Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
PsiSeeker

Language limitation queries

Recommended Posts

PsiSeeker

Summary - What are the limitations of spoken language?  How do words come about that can't be made direct example of in reality?  Do programming languages share the same evolutionary mechanisms as spoken languages?  Does mathematics have ties to spoken language given that it is a core constituent of programming languages that utilises elements of spoken languages at the high end?  Is mathematics "the fundamental language" in the sense that it seems to be an underlying component attributable to everything in some way?  Is there some global language possible that ties spoken language, mathematics and programming language into one or do these languages have some fundamental uniqueness at their core?  Are there other languages varying by the same degree of uniqueness, separated by type?

TLDR

As far as languages go, where I'm considering mainly spoken language, programming language and mathematics is there some way of being certain or being able to measure how "complete" or "successful" they are or perhaps of humanity itself is a limiting component to to the scope of language?  Are there some "super languages".  I'm thinking of a series I read by William Hertling where different artificial Intelligence tribes learn to communicate with humanity as well as amongst themselves.  In the series information processing speed seems to be the main factor that measures an AI tribe's processing power and the breadth of communicability within the tribe itself as well as other tribes.  I'm wondering if it's possible for some AI to have an evolutionary advantage over other AI determined by whatever language it's tribe evolves.  It seems that some written texts have an "evolutionary advantage" over other written texts written in the same language so how each tribe member uses the language is important.  Perhaps some language that makes one tribe powerful is limiting to another tribe maybe depending on hardware or whatever.  Language use of 1 specific individual seems sufficient to have global influence on an evolutionary scale.  This ability that information has of "going viral".  

Language seems to be something that has evolved alongside humanity.  However the scope of say, English, has been vastly extended since the time of Shakespeare.  What does it mean to derive new words for things?  I imagine whatever that thing is is first captured by a description derived from several other words or expressions.  How do the core components that characterise a spoken language come about and to what extent, or in what sense, does it limit its scope? 

What is the minimal set of syntactical features necessary to capture all derivable semantic expressions of language, assuming there is such a thing?  Is more than one language needed to capture all the nuances of human communication?  I'm assuming that "sign language" doesn't really count as a "different language" per se in the same way that written language isn't a different language from spoken language.

Does the dictionary have a size limit?

What role does semantics play in deriving new words and to this end to what extent is language redundant?  Assuming minimal redundancy, is there a limit to the size of the sets of syntactic and semantic elements possible?

Assuming a new word isn't defined and derived by/from some semantic expression then where is it that this word comes from if it's not say... a noun or verb?  S...

Common language use seems to follow very closely to an unspoken global consensus of the state of subjective reality.  Given that language use tends to follow the state of reality what language use exists that doesn't follow the state of reality?  As in subjective reality, common intuition, what is commonly apparent to the majority.

What role do poems, songs, creative and artistic expressions play as different forms of expressions of language and how many forms of expression of language is possible such as sarcasm or satire or comedy? 

Switching to Computer Science.  It seems more and more likely that reality as we subjectively know it can be perfectly represented by programming languages.  What is the difference between a programming language and a spoken language when considering the same sorts of questions as above?

Is it correct to say that a programming language in a different spoken language is the same programming language in English?  Do some spoken languages have advantages over other spoken languages for high level programming?

It seems that we are capable of programming far more than what we would expect to find in reality.  How many things are there that we haven't thought of that we could program?  Does language limit us from realising what could be due to how closely it follows what is?

Anyway, might expand this further later.  I'm having difficulty trying to wrap my mind around how to articulate the strength and roles of languages in determining if what we are currently using is sufficient to capture everything and nothing and the in between as well as how one would go about studying it in a calculus sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
PsiSeeker

Something else occurred to me related to the brain itself earlier.  Does the brain actually "understand" English or mathematics on a Neurological level?  What role does spoken language actually play in characterising conscious experience?  It would seem that each individual structure within the brain doesn't directly "care" what the specific language is that's spoken.  I would say that, in this sense where consciousness is concerned, each structure produces and relies on particular sort of inputs experienced as a completely different conscious experience relative to other structures.  However the fundamental physical make up of the brain relies on the same sort of neurons and electrical impulses that probably obeys the laws of physics.  It would seem by this that the brain might be representable eventually by some sort of complex neural network.

