Strange Quark Consiousness

[Virtual Particle]

Ok, it's very obvious you do not even understand this. You do not know what general relativity is, not to mention even what quantum mechanics are. So please stop embarrassing yourself.

That is seriously quote worthy. That statement is so retarded on so many levels. Seriously are you high?

I do know what General Relativity is and I also know what QM is. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and lack any common sense to back out of this argument honorably.

Any thoughts?

PS: Astute One, I would be interested in seeing your data.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Triad

[Virtual Particle]

Some of the yet unsolved problems of neuroscience include:

Consciousness: What is the neuronal basis of subjective experience, cognition, wakefulness, alertness, arousal and attention? How is the "hard problem of consciousness" solved? What is its function?[1]

Perception: How does the brain transfer sensory information into coherent, private percepts? What are the rules by which perception is organized? What are the features/objects that constitute our perceptual experience of internal and external events? How are the senses integrated? Is face perception special (e.g. innate)? What is the relationship between subjective experience and the physical world?

Learning and memory: Where do our memories get stored and how are they retrieved again? How can learning be improved? What is the difference between explicit and implicit memories?

Neuroplasticity: How plastic is the mature brain?

Development and evolution: How and why did the brain evolve (the way it did)? What are the molecular determinants of individual brain development?

Sleep: Why do we dream? What are the underlying brain mechanisms? What is its relation to anesthesia?

Cognition and decisions: How and where does the brain evaluate reward value and effort (cost) to modulate behavior? How does previous experience alter perception and behavior? What are the genetic and environmental contributions to brain function?

Language: How is it implemented neurally? What is the basis of semantic meaning?

Diseases: What are the neural bases (causes) of mental diseases like psychotic disorders (e.g. mania, schizophrenia), Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease or addiction? Is it possible to recover loss of sensory or motor function?

Source

10. What is consciousness?

Think back to your first kiss. The experience of it may pop into your head instantly. Where was that memory before you became conscious of it? How was it stored in your brain before and after it came into consciousness? What is the difference between those states

An explanation of consciousness is one of the major unsolved problems of modern science. It may not turn out to be a single phenomenon; nonetheless, by way of a preliminary target, let’s think of it as the thing that flickers on when you wake up in the morning that was not there, in the exact same brain hardware, moments before.

Neuroscientists believe that consciousness emerges from the material stuff of the brain primarily because even very small changes to your brain (say, by drugs or disease) can powerfully alter your subjective experiences. The heart of the problem is that we do not yet know how to engineer pieces and parts such that the resulting machine has the kind of private subjective experience that you and I take for granted. If I give you all the Tinkertoys in the world and tell you to hook them up so that they form a conscious machine, good luck. We don’t have a theory yet of how to do this; we don’t even know what the theory will look like.

One of the traditional challenges to consciousness research is studying it experimentally. It is probable that at any moment some active neuronal processes correlate with consciousness, while others do not. The first challenge is to determine the difference between them. Some clever experiments are making at least a little headway. In one of these, subjects see an image of a house in one eye and, simultaneously, an image of a cow in the other. Instead of perceiving a house-cow mixture, people perceive only one of them. Then, after some random amount of time, they will believe they’re seeing the other, and they will continue to switch slowly back and forth. Yet nothing about the visual stimulus changes; only the conscious experience changes. This test allows investigators to probe which properties of neuronal activity correlate with the changes in subjective experience.

The mechanisms underlying consciousness could reside at any of a variety of physical levels: molecular, cellular, circuit, pathway, or some organizational level not yet described. The mechanisms might also be a product of interactions between these levels. One compelling but still speculative notion is that the massive feedback circuitry of the brain is essential to the production of consciousness.

In the near term, scientists are working to identify the areas of the brain that correlate with consciousness. Then comes the next step: understanding why they correlate. This is the so-called hard problem of neuroscience, and it lies at the outer limit of what material explanations will say about the experience of being human.

