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 -
Scudbuster

A Universe Not Made For Us

862 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Will Do
18 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

everything in our lives is predetermined

 

To a degree this is true.

Everything in our lives is predetermined, except what one chooses to do with what's been predetermined. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
39 minutes ago, lightly said:

 

Volition   1. A concious choice.  2. The power of choosing ;  the will.   

       ...  I made a concious choice to respond ... I don't understand why it should be all complexiacated beyond that.  :P

We certainly have will and it can appear in what we call consciousness. We can and do also act on our will. The problem is that we don't consciously choose what it is that we will, it simply "appears" from somewhere. The same as thoughts, we don't consciously choose them either. They also simply appear in consciousness, as if out of the blue.

Take note next time you're talking to someone. You might notice that you have no idea how you get to the end of a sentence, or what the next word will be, until after it appears.

Experiments have for a long time indicated that simple decisions happen in a similar way. They are made in the brain unconsciously and can even be predicted to a large degree, the brain decides well before the person thinks they have "consciously" made the decision. It doesn't work the way we think it does and it looks as though much of what we credit to "consciousness", is an illusion.

This is consistent with the way that the rest of the macro universe works, where things happen due to a chain of causality. To be "free" the will would need to be free of causality, yet we know that it isn't.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

1. Determinism isn't real because it doesnt apply to real objects. It only applies to ideas.

2. If our conscious minds are real objects they must behave non-deterministically.

3. If our conscious minds are ideas (an idea about a group of atoms) they must behave deterministically.

So focusing on our own minds is it possible for us to mentally get our heads around an irrational quantity? By an irrational quantity I mean one that could only ever be described using an irrational number. The answer is of course no, not matter how hard we try we cannot.

Please note I choose quantity because cognitively speaking we can only understand things in quantities or units. As such its pervasive throughout our whole conscious experience.

Therefore I argue that our minds are real instead of being ideas. I argue for free will, for a non-deterministic model of consciousness, and I go further and say consciousness itself must be a fundamental property of the universe along with the smallest undividable building blocks of space, time, and matter.

Deepak Chopra would be proud of that. I notice that for something that you think is a fundamental property of the universe, you still seem unable to offer any sort of definition lol.

Think I'll stick to the well established and observable fact that the mind arises directly out of the physical processes of the brain. This unavoidably assigns a causal chain to every conscious and unconscious outcome. Have you managed to find a real physical "mind" yet, to study? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
47 minutes ago, Horta said:

We certainly have will and it can appear in what we call consciousness. We can and do also act on our will. The problem is that we don't consciously choose what it is that we will, it simply "appears" from somewhere. The same as thoughts, we don't consciously choose them either. They also simply appear in consciousness, as if out of the blue.

Take note next time you're talking to someone. You might notice that you have no idea how you get to the end of a sentence, or what the next word will be, until after it appears.

 

I understand and agree that will is not involved in every minute aspect of human existence and interaction..   But my choice to respond didn't simply ."appear" ....it was a considered choice .

i also understand,of course, that every thought is not chosen...but some definitely are.  Example:  I write songs, I make considered decisions/choices of which word/thought might work best (here).   Words are thoughts..I choose them carefully when I write a song.

 . . . Take note the next time you decide to NOT talk to someone.   Any decision/choice making going on? Any use of will involved in your action,reaction,or inaction?    Of course there is.   Not everything is predetermined or caused...Life is a series of choices. . sometimes it is choices that cause somethings to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
48 minutes ago, lightly said:

I understand and agree that will is not involved in every minute aspect of human existence and interaction..   But my choice to respond didn't simply ."appear" ....it was a considered choice .

i also understand,of course, that every thought is not chosen...but some definitely are.  Example:  I write songs, I make considered decisions/choices of which word/thought might work best (here).   Words are thoughts..I choose them carefully when I write a song.

 . . . Take note the next time you decide to NOT talk to someone.   Any decision/choice making going on? Any use of will involved in your action,reaction,or inaction?    Of course there is.   Not everything is predetermined or caused...Life is a series of choices. . sometimes it is choices that cause somethings to happen.

Yes, humans are well known for making choices and exercising their will. We are expert at it and are choice generating machines in many ways. These choices also become causal for other events. Though, this says nothing about what leads to choice itself (such as the causes of which you are completely unaware), or whether apparent choice itself is simply an illusion, or whether the will is "free" (as in not the end result of a chain of causation).