I'm also going to postulate that the parts of the brain that processes the semantics, or meaning, of a language is very similar across different cultures of humanity and is possibly why there exists so much similarity across languages in that one can be translated to another and vice versa.  The "meaning" aspect is the same across different cultures due to the similar structures of our brains.  This might also explain why we aren't able to figure out very easily meanings of different animals communicating since the meaning elements of their brain structures evolved unique to that species, even if we are able to determine syntactic features there is no reason why we should be able to determine meaning from them.  This due to the parts of the brain that process meaning is just way too different in order to draw parallels to specific syntactic elements that we utilise due to the differences of the meaning structures between brains of different species.

What I'm guessing is that the actual sound and form and general structure of spoken languages is largely arbitrary and holds no or very little actual value itself beyond the brain's ability to derive some of the underlying meaning it has to learn independently of the functions that determine its behaviour in a neural network like sense.  That is, what is learned and understood and encoded as language is largely an objective process recursively encoded subjectively so trying to determine what objective feature is being experienced at some time should be impossible or at least extremely difficult if all one had access to was the neural network itself without some external feedback loop.

I get the feeling that some alien race with bigger, more intelligent brains have absolutely no reason to be able to consciously learn any of our languages and possibly not even necessarily be capable of translating them easily since the way meaning and syntax is derived and determined is the result of a separate evolutionary process that can't be determined in a 1:1 manner due to the physical structures and patterns of the brain as a neural network evolving as a separate system in response to the species as a body and not the individual itself.

This is extremely eerie to think about since our conscious experience isn't directly attributable to the state or linguistic aspects attributable to the neural network itself as a functioning organism.  This would seem to obey the notion that everything is subjective.  Eerie to mean that what is experienced as conscious free will to communicate or think or whatever physically exists as a separate organism to the experience of self in the sense that the fundamental rules the physical system follows are completely different to our underlying conscious and subconscious experiences.  I think we can only map the qualitative aspects of the brain as a neural network.

I think what this means is that if we are eventually able to encode and simulate a brain in a computer then there exists a very big problem of communication with it since we'd have to be able to translate conscious experience developed and learned over millions of years to the state of activity of the neural network itself in real time in order to marry it to English say as well as having to determine the reverse process that most likely follows very different mechanisms...

In conjunction to all of this I get the feeling that each structure within the brain has its own encoding given the vast varying degrees of conscious experience.  That is, the experience of the color blue and the feeling of falling hold no similar conscious relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PsiSeeker

I think considering things in this way is important because it might mean that what we think of as intellectual endeavour might be a unique aspect of our species.  It might also mean that some AI we might consider as "alive" might have no conscious experience.

What if we are able to upload the neural network representations of or brains however only the organism as the neural network itself is captured and produces no conscious experiences despite behaving exactly the same as it would with conscious experience?

I think that AI life should be thought of as an extension of human life itself and not akin to a separate species or their conscious states.  I also get the feeling that consciousness itself is something that is gradually learned and refined over millions of years of "blind" evolution that relies very heavily on true objective inputs and outputs influencing the neural networks of various organisms in ways unique to that species and its members.  I think that conscious experience differs from subconscious experience in that conscious experience comes from whatever interaction some organism has with the objective world where as subconscious experience are subjective components that don't draw from an objective source in order to function and therefore are undefined in conjunction to not evolving any conscious reference frames that would tie it into the rest of the organism.

I think that such a thing might be what enlightened meditarors mean to be truly conscious or truly awake.  One becomes conscious of these undefined processes despite not gaining any extra ability or functionality or sufficient means to describe them since they're still undefined and have no conscious reference points other than learning itself in an objective sense as the conscious state looks upon itself objectively.

I think that the difficulty and time and unique insight required to achieve this enlightenment of learning self in objective terms looking down upon self through one's conscious lense is the type of thing that is only achievable through actual consciousness.  So this might somehow be a measure that might need to be used once Turing tests start failing reliably.

