather than reality.
If the process results in a desired result from a design standpoint then evolution is the only known mechanism that could be used to accomplish that goal, by basically employing a trial and error methodology over many generations.
The desired result may be an (or a number of) intelligent organism, but which organism that is becomes, just like the maker of cars, irrelevant to the result, because this is most likely an emergent property of evolutionary life.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 12:07 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 8:53 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 92 of 142 (717371)
01-26-2014 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by AndrewPD
01-26-2014 6:00 PM


It is still a unique private subjective sensation held subjectively.
By definition any sensing of the external by any one of our senses is "a unique private subjective sensation", and all subjective sensations are "held subjectively" ... you are just playing with words and not saying anything of import.
The comparison with for instance vision is that there may be an object out their causing the visual perception or which the perception represents. ...
As there may be an object out their causing the touch perception or which the perception represents. Pain is just an extreme part of the touch spectrum of sensation.
Not only that but just as one person seeing a specific aspect of reality can be validated by another person seeing the same specific aspect of reality, so too can one person feeling a specific aspect of reality, be it a light touch or pain, this same feeling of the same aspect of reality can be replicated by another person. This is the way children are taught.
Although how that object or representation reaches consciousness is unknown till we explain how consciousness works.
All sensations are transmitted to the brain via nerves with different nerves learning different sensations. The brain is just a construction of nerve cells where self-consciousness is an emergent property, as we can see by observing other organisms with different levels of self-consciousness ... a different of quantity rather than one of quality. Apes overlap humans for instance.
However with pain it is not representing the environment directly. ...
Touch is quite capable of representing the environment directly, pain is a part of the sense of touch.
... We can see tissue damage on our skin and that represents bodily injury ...
And we can touch the damaged area and more. With touch we can observe if a bone is broken when we cannot observe the break with our eyes.
... the pain is just an unpleasant sensation or qualia. Rather like colour or sound.
Curiously I don't find all color or sound unpleasant ... just like I don't find all sensations of touch unpleasant.
... or qualia. ...
You keep saying this but I am not sure you understand what it means ...
If you have heard of the knowledge argument or "Mary's room" then there is a real life equivalent. Knut Nordby was an expert in the science of vision and colour but was achromatic and he said he didn't know what it was like to see colour and couldn't imagine it. Without the direct experience the scientific explanation didn't explicate the missing qualia.
Vision is the sensation of some of the spectrum of photon frequencies, and there are organisms that see into the infrared or ultraviolet ends of the spectrum beyond the sensation of normal\average people. Color sensation is just a refinement of that limited ability to sense photons into subgroups. Being achromatic or color blind just means the person does not have that sorting of vision frequencies.
There are also people that see more colors than the average -- four basic sets of photon frequency sensors rather than three. Being able to measure light frequencies and sort them out into the spectrum band subgroups that people agree to call by the various color terms is not surprising at all.
There are also animals that have six sets of frequency sorting sensors, so they would see 6 "primary" colors ... birds for instance ... and we are just as much at a loss for ability as Knut Nordby to see those colors while being able to measure their frequencies and sort them out into their spectrum band subgroups.
Curiously I find Hellen Keller more of an inspiration in sensing the world around us in spite of limited sensations.
Word games. Presumptuous word games.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 6:00 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 9:15 PM RAZD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 93 of 142 (717373)
01-26-2014 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD
01-26-2014 6:14 PM


Re: noosphere?
And when we look at all the different makers of cars and see that they have different mental states but still make cars then we know that mental states are irrelevant.
Designing cars is an emergent property of developing means of transportation systems. It does not matter who makes the first step.
People have mental states about cars. They have similar mental states with a representation of a car which they manipulate in their mind in a combination of prior input and new ideas.
For instance I am thinking of the colour pink. I am now thinking of a car. I imagine combining the two in my mind and voila! I have an imaginary pink car. If I paint my car pink that is a result of this thought process.
You can't bypass the mental realm when it comes to human artefacts. But you can't see the mental input by methodically dissecting the car.
I would be surprised if you thought artefacts like computers and other machines involving complex calculations weren't devised in minds.
On the case of bad or weird designs. Humans create those also. Humans create many malfunctioning, silly and clumsy devices. I don't know why design need infer perfection.
It is is easy to say that you don't need to posit intervention to explain something but not truly falsifiable. Similar to the way someone can claim they know who Jack The Ripper is without being truly able to prove it.
Like I say earlier it depends on what the substrate of reality is. If a creator merely created the first moment of the universe that would make the whole process dependent on them.
Lawrence krauss seems to have implicitly recognized this problem by trying to find away from the universe to come from nothing. He wants to exorcise the need for intervention at any stage in the universe with his pseudo-nothingness which strangely contains the laws of physics somehow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2014 6:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2014 9:02 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 94 of 142 (717376)
01-26-2014 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
01-26-2014 8:47 PM