You can also certainly choose which thoughts or words you prefer, from those available to you. This is covered above. You can't put thoughts into your consciousness though, as that would require you knowing what thought you wanted to appear, before you were consciously aware of it. Although you can certainly stimulate the thought process, yet on its own it says nothing about "free will".

Were you "free" to use the (presumably) many words that you weren't consciously aware of?

Can you name anything else in the universe that doesn't have a cause?

 

Edited by Horta
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
1 hour ago, Horta said:

Deepak Chopra would be proud of that. I notice that for something that you think is a fundamental property of the universe, you still seem unable to offer any sort of definition lol.

Think I'll stick to the well established and observable fact that the mind arises directly out of the physical processes of the brain. This unavoidably assigns a causal chain to every conscious and unconscious outcome. Have you managed to find a real physical "mind" yet, to study? 

So biased and so full of unproven assumptions, but I suppose thats you lol

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
1 hour ago, Horta said:

Yes, humans are well known for making choices and exercising their will.   1

We're you "free" to use the (presumably) many words that you weren't consciously aware of?   2

Can you name anything else in the universe that doesn't have a cause?   3

 

1.   Yes, I believe that's what I've been saying?

2.   No.  But I was free to use any of the words that I was consciously aware of.  ...(limiting choice/will does not eliminate it.)

3.   I'm not sure....but many say that the universe itself had/has no cause ? It just "happened".  Unless we want to say inflation/expansion was the cause. ?     (In the physical sence a cause is something responsible for an action or result.). . So, you are free to choose, as you will,  whether the universe had a cause ,or  not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
2 hours ago, Horta said:

Yes, humans are well known for making choices and exercising their will. We are expert at it and are choice generating machines in many ways. These choices also become causal for other events. Though, this says nothing about what leads to choice itself (such as the causes of which you are completely unaware), or whether apparent choice itself is simply an illusion, or whether the will is "free" (as in not the end result of a chain of causation).

 

       Ah !    .. I think I am finally, at least partially, grasping what you're getting at Horta .   Is this sorta it?...we are the product of ALL of our prior existence/experience, and therefore any "choice" we make is ,at least affected by , or even determined by all that. ? !      

I guess I'd never thought about it so complcatididlyishly  before.  ;0)

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
On 11/16/2019 at 3:40 PM, Horta said:

We certainly have will and it can appear in what we call consciousness. We can and do also act on our will. The problem is that we don't consciously choose what it is that we will, it simply "appears" from somewhere. The same as thoughts, we don't consciously choose them either. They also simply appear in consciousness, as if out of the blue.

Take note next time you're talking to someone. You might notice that you have no idea how you get to the end of a sentence, or what the next word will be, until after it appears.

Experiments have for a long time indicated that simple decisions happen in a similar way. They are made in the brain unconsciously and can even be predicted to a large degree, the brain decides well before the person thinks they have "consciously" made the decision. It doesn't work the way we think it does and it looks as though much of what we credit to "consciousness", is an illusion.

This is consistent with the way that the rest of the macro universe works, where things happen due to a chain of causality. To be "free" the will would need to be free of causality, yet we know that it isn't.

That is scientifically wrong.

I have already told you that the deterministic mechanics used to describe macro objects are not describing objects but large collections of them. With that large collection of objects being trillions of trillions of atoms. Take the formulae f=ma for example. It should be rewritten to say:

Average Force = Average Mass x Average Acceleration

With a deterministic formulae it is essentially calculating the average behaviour for a large group of objects and then applying it to the collective idea of what those objects represent as if it was an actual object in its own right.

This is why you wrongly believe deterministic mechanics can be used to describe and predict how objects behave in our universe. Upon closer scrutiny deterministic mechanics comes up with answers that have infinite decimal places which are incompatible with a universe made out of indivisible quantities. Therefore what deterministic mechanics says and what actually is are two different things.

Physicists can round up to a set number of decimal places or can say their answer is right to within 2% error to hide it all they like. It doesnt change the fact that deterministic mechanics describes nothing real in our universe.

It means, and I`m sorry to have to point this out to you, that all worldviews founded upon deterministic mechanics are actually wrong. When we learn how objects actually behave (non-determinist probabilistic behaviour) then that opens the door to mysticism. On the topic of free will it means anything behaving non-deterministically is an actual object rather than an idea about what a group of objects is. You think consciousness is such an idea about what a group of atoms arranged in a particular way are.