Source

This is a list of some of the major unsolved problems in physics. Some of these problems are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result. The others are experimental, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail.

Source

Read more: 13 more things that don't make sense

1 The placebo effect

Don't try this at home. Several times a day, for several days, you induce pain in someone. You control the pain with morphine until the final day of the experiment, when you replace the morphine with saline solution. Guess what? The saline takes the pain away.

This is the placebo effect: somehow, sometimes, a whole lot of nothing can be very powerful. Except it's not quite nothing. When Fabrizio Benedetti of the University of Turin in Italy carried out the above experiment, he added a final twist by adding naloxone, a drug that blocks the effects of morphine, to the saline. The shocking result? The pain-relieving power of saline solution disappeared.

So what is going on? Doctors have known about the placebo effect for decades, and the naloxone result seems to show that the placebo effect is somehow biochemical. But apart from that, we simply don't know.

Benedetti has since shown that a saline placebo can also reduce tremors and muscle stiffness in people with Parkinson's disease. He and his team measured the activity of neurons in the patients' brains as they administered the saline. They found that individual neurons in the subthalamic nucleus (a common target for surgical attempts to relieve Parkinson's symptoms) began to fire less often when the saline was given, and with fewer "bursts" of firing - another feature associated with Parkinson's. The neuron activity decreased at the same time as the symptoms improved: the saline was definitely doing something.

We have a lot to learn about what is happening here, Benedetti says, but one thing is clear: the mind can affect the body's biochemistry. "The relationship between expectation and therapeutic outcome is a wonderful model to understand mind-body interaction," he says. Researchers now need to identify when and where placebo works. There may be diseases in which it has no effect. There may be a common mechanism in different illnesses. As yet, we just don't know.

Source

Over9millionyearsold here is a small example of some of the things I know

Again Mattshark just so we are clear....You really seem have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf3gr_uXI9U&feature=related

See it is actually a quark and anti-quark...which for the record

We exist in a Universe? Which supports interaction between matter and anti-matter.

Clearly at the fundamental level. And lets be clear it is called the “fundamental level.”

They are not annihilating each other?????????

Any thoughts?

Edited May 7, 2010 by Triad

[bLu3 de 3n3rgy]

Ok, it's very obvious you do not even understand this. You do not know what general relativity is, not to mention even what quantum mechanics are. So please stop embarrassing yourself.

That is seriously quote worthy. That statement is so retarded on so many levels. Seriously are you high?

We can do with out these kind of comments. If you are not capable of putting your point across without being snidey, then don't post them.

[Mattshark]

OK but the issue is the human brain and what we know about it. QM is a science and it makes perfect sense that if? Something is not understood applying the "macro-models"? QM is applicable. Arbitrarily demonizing something because it does not fit your world scheme is not scientific. Its not even professional.

You should actually read that article a computer is what about 933mhz? Human brain is about 30 to 70 hz. What you are saying would make a lot more sense if you could support it with data.

Any thoughts?

Do you know what decoherence is?

You simply can't tack on QM as an answer unless there is strong supporting evidence to do so. Biology and QM don't mix because outside of photosynthesis, everything in biology works too slowly to be affected by QM, doing so would be both unprofessional and unscientific.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Mattshark

[Dougal]

References please otherwise your responses are unsubstantiated.

You guys are hallarious.

Any thoughts?

The same could be said of most of your posts.....a link to some crackpot website is not a real reference....

[over9millionyearsold]

Do you know what decoherence is?

You simply can't tack on QM as an answer unless there is strong supporting evidence to do so. Biology and QM don't mix because outside of photosynthesis, everything in biology works too slowly to be affected by QM, doing so would be both unprofessional and unscientific.

Honestly don't even bother explaining to this guy. I mean his brain runs at 70hz, so much faster than ours!

[Virtual Particle]

Misquoting me will not help validate your point 9 million

Dougal what evidence do you have to support your statements.