Vision is the sensation of some of the spectrum of photon frequencies, and there are organisms that see into the infrared or ultraviolet ends of the spectrum beyond the sensation of normal\average people. Color sensation is just a refinement of that limited ability to sense photons into subgroups. Being achromatic or color blind just means the person does not have that sorting of vision frequencies.
I think you are seriously mischaracterizing conscious sensation. There is no reason why any activity in the brain should lead to a conscious experience.
What is happening in the brain is not the same as what we experience. We don't experience neurons firing. The neuron firings are correlated with reported private experience.
If you look in someones brain when they are having a thought of a zebra you wont see anything like a zebra in their brain. I have raised criticisms of retinotopic and tonotopic mapping earlier. They make false assumptions about the content of conscious states.
In the Knut Nordby example it shows that he doesn't know what it is like to experience colour and no amount of theories about it will replace the direct qualitative lived experience. That shows the primacy of experience. There is something Knut couldn't know about reality because he was unconscious of it.
There are a huge range of issues in consciousness to discuss it is noway near as straight forward as you seem to be implying.
If I have a pain in my body, say around the stomach region, it is not giving me much information. I couldn't diagnose myself. Nowadays we all learn a little biology in school. I could work out that it maybe this internal organ hurting but this would be due to the application of and combination of other knowledge. The pain doesn't describe the hurting area and these pains can include misdirected and phantom pains and pain with no visible source.
Touch is by no means straightforward. It involves higher cognitive and learning processes to identify objects. So for example they have found that blind people who regain their sight can't recognise objects easily that they were familiar with by touch. none of this anyhow makes the experience any less in the conscious sphere. And we haven't got round to language, mental representation and semantics yet.
How does a neural pattern or something like manage to retain a mental image of your dead Gran or the complex conceptual meaning of a word? Meaning is also in our minds. Orthographic Letters and sounds don't carry intrinsic physical meaning etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2014 8:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2014 9:36 AM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-28-2014 9:05 AM AndrewPD has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 95 of 142 (717380)
01-26-2014 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by AndrewPD
01-25-2014 2:19 PM


The problem is we have immediate personal experience of our mental and conscious states "I think there for I am".
I don't see that as any kind of problem. The idea that it is a problem seems confused.
If science can't objectively see them that is a limit to sciences scope.
Since they are subjective, not objective, why would you expect (or want) science to "objectively see them"?
People like Daniel Dennet and The Churchlands want to undermine this domains validity so that they can claim it is less than it is but unfortunately I am an authority on my experiences.
No, you are not any kind of authority on them. You have misunderstood the meaning of "authority".
I see no valid reason to sacrifice this mental immediate realm for an ideologically loaded materialist dogma.
Nobody is sacrificing anything, as best I can tell -- unless you count woo-meisters sacrificing their credibility.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 2:19 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 11:35 PM nwr has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 96 of 142 (717388)
01-26-2014 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by nwr
01-26-2014 9:48 PM