Where as people can behave non-deterministically and probabilistically showing that consciousness at least at some level is a real existing thing.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 11/18/2019 at 3:49 AM, RabidMongoose said:

That is scientifically wrong.

I have already told you that the deterministic mechanics used to describe macro objects are not describing objects but large collections of them. With that large collection of objects being trillions of trillions of atoms. Take the formulae f=ma for example. It should be rewritten to say:

Average Force = Average Mass x Average Acceleration

With a deterministic formulae it is essentially calculating the average behaviour for a large group of objects and then applying it to the collective idea of what those objects represent as if it was an actual object in its own right.

This is why you wrongly believe deterministic mechanics can be used to describe and predict how objects behave in our universe. Upon closer scrutiny deterministic mechanics comes up with answers that have infinite decimal places which are incompatible with a universe made out of indivisible quantities. Therefore what deterministic mechanics says and what actually is are two different things.

Physicists can round up to a set number of decimal places or can say their answer is right to within 2% error to hide it all they like. It doesnt change the fact that deterministic mechanics describes nothing real in our universe.

It means, and I`m sorry to have to point this out to you, that all worldviews founded upon deterministic mechanics are actually wrong. When we learn how objects actually behave (non-determinist probabilistic behaviour) then that opens the door to mysticism. On the topic of free will it means anything behaving non-deterministically is an actual object rather than an idea about what a group of objects is. You think consciousness is such an idea about what a group of atoms arranged in a particular way are.

I'm quite happy with the possibility the physical universe (above the atomic level) also has a random aspect (which has yet to be shown conclusively, despite your belief), yet the implications are not as relevant as you might think and your insistence that this opens a possibility of "free will" is truly bizarre. It won't overturn the well established fact of cause and effect (aka determinism) or the last few centuries of science. It would be a way of allowing us deeper insight, of refining science. If there is an element of randomness to the universe, it does nothing for the possibility of free will (apart from make it less likely). 

In fact, I know of one well published theoretical physicist (specialising in quantum gravity) who has taken an interest in "free will" because she feels that our assumptions about it are holding back our understanding of quantum physics itself, and there are problems that disappear once we realise it doesn't exist. The below seems factually vey accurate, yet as if to reinforce the predictable nature of humans, I predict you will find problems with it that amount to irrelevance and woo based interpretation in an effort to prop up your magical thinking.

Quote

"According to our best present understanding of the fundamental laws of nature, everything that happens in our universe is due to only four different forces: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear force. These forces have been extremely well studied, and they don’t leave any room for free will. 

There are only two types of fundamental laws that appear in contemporary theories. One type is deterministic, which means that the past entirely predicts the future. There is no free will in such a fundamental law because there is no freedom. The other type of law we know appears in quantum mechanics and has an indeterministic component which is random. This randomness cannot be influenced by anything, and in particular it cannot be influenced by you, whatever you think “you” are. There is no free will in such a fundamental law because there is no “will” – there is just some randomness sprinkled over the determinism. 

In neither case do you have free will in any meaningful way.

These are the only two options, and all other elaborations on the matter are just verbose distractions. It doesn’t matter if you start talking about chaos (which is deterministic), top-down causation (which doesn’t exist), or insist that we don’t know how consciousness really works (true but irrelevant). It doesn’t change a thing about this very basic observation: there isn’t any known law of nature that lets you meaningfully speak of “free will”."

If cause and effect (aka determinism) didn't really exist the way you claim (in an effort to prop up your woo) we would be left pondering how our assumptions that the physical universe  propagates via cause and effect (aka determinism) have been so successful regarding our physical theories? Are our very successful theories that have allowed us to flourish as a species, simply a fluke? We just think they are correct, but really the luckily coincide with processes that are random (yet at the same time highly predictable lol)?

That's some massive series of flukes going on there if cause and effect doesn't really exist, as that is the basic principle underlying all of it.

You seem to believe "free will" somehow hides within a small +/- error in our calculations that could amount to randomness? Without an explanation of the details of this process (which seem not to exist) I'm not sure how to impart how nonsensical, unbacked, or intellectually decrepit that idea is other than to lol.

 

 

Edited by Horta
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 11/18/2019 at 3:49 AM, RabidMongoose said:

Where as people can behave non-deterministically and probabilistically showing that consciousness at least at some level is a real existing thing.