Mattshark that is plane childish

You guys really do not have a clue do you? You just keep rehashing the same old thing. Do your significant others tell you what to do

but offer no explanation's to why???? Sure seems like it.

Anyway I feel my point is supported by the lack of an appropriate response from the skeptics.

Any thoughts?

PS: Happpy early Mom's Day

[Astute One]

Do you know what decoherence is?

You simply can't tack on QM as an answer unless there is strong supporting evidence to do so. Biology and QM don't mix because outside of photosynthesis, everything in biology works too slowly to be affected by QM, doing so would be both unprofessional and unscientific.

This is the reason why the bioelectrochemical speeds cannot explain the speed of human thought. This is why to explain the speed of human thought, the world of QM must be explored.

[Astute One]

I do know what General Relativity is and I also know what QM is. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and lack any common sense to back out of this argument honorably.

Any thoughts?

PS: Astute One, I would be interested in seeing your data.

You may find this interesting.

http://www.quantumbrain.org/Entanglement.pdf

http://www.quantumbrain.org/ProactiveSpin.pdf

http://www.quantumbrain.org/ElectricSpinEffect.pdf

http://www.quantumbrain.org/NonlocalEffectII.pdf

http://www.quantumbrain.org/GravityOrigin.pdf

http://www.quantumbrain.org/ExistencePrinciple.pdf

[Mattshark]

This is the reason why the bioelectrochemical speeds cannot explain the speed of human thought. This is why to explain the speed of human thought, the world of QM must be explored.

Says who exactly? Quantum mind is rejected in science and is basically fringe and nothing more, quantum biology is outside of a small role in photosynthesis, a failed field.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Mattshark

[Mattshark]

You may find this interesting.

http://www.quantumbrain.org/Entanglement.pdf

http://www.quantumbrain.org/ProactiveSpin.pdf

http://www.quantumbrain.org/ElectricSpinEffect.pdf

http://www.quantumbrain.org/NonlocalEffectII.pdf

http://www.quantumbrain.org/GravityOrigin.pdf

http://www.quantumbrain.org/ExistencePrinciple.pdf

I think you should look into why Huping Hu's work on Wikipedia was removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Huping_Hu

Hu and Mu are junk science and nothing more, there is good reason why this stuff is in their own online "journal" and not in real journals.

[Virtual Particle]

I think you should look into why Huping Hu's work on Wikipedia was removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Huping_Hu

Hu and Mu are junk science and nothing more, there is good reason why this stuff is in their own online "journal" and not in real journals.

Quantum Evidence

There have been various attempts to validate the idea of quantum states being involved in neural processing. Professors Friedrich Beck and John C. Eccles developed a model for quantal emission process at the synaptic cleft with reasonable results. These authors also discussed in detail the problem of elementary microscopic processes in protein complexes able to survive thermal fluctuations. Evidence for quantum processing was also claimed by the physicist Evan Harris Walker (see above).

Between 2003 and 2009, professors Elio Conte, Andrei Yuri Khrennikov, Orlando Todarello, Antonio Federici, Joseph P. Zbilut, performed a number of experiments reaching evidence on possible existence of quantum interference effects on mental states during human perception and cognition of ambiguous figures. See further reading[13, 14, 15, 16]. These authors have also realized theoretical contributions on the analysis of quantum interference effects in mental states, and on time dynamics of cognitive entities[13, 14, 15, 16].

Studies in the last few years have demonstrated the existence of functional quantum coherence in photosynthetic protein. Engel et al (2007) was the definitive paper in this field, while Collini et al (2010) showed that this type of coherence in protein could exist at room temperatures. These systems use times to decoherence that are within the timescales calculated for brain protein.</ref>[44] </ref>[45]

Physicists at the University of California, Berkeley believe they have discovered that green plants perform quantum computation in order to capture the sun's light through photosynthesis—evidence of quantum coherence in a living system.[46]

[edit] Ongoing debate

The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale, at which they could be useful for neural processing. Michael Price, for example, says that quantum effects rarely or never affect human decisions and that classical physics determines the behaviour of Neurons.