Given that we aren't fully conscious beings means that we can't reliably determine how consciousness follows from objective interaction.  I think the difficulty and hostility that tends to exists for communication between species is a reliable indicator to the large degree that conscious states differ to the point where what we might think of as consciousness for a human being might be a completely different thing for other animals.  We wouldn't want to develop AI with all of our characteristics however I don't think a sentient AI is possible without true objective interactions in order for it to develop and relate reference frames completely external to its central function.

I think the large varying conscious experiences between the senses is the result of patterns of objective inputs that come to reliably reference and develop neural networks unique to each brain.  If the development of consciousness itself is an arbitrary process then the nonsensicalness of the syntactical features of language might extend to what is experienced as consciousness itself.  That is, the only similarity between my conscious experience and someone else's might only be determinable meaningfully through a feedback loop in objective reality despite being unique qualitatively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PsiSeeker

The idea that one's conscious experience may be qualitatively unique despite being meaningfully exactly identitical to another is extremely interesting because it would mean that there is some fundamental aspect of who one is in a meaningful metaphysical sense.  That is, it doesn't automatically follow that one's physical body is sufficient for one to be the same conscious entity however the conscious experience one has of one's physical body is unique to you.  It might also be a possible solution to the postulation that if reality infinitely repeats itself that it follows that one is stuck in some sort of ever repeating scenario since the qualitative aspects necessary for one to become conscious is arbitrarily determined.  It would also mean that it doesn't automatically follow that exact clones have the same qualitative conscious experiences. 

Anyway, given how many billions of years of evolution brains have undergone developing sensory input alone and that even this monstrous amount of time still isn't sufficient for evolution to have some idea of how to encode in our DNA what is learned objectively speaking over time in a sense that we have awareness of it makes me cast serious doubts to the ability AI will have, or be capable of developing, that will further our own intellectual endeavours without serious amounts of human input... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PsiSeeker

Anyway, what I want to point out by all this postulation is that there seems to be something unbelievable going on in the amount of power and influence single humans have that seem entirely derived from information manipulation alone.  However this goes about seems to be extremely chaotic, dangerous and poorly understood.  Feels like some sort of untapped super resource we have poor control and little fundamental understanding of.

I kind of want to postulate on alien life a bit however I feel like I'm way way out of my depth to think of such things when I have no idea what's going on with DNA and what beings it could produce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
On 1/30/2018 at 3:16 PM, PsiSeeker said:

Summary - What are the limitations of spoken language?  How do words come about that can't be made direct example of in reality?  Do programming languages share the same evolutionary mechanisms as spoken languages?  Does mathematics have ties to spoken language given that it is a core constituent of programming languages that utilises elements of spoken languages at the high end?  Is mathematics "the fundamental language" in the sense that it seems to be an underlying component attributable to everything in some way?  Is there some global language possible that ties spoken language, mathematics and programming language into one or do these languages have some fundamental uniqueness at their core?  Are there other languages varying by the same degree of uniqueness, separated by type?

I'm a software developer and a hobby-linguist, and I speak several languages fluently. From this perspective, I'll weigh in on this as best as I can, with the understanding that much of this is my own opinion based on my observations.

Spoken language limitations aren't actually universal. Some languages can express things that others can't. A notable example is tense; in english, we have essentially three tenses with past, present, and future. Mandarin, however, does not have any tenses. You can still express time, of course, but it is done in a fundamentally different way. Where in English we would say "I went to the store" to imply that it happened in the past, in Mandarin it would be directly translated as "I go to the store yesterday" or some contextual equivalent. Chinese also doesn't have plural forms of nouns; there is no distinction at all between "look at the frog" and "look at the frogs." Context is therefore required for plurals. We know that language affects how we think, so what a language can and cannot express can affect the thinking of the people speaking it. As such, the limitations of spoken language are entirely dependent on which language is being spoken.

Programing languages are different, though. They are wholly artificial, generally created for a specific purpose, and aren't designed to communicate in the same way that verbal languages are. Programing languages are designed more as structural components than they are as direct communication tools. In my mind, at least, they are more akin to building materials than words.