I don't see that as any kind of problem. The idea that it is a problem seems confused.
There is a difference between publicly identifiable entities and private entities.
We were discussing what things you could discover or interpret as evidence. A public object implies we can all see the same entity in a similar way (although who knows!) a private entity is one that we directly personally experience and others have no direct access to.
The fact that private mental states exist means there are private entities in reality. The quasi objectivity of science is not going to be able to rule these entities in or out.
I have mentioned the example of Knut Nordby above. He doesn't know what it is like to see colour because it is not publicly available objective thing. He needs to have a personal conscious experience of it. (There is a large literature on this issue "The Knowledge Argument")
I think this is actually an example of the primacy of consciousness. We have experiences first then try to methodologically conceptualise and explain these experiences.
But conceptual objects like a tree or cell succumb to this kind of analysis far more easily than things that do not represent objects like pain and colour and sound and thoughts.
In relation to this thread I have been asking why is there phenomena in reality only available to conscious states like dreams and pain? For an achromatic like Nordby it would be like watching a black and white film oblivious that it was actually in glorious technicolour.
This applies to people analysis of intelligence or design in nature. They are looking for it at the wrong level and dismissing it because it is not at that level. Like someone without ears claiming music doesn't exist they are claiming that their level of analysis is exhaustive.
I think it is a mistake to think that mechanical explanations somehow transcend the original conscious experience we live in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by nwr, posted 01-26-2014 9:48 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by nwr, posted 01-28-2014 12:32 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 97 of 142 (717409)
01-27-2014 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by AndrewPD
01-26-2014 8:53 PM


Re: noosphere?
... If a creator merely created the first moment of the universe that would make the whole process dependent on them.
And all of science would describe how the rest of the universe proceeded, including the development of life and its evolution from that point to now.
... But you can't see the mental input by methodically dissecting the car.
Nor do you need to see it in order to understand how the car was made in the way that it was.
You can reverse engineer the construction of the car without incorporating any mental input from the original construct and build a fully functional replicated car.
For instance I am thinking of the colour pink. I am now thinking of a car. I imagine combining the two in my mind and voila! I have an imaginary pink car. If I paint my car pink that is a result of this thought process.
But the car is not painted just by the design, it is implemented by a physical object: you.
You can also imagine that this car has only one horn, so that in your imagination you have an invisible pink unicorn.
Lawrence krauss seems to have implicitly recognized this problem by trying to find away from the universe to come from nothing. He wants to exorcise the need for intervention at any stage in the universe with his pseudo-nothingness which strangely contains the laws of physics somehow.
So? It seems he's just saying that there are emergent properties ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 8:53 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 98 of 142 (717410)
01-27-2014 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by AndrewPD
01-26-2014 9:15 PM


I think you are seriously mischaracterizing conscious sensation. There is no reason why any activity in the brain should lead to a conscious experience.
You want to make it a magical experience you are free to have that opinion, but that isn't going to get you to a point of understanding how it works.
The brain has been under development for millions of years, but this development is an difference in quantities rather than a difference in quality. Each step of development had an advantage for survival and breeding over the previous level of development and it thus enjoyed positive selection pressure to continue. Even in human ancestry we can see this development occurring, even in other animals we can see cognitive properties and even self-awareness, and we can even see simple sense and response systems in some organisms, so there is a whole spectrum of cognitive abilities, all providing their species with sufficient advantage to survive and breed compared to not having those abilities.
Evolution is an arms race, not just between predator and prey, but between different species to survive in an ecology and between breeding individuals in a population to pass on their traits to their offspring. This arms race means that each generation is finding new advantages in the new traits that give them the means to survive and reproduce.
Cognition is one of those traits that is seeing continued selection for greater cognitive ability ... in all organisms.
Touch is by no means straightforward. It involves higher cognitive and learning processes to identify objects. ...
It involves learning, something babies do, you know.
... So for example they have found that blind people who regain their sight can't recognise objects easily that they were familiar with by touch. ...
Surprisingly they need to learn how to interpret new sensations. How surprising ... almost like being a baby again ...
... none of this anyhow makes the experience any less in the conscious sphere. ...
An experience shared by virtually all vertebrates in different degrees of quantity but not in quality. Many species overlap in their cognitive abilities and there is no abrupt shift from one more "primitive" species to one more derived species, but a spectrum of abilities.
... And we haven't got round to language, mental representation and semantics yet.
Which we can observe this in apes and some other animals in different degrees, some of which test out more intelligent and inventive than some humans. This again shows a spectrum of development by evolutionary processes where the increased cognitive ability confers a survival and reproductive advantage to the individual, the breeding population, the species.
Problem solving provides an advantage for survival and reproduction.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 9:15 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 99 of 142 (717427)
01-27-2014 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by AndrewPD
01-26-2014 2:13 PM