In quantum terms each neuron is an essentially classical object. Consequently quantum noise in the brain is at such a low level that it probably doesn't often alter, except very rarely, the critical mechanistic behaviour of sufficient neurons to cause a decision to be different than we might otherwise expect. (...)

—Michael Clive Price[1]

Price's position does not necessarily imply that classical mechanics can explain consciousness, but that quantum effects including superposition and entanglement are insignificant. His position might be felt to be undermined by focusing only on the macroscopic scale of a neuron, rather than the much smaller structures that most of the theories discussed above relate to.

An arguably more formidable opponent of quantum mind theories is the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function, "This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way"[47]

Proponents of quantum consciousness theories have sought to defend them against Tegmark's criticism. In respect of QBD, Vitiello has argued that Tegmark's work applies to theories based on quantum mechanics, but not to those such as QBD that are based on quantum field theory. In respect of Penrose and Hameroff's Orch OR theory, Hameroff along with Hagan and Tuszynski replied to Tegmark[48]. They claimed that Tegmark based his calculations on a model that was different from Orch OR. It is argued that in the Orch OR model, the microtubules are shielded from decoherence by ordered water. Energy pumping as a result of thermal disequilibrium, Debye layer screening and quantum error correction, deriving from the geometry of the microtubule lattice are also proposed as possible sources of shielding. Similarly, in his extension of Bohm's ideas, Bernroider has claimed that the binding pockets in the ion selection filters could protect against decoherence[4]. So far, however, there has been no experimental confirmation of the ability of the features mentioned above to protect against decoherence.

The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience.

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.

If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it is this one. In this central sense of "consciousness", an organism is conscious if there is something it is like to be that organism, and a mental state is conscious if there is something it is like to be in that state. Sometimes terms such as "phenomenal consciousness" and "qualia" are also used here, but I find it more natural to speak of "conscious experience" or simply "experience". Another useful way to avoid confusion (used by e.g. Newell 1990, Chalmers 1996) is to reserve the term "consciousness" for the phenomena of experience, using the less loaded term "awareness" for the more straightforward phenomena described earlier. If such a convention were widely adopted, communication would be much easier; as things stand, those who talk about "consciousness" are frequently talking past each other.

The ambiguity of the term "consciousness" is often exploited by both philosophers and scientists writing on the subject. It is common to see a paper on consciousness begin with an invocation of the mystery of consciousness, noting the strange intangibility and ineffability of subjectivity, and worrying that so far we have no theory of the phenomenon. Here, the topic is clearly the hard problem - the problem of experience. In the second half of the paper, the tone becomes more optimistic, and the author's own theory of consciousness is outlined. Upon examination, this theory turns out to be a theory of one of the more straightforward phenomena - of reportability, of introspective access, or whatever. At the close, the author declares that consciousness has turned out to be tractable after all, but the reader is left feeling like the victim of a bait-and-switch. The hard problem remains untouched.

Source

Quantum Computation in Brain Microtubules? Decoherence and Biological Feasibility

Authors: S. Hagan, S. R. Hameroff, J. A. Tuszyński

(Submitted on 4 May 2000)