In terms of language uniqueness, the different language families can be shockingly different from each other. Uralic languages, for example, are very distinct, especially when compared to Indo-European languages, Semitic languages, Turkik languages, Sino-Tibetan languages, etc. Concepts such as gender, which is a grammatical part of every Indo-European language, are entirely absent from other language families. To crutch on Mandarin again, there is no vocal distinction between "she/him/he/her/it;" when written down, all of those words are distinct, but verbally they're all pronounced identically.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PsiSeeker
7 hours ago, Podo said:

I'm a software developer and a hobby-linguist, and I speak several languages fluently. From this perspective, I'll weigh in on this as best as I can, with the understanding that much of this is my own opinion based on my observations.

Spoken language limitations aren't actually universal. Some languages can express things that others can't. A notable example is tense; in english, we have essentially three tenses with past, present, and future. Mandarin, however, does not have any tenses. You can still express time, of course, but it is done in a fundamentally different way. Where in English we would say "I went to the store" to imply that it happened in the past, in Mandarin it would be directly translated as "I go to the store yesterday" or some contextual equivalent. Chinese also doesn't have plural forms of nouns; there is no distinction at all between "look at the frog" and "look at the frogs." Context is therefore required for plurals. We know that language affects how we think, so what a language can and cannot express can affect the thinking of the people speaking it. As such, the limitations of spoken language are entirely dependent on which language is being spoken.

Programing languages are different, though. They are wholly artificial, generally created for a specific purpose, and aren't designed to communicate in the same way that verbal languages are. Programing languages are designed more as structural components than they are as direct communication tools. In my mind, at least, they are more akin to building materials than words.

In terms of language uniqueness, the different language families can be shockingly different from each other. Uralic languages, for example, are very distinct, especially when compared to Indo-European languages, Semitic languages, Turkik languages, Sino-Tibetan languages, etc. Concepts such as gender, which is a grammatical part of every Indo-European language, are entirely absent from other language families. To crutch on Mandarin again, there is no vocal distinction between "she/him/he/her/it;" when written down, all of those words are distinct, but verbally they're all pronounced identically.

Woah, that's super interesting.  Thanks for the reply! :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Well, if we're going to go all mathy on this :) , there are some unresolved foundational issues:

* Is there a complete and accurate Turing machine computable grammar for any natural language?

So far, we don't know. The success of natural language processing ("understanding" natural language input, generating natural language output) by machines (which can only do things that are Turing computable) shows that IF there are natural language performances that are beyond the capability of machines THEN it could be that we don't use them as much in communicating with each other compared with performances that machines can also accomplish.

* What is the relationship between natural language and the other prominent species-specific communication medium, diagrammatic and representational drawings?

"Drawings" include conventional signs, and these can be reduced to gestures. For example, when the right index finger traces out a pattern on the open left palm, we can often "see" what would have happened if the index finger were a pen.

Thus, it is routine to see speakers of two different Chinese dialects stop talking to "trace out" written characters (which are the same for all dialects) when one can't follow the speech of the other. Sign languages designed for use by the hearing or speech impaired may have even more complicated realtionships to underlying spoken languages, including dialects of gestures.

I am not saying that those two problems exhaust the "foundational" issues, but since neither of them are as yet resolved, questions about what the ultimate limits of natural language might be are premature, IMO.

And now for something completely weird.

One way to think about these problems is to imagine an alien encounter. Do they communicate with each other? How? Suppose it is somewhat parallel to how we do it. There is a small scene in (at least the original) The Day the Earth Stood Still. The humanoid Mr Carpenter changes and thereby corrects some equations (= an artifical langauge, Turing computable) on an Einstein-like human professor's blackboard. This elegantly establishes Mr Carpenter's credentials with the professor, and they then have a deep natural language conversation (unknown Turing computability).

There are a lot of questions to ask about that situation. The OP question might be something like: can Mr. Carpenter think a thought which even in pricniple he could not convey to the professor, but could convey to others of Mr Carpenter's kind?

(In thinking about that, it may be useful to recall that "Mr Carpenter" is heavily based on a possibly mythical, but widely thought to be historical, hybrid human-alien being, Jesus of Galilee. So we have a very rich collection of things Mr Carpenter might say in trying to communicate with "professors" Peter, James, John... etc. about difficult subject matter, and also depictions of him communicating with the other side of his family, too.)