AndrewPD writes:
Now if someone was investigation how an artefact was created should they rule out the possibility that something like the Pyramids was inspired by a mental state like a dream or desire or fantasy?
I see no valid reason to rule out entities that may be invisible to us being behind the behaviours observed in reality.
The problem is that people who think mental states have a non-mechanical component don't agree on what that component is. That's why we objectively exorcise the non-mechanical possibilities. Only looking at the mechanical possibilities may be a handicap but it gives us some common ground to work from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 2:13 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 142 (717428)
01-27-2014 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by AndrewPD
01-26-2014 2:13 PM


I see no valid reason to rule out entities that may be invisible to us being behind the behaviours observed in reality.
I think that's part of your problem, in that you see those things as being "ruled out". Its not so much as ruling other things out as it is leaving our explanations as simple as they have to be. If we can explain something without having to resort to those entities, then that is how the explanation will lay.
A pin that has been dropped and fell to the ground can be explained with the theory of gravity. It could be that it fell because of all the angels that are dancing on the head of the pin, but since we can explain the phenomenon without having to include those angels, then that is the scientific explanation that we will go with. But that scientific explanation isn't really "ruling out" the angels, it just has no cause to mention them at all.
The same goes with evolution. We can explain how species arise without having to invoke god, so that's the explanation we'll currently use. But that's not saying that god didn't have anything to do with it at all. We just don't need to include him to explain our observations.
Because science doesn't have a methodology for discerning design and intelligence, meaning and mental content in nature.
Oh, but it does.
You can tell that a rock was intelligently designed when it contains features that do not occur naturally, like a bulb of percussion, striking platform, bulbar scar, and percussion ripples.
There's even a guide for it.
Take a look at the images on the bottom of page 2. There's two flakes of rock that, at first glance, don't look any different at all. It only after you apply the methodology for discerning design and intelligence that you can determine that the one on the left was made by a human and the one on the right naturally occurred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 2:13 PM AndrewPD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Dogmafood, posted 01-27-2014 6:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 114 by NoNukes, posted 01-29-2014 10:18 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 101 of 142 (717454)
01-27-2014 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by AndrewPD
01-26-2014 6:13 PM


man with mostly missing brain.
He was able to function normally despite this handicap because he worked as a civil servant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 6:13 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 102 of 142 (717459)
01-27-2014 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by New Cat's Eye
01-27-2014 11:08 AM


Assumptions
CS writes:
AndrewPD writes:
Because science doesn't have a methodology for discerning design and intelligence, meaning and mental content in nature.
Oh, but it does.
While we are pretty good at spotting things that have been designed or manipulated by the hand of man why should these same characteristics apply to something that may have been designed by an intelligence that is capable of creating a universe? I mean how could we possibly know what the signs of design would be when it comes to something like the universe? Why should the intelligence of a god be even remotely similar to ours? Or the motives, time frames or purpose?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2014 11:08 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2014 7:18 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 103 of 142 (717464)
01-27-2014 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Dogmafood
01-27-2014 6:05 PM


Re: Assumptions
I mean how could we possibly know what the signs of design would be when it comes to something like the universe? Why should the intelligence of a god be even remotely similar to ours?
You are quite right. We cannot know ... either way.
Now the situation is that we can describe and model the universe without any consideration of some super unknowable design or its supposed god and very successfully discern the mechanisms and predict some phenomena.
Since there is no way to know if there was a god or that it designed this thing, coupled with the evidence of human history that gods and religions appear to be the concepts and conjures of man, on what basis should we entertain a god concept at all? It just adds needless complexity and offers no enhancement to knowledge. The concept is quite worthless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Dogmafood, posted 01-27-2014 6:05 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dogmafood, posted 01-27-2014 10:28 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 104 of 142 (717476)
01-27-2014 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by AZPaul3
01-27-2014 7:18 PM


Re: Assumptions
Good answer. I heartily agree.
...on what basis should we entertain a god concept at all?
We did get some nice cathedrals out of the deal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2014 7:18 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2014 10:32 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 105 of 142 (717477)
01-27-2014 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dogmafood
01-27-2014 10:28 PM


Re: Assumptions
And some nasty (and continuing) wars.
The problem isn't those who would die for their faith.
The problem is those who would kill for their faith.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dogmafood, posted 01-27-2014 10:28 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024