Abstract: The Penrose-Hameroff (`Orch OR') model of quantum computation in brain microtubules has been criticized as regards the issue of environmental decoherence. A recent report by Tegmark finds that microtubules can maintain quantum coherence for only $10^{-13}$ s, far too short to be neurophysiologically relevant. Here, we critically examine the assumptions behind Tegmark's calculation and find that: 1) Tegmark's commentary is not aimed at an existing model in the literature but rather at a hybrid that replaces the superposed protein conformations of the `Orch OR' theory with a soliton in superposition along the microtubule, 2) Tegmark predicts decreasing decoherence times at lower temperature, in direct contradiction of the observed behavior of quantum states, 3) recalculation after correcting Tegmark's equation for differences between his model and the `Orch OR' model (superposition separation, charge vs. dipole, dielectric constant) lengthens the decoherence time to $10^{-5} - 10^{-4}$ s and invalidates a critical assumption of Tegmark's derivation, 4) incoherenti metabolic energy supplied to the collective dynamics ordering water in the vicinity of microtubules at a rate exceeding that of decoherence can counter decoherence effects (in the same way that lasers avoid decoherence at room temperature), and 5) phases of actin gelation may enhance the ordering of water around microtubule bundles, further increasing the decoherence-free zone by an order of magnitude and the decoherence time to $10^{-2} - 10^{-1}$ s. These revisions bring microtubule decoherence into a regime in which quantum gravity can interact with neurophysiology.

Source

Mattshark what I see is an effort to resolve and unknown. Clearly the model you have often suggested fall well short of what in reality is human capacity.

Any thoughts?

Edited May 9, 2010 by Triad

[SolarPlexus]

Triad thanks for sharing. i agree 100 % !!!

Physicists do not need mysticism, and mystics do not need physics, but humanity needs both.

~Fritjof Capra

Science brings us closer to God

~Louis Pasteur

With every passing day science and religion merge in concepts!!

.... oh and everything that matt doesnt like is junk science or pseudo science for him (he forget that everything was pseudo up to a point)... Matt, the only thing thats pseudo around here, is your perversion of skepticism.... skepticism is a tool, not a refuge/sanctuary for weak minds ...

[Mattshark]

Triad thanks for sharing. i agree 100 % !!!

Physicists do not need mysticism, and mystics do not need physics, but humanity needs both.

~Fritjof Capra

Science brings us closer to God

~Louis Pasteur

With every passing day science and religion merge in concepts!!

.... oh and everything that matt doesnt like is junk science or pseudo science for him (he forget that everything was pseudo up to a point)... Matt, the only thing thats pseudo around here, is your perversion of skepticism.... skepticism is a tool, not a refuge/sanctuary for weak minds ...

And mixing belief into science is not science but pseudosceince that has absolutely no value what so ever except to increase ignorance. Pretending your belief in science doesn't make it science, it just means you don't understand science.

And Solar, if you are not sceptical in science, you are a rubbish scientists, science is done through sceptical enquiry. Wanting it to support your unsubstantiated beliefs will not change that.

[Mattshark]

Source

Source

Mattshark what I see is an effort to resolve and unknown. Clearly the model you have often suggested fall well short of what in reality is human capacity.

Any thoughts?

I showed you a paper showing how decoherence meant that the brain work 18000000 times too slow for Orch OR to actually work, confirmation bias isn't a valid research method. - Hammerof is an idiot.

But hey, you source is a philosophy professor, I mean, why would someone like MIT's Max Tegmark know more than him!

Edited May 9, 2010 by Mattshark

[SolarPlexus]

bla bla bla you never change matt.... taking refuge in your attitude instead of making at least a minimal anti-conformist effort... tsk tsk

[Virtual Particle]

I showed you a paper showing how decoherence meant that the brain work 18000000 times too slow for Orch OR to actually work, confirmation bias isn't a valid research method. - Hammerof is an idiot.

But hey, you source is a philosophy professor, I mean, why would someone like MIT's Max Tegmark know more than him!

Mattshark you are talking about another theory so as far as idiots well The issue at present is the "hard problem" Matt your link does not solve that. Any other conclusions to offer??

Or do you feel we should just throw our arms up in the air and say it is unsovable.

Also what philospohy professor are you talking about....

Sir Roger Penrose

Stuart Hammeroff

Seriouly Mattshark that kind of behavior makes your point seem cheap. Penrose worked with Hawkins on

black holes for Gods sake and he was clearly integral in resloving solutions.

Any thoughts?