ETA If aliens and classical era gods are too rich to comtemplate, there is also the thrid prominent species-specific communication medium, music. The play (which was made into a movie) Amadeus is built around the idea that Mozart is a genius, while another contemporary composer, Salieri, is good, but not in Mozart's league. The engine of the plot is that Salieri is just good enough that he can appreciate how much better Mozart is, but not good enough to use that knowledge to bridge the gap.

Again, there are lots of questions you could ask about that situation. One is whether there is a musical performance that is possible, but which would stump Mozart as completely as Mozart stumped Salieri.

-

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PsiSeeker
15 hours ago, eight bits said:

Well, if we're going to go all mathy on this :) , there are some unresolved foundational issues:

* Is there a complete and accurate Turing machine computable grammar for any natural language?

So far, we don't know. The success of natural language processing ("understanding" natural language input, generating natural language output) by machines (which can only do things that are Turing computable) shows that IF there are natural language performances that are beyond the capability of machines THEN it could be that we don't use them as much in communicating with each other compared with performances that machines can also accomplish.

* What is the relationship between natural language and the other prominent species-specific communication medium, diagrammatic and representational drawings?

"Drawings" include conventional signs, and these can be reduced to gestures. For example, when the right index finger traces out a pattern on the open left palm, we can often "see" what would have happened if the index finger were a pen.

Thus, it is routine to see speakers of two different Chinese dialects stop talking to "trace out" written characters (which are the same for all dialects) when one can't follow the speech of the other. Sign languages designed for use by the hearing or speech impaired may have even more complicated realtionships to underlying spoken languages, including dialects of gestures.

I am not saying that those two problems exhaust the "foundational" issues, but since neither of them are as yet resolved, questions about what the ultimate limits of natural language might be are premature, IMO.

And now for something completely weird.

One way to think about these problems is to imagine an alien encounter. Do they communicate with each other? How? Suppose it is somewhat parallel to how we do it. There is a small scene in (at least the original) The Day the Earth Stood Still. The humanoid Mr Carpenter changes and thereby corrects some equations (= an artifical langauge, Turing computable) on an Einstein-like human professor's blackboard. This elegantly establishes Mr Carpenter's credentials with the professor, and they then have a deep natural language conversation (unknown Turing computability).

There are a lot of questions to ask about that situation. The OP question might be something like: can Mr. Carpenter think a thought which even in pricniple he could not convey to the professor, but could convey to others of Mr Carpenter's kind?

(In thinking about that, it may be useful to recall that "Mr Carpenter" is heavily based on a possibly mythical, but widely thought to be historical, hybrid human-alien being, Jesus of Galilee. So we have a very rich collection of things Mr Carpenter might say in trying to communicate with "professors" Peter, James, John... etc. about difficult subject matter, and also depictions of him communicating with the other side of his family, too.)

ETA If aliens and classical era gods are too rich to comtemplate, there is also the thrid prominent species-specific communication medium, music. The play (which was made into a movie) Amadeus is built around the idea that Mozart is a genius, while another contemporary composer, Salieri, is good, but not in Mozart's league. The engine of the plot is that Salieri is just good enough that he can appreciate how much better Mozart is, but not good enough to use that knowledge to bridge the gap.

Again, there are lots of questions you could ask about that situation. One is whether there is a musical performance that is possible, but which would stump Mozart as completely as Mozart stumped Salieri.

-

Extremely interesting scenarios to think about!  I wonder what the answers for these sorts of queries would be or how to possibly go about studying them thoroughly.  Thanks for the reply! :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PsiSeeker
On 2/2/2018 at 7:00 PM, eight bits said:

ETA If aliens and classical era gods are too rich to comtemplate, there is also the thrid prominent species-specific communication medium, music. The play (which was made into a movie) Amadeus is built around the idea that Mozart is a genius, while another contemporary composer, Salieri, is good, but not in Mozart's league. The engine of the plot is that Salieri is just good enough that he can appreciate how much better Mozart is, but not good enough to use that knowledge to bridge the gap.

Again, there are lots of questions you could ask about that situation. One is whether there is a musical performance that is possible, but which would stump Mozart as completely as Mozart stumped Salieri.