Edited May 9, 2010 by Triad

[Virtual Particle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxTFYvi01wo&NR=1

Note Max's response.....The mind is the matrix of all matter

Mattshark you have no clue.

Part one of seven

And I submit that the skeptics in this forum have placed themsevles in a position where
the answers to the "hard question," exist beyond quantum mechanics



For the record? Such a conclusion falls under the auspices of the term "Checkmate" and in the context of "I win".

This means skeptics your claim to "common sense" or a rational conclusion makes your point irrelevant. Does the term Egocentric mean anything to you????



Any thoughts? Edited May 9, 2010 by Triad

[Mattshark]

bla bla bla you never change matt.... taking refuge in your attitude instead of making at least a minimal anti-conformist effort... tsk tsk

Ah, so you think ignoring evidence is the way to go

[Mattshark]

Mattshark you are talking about another theory so as far as idiots well The issue at present is the "hard problem" Matt your link does not solve that. Any other conclusions to offer??

Or do you feel we should just throw our arms up in the air and say it is unsovable.

Also what philospohy professor are you talking about....

Sir Roger Penrose

Stuart Hammeroff

Seriouly Mattshark that kind of behavior makes your point seem cheap. Penrose worked with Hawkins on

black holes for Gods sake and he was clearly integral in resloving solutions.

Any thoughts?

So you didn't look at the source you put up then, the one from a philosophy professor. OK.

Penrose dropped Orch OR after it was falsified and even you link shows his view to be a fringe position. Hammeroff is just a joke and is not qualified in either neurology or quantum physics.

There is a lot evidence though that the mind is bioelectorochemical though, I have shown you it before. Maybe you can go look it up again, along with the work falsifying Orch OR.

And 2012 videos by Peter Russell, well good to know you like you quality science sources

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9907/9907009v2.pdf

Here you go, you can read Tegmark's paper again. I doubt you'll bother though, quantum religion likes to leave out the parts that don't suit it's believers.

[SolarPlexus]

its only a matter of time before science and religion merge (and it should)

its happening with every new discovery in physics

most if not all theories that were considered pseudoscience are getting confirmed day by day

[Mattshark]

its only a matter of time before science and religion merge (and it should)

its happening with every new discovery in physics

most if not all theories that were considered pseudoscience are getting confirmed day by day

That is complete and utter rubbish, where do you get this junk?

[Emma_Acid]

its only a matter of time before science and religion merge (and it should)

You are joking right? How on earth can objective science be served by the inclusion of faith and divine based principles? That is not longer science. When you can claim a divine origin for natural occurrences, everything else goes out the window. You can't make predictions with a system that is based on superstition.

Blaming earthquakes on promiscuous women - that sort of nonsense situation is where mixing science and faith will lead you. How does that serve civilisation exactly?

The sort of people who say science and religion should merge, are either fundamentalists who long to see their faith scientifically proven (which makes no sense) or people who are angry that mainstream science doesn't back up their ridiculous pseudoscientifical claims or beliefs (and therefore want normal science to start basing itself on faith, as its the only way they can give their beliefs credence).

Either way its nonsense.

[Dougal]

its only a matter of time before science and religion merge (and it should)

riiiiight, weren't science and religion mixed before? I have a poor memory, can somebody remind me how that worked out?

Religion requires belief, science requires evidence, how exactly do they work together? You can't do science with only belief, it just doesn't work.

And I submit that the skeptics in this forum have placed themsevles in a position where

the answers to the "hard question," exist beyond quantum mechanics

Why do you keep deceiding what I believe for me?

I submit that some of the posts on this forums are nothing more than sensationalist rubbish dreamt up by people who have had their theories rejected by main stream scientists who work in the field and so instead try to convince people who do not understand the subject fully that what they say is true.

[SolarPlexus]

"junk & nonsense" is all you ever say pseudoskeptics... you spend too much time here starting online ego battles and have strayed far from both science or skepticism ...

"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,

it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

- Arthur Schopenhauer

second stage yay