This sort of thing is actually something I noticed that occurs in games of skill where ELO based rating systems are used to differentiate levels of skill between various players.  I found it interesting to think of the 99th percentile, in particular, when viewed from the 50th percentile's perspective and how the 0-100% system we use visually hides the idea of the difference between the 99.000 percentile and 99.999 for example.  It's sort of intuitive to think they'd be similar but they're several orders of magnitude apart.

This sort of thing became a curiosity to me too when thinking about different IQ levels and, assuming there was a flawless way of testing it somehow, if such a thing as a 1 in a 100 billion individual actually exists for normal distributions of this nature.

I have been caught up on the concept of a "genius" since early childhood.  Intelligence itself really...  I had/have a hard time figuring out what precisely intelligence really means across different forms of life and read an idea that kind of struck me... The idea that the difference in intellect between the "most intelligent human" and "the least intelligent human" is greater than the difference between the "least intelligent human" and "the most intelligent other known life form" assuming probably a dolphin or perhaps chimpanzee or whatever if our understanding of whatever it means to be intelligent is more or less correct.

Anyway, ELO distributions and normal distribution are obviously different forms of statistical measure but the idea I want to bring across is that this concept of "godlike alien" seems to be something that one can appreciate within humanity itself already.  

I had this idea that evolution itself was a very slow process in the initial stages of life however slowly gains speed in determining fittest organism.  Further this process seems have developed the ability to produce a difference between two single individuals within a particular species so great that it transcends the species itself (when thinking in terms of intellectual differences in humanity and other species as earlier) and that the only species this process seems to be happening to is humanity.

This could just be wishful thinking however.  Massive population increases and decreases occur from foreign animals in environments where they'd flourish all the time.  Neither state is sustainable very long...

I find comfort in thinking that it really is intelligence that distinguishes humanity from other living organisms and this can be seen be us being the only species that can produce "geniuses" where a genius is defined as a single individual capable of causing ripples of effects by their actions throughout all of humanity that can fundamentally change it.

Anyway, just a train of thought/s regarding the idea of higher/different levels/forms of communication.  If intelligence is the metric that determinism communication characteristics then it's a real shame that there isn't another intelligent species, perse'.  I think we might have deeper insight into the weirdness of consciousness if that were the case. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melskaya
On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 5:43 PM, Podo said:

I'm a software developer and a hobby-linguist, and I speak several languages fluently. From this perspective, I'll weigh in on this as best as I can, with the understanding that much of this is my own opinion based on my observations.

Spoken language limitations aren't actually universal. Some languages can express things that others can't. A notable example is tense; in english, we have essentially three tenses with past, present, and future. Mandarin, however, does not have any tenses. You can still express time, of course, but it is done in a fundamentally different way. Where in English we would say "I went to the store" to imply that it happened in the past, in Mandarin it would be directly translated as "I go to the store yesterday" or some contextual equivalent. Chinese also doesn't have plural forms of nouns; there is no distinction at all between "look at the frog" and "look at the frogs." Context is therefore required for plurals. We know that language affects how we think, so what a language can and cannot express can affect the thinking of the people speaking it. As such, the limitations of spoken language are entirely dependent on which language is being spoken.

Programing languages are different, though. They are wholly artificial, generally created for a specific purpose, and aren't designed to communicate in the same way that verbal languages are. Programing languages are designed more as structural components than they are as direct communication tools. In my mind, at least, they are more akin to building materials than words.

In terms of language uniqueness, the different language families can be shockingly different from each other. Uralic languages, for example, are very distinct, especially when compared to Indo-European languages, Semitic languages, Turkik languages, Sino-Tibetan languages, etc. Concepts such as gender, which is a grammatical part of every Indo-European language, are entirely absent from other language families. To crutch on Mandarin again, there is no vocal distinction between "she/him/he/her/it;" when written down, all of those words are distinct, but verbally they're all pronounced identically.

Asian languages generally don't have "double plurals", for lack of a better term. We say "I have one banana" or "I have two bananas" whereas in Mandarin if you have one banana you have two banana. I think their way makes more sense. Just my two cents.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.