The underlined has no bearing on free will. Although as an assertion it does require some evidence to back it up. Preferably not from your opinion, but via experiments that have the possibility of being falsified. Experiments have shown humans to be highly predictable (in ways that are getting more predictable as the technology improves).

You are claiming an existence for "consciousness" and attributing effects to it. This requires at the very minimum a definition of what it is you are referring to, and something to indicate that your definition is accurate. Otherwise you might as well be saying that "flapdoodlewoo" is a real existent thing.

Yet you avoid doing that, like the it was the plague.

We know there is no mysterious particle or energy devoted solely to any cognitive functions of humans. We have looked, it isn't there. If it can interact at the level required to activate the brain, it would be easy to find. If it interacts too weakly to be found, it can't have the required effects on the brain. The same forces that operate in all other matter is all there is.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 11/17/2019 at 4:31 AM, RabidMongoose said:

So biased and so full of unproven assumptions, but I suppose thats you lol

Yet I started with the assumption that human "free will" existed, and even the likelihood that panpsychism must have held at least some truth (which I'm still open to in a very limited way). It took trying to understand what "consciousness" was for many years, to arrive at my opinions. So at least one of us is open to changing our mind based on the science and research that is available.

I certainly haven't held a belief based on whatever feels best and held on to it stubbornly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
12 minutes ago, Horta said:

I certainly haven't held a belief based on whatever feels best and held on to it stubbornly.

 

What a beautiful expression of how free will is used.

Congratulations. :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 11/17/2019 at 6:54 AM, lightly said:

       Ah !    .. I think I am finally, at least partially, grasping what you're getting at Horta .   Is this sorta it?...we are the product of ALL of our prior existence/experience, and therefore any "choice" we make is ,at least affected by , or even determined by all that. ? !      

I guess I'd never thought about it so complcatididlyishly  before.  ;0)

Yes, that's true. Psychologically we are, in many ways, the sum of our experiences.

There is more though. We had no say in the evolutionary process that is responsible for the type of brain we have. We had no say in our early environment where many of our neural pathways were formed. We have no say in the forces of nature that our brain relies on to function. There is no known natural process by which matter can have "free will". Even if you accept that we have a magical "eternal soul" that controls our brain (that has been disproved anyway), you are left with something that is logically incoherent (free will) as a starting point, and leads to a similar infinite regression of causes as the claims about god creating the universe (who created god)?

[opinion alert] I find humanity entirely consistent with a species that has the illusion of free will. I imagine if we really had such a thing, it might be a far more tolerant and nicer place. [/opinion alert]

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

What a beautiful expression of how free will is used.

Congratulations. :D

 

 

You're welcome (context is everything).

How ya been Will? Knew you would chime in at some stage.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
Just now, Horta said:

You're welcome (context is everything).

How ya been Will? Knew you would chime in at some stage.

 

Good. I've been busy.

You know me. :lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta

No rest for the wicked eh lol?

ps. you realise we have for a long time had machines that can consider data and commensurately change their output? It's no great surprise that humans can also do this (although we don't seem to be nearly as good at it lol).

Edited by Horta
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 11/9/2019 at 5:51 AM, RabidMongoose said:

In Western Civilization there persists a fallacy to this day that human beings are biological robots.

Robots are just machines executing lines of computer code designed to mimic human consciousness. They are not conscious, they dont have free will, and most importantly they are only capable of deterministic actions and behaviour. Consciousness, free will, and non-determinism, cannot be coded into a machine.

Religion and physics are both a belief that the universe has come into existence from non-duality. In religion that non-duality is the unification of space, time, matter, and consciousness. In physics its the unification of space, time, and matter.

Because scientists cannot replicate, understand, or properly investigate consciousness they dont know what to do with it. The atheist camp have explained mind away as resulting from matter arranged in a particular way with no actual evidence to prove it. As a result it has been left out of the Big Bang version of non-duality.

Theories without proof are dangerous especially when communicated to easy influenced and susceptible people. It leads them astray. And atheism is currently unfalsifiable because we dont have the technology or understanding of physics to understand what consciousness even is.

Who says?

Consciousness is a property of mind which evolved over time and is underpinned by language, Give a machine,  or another animal,  (allow it to evolve ),the same level of consciousness and of language,   and it  will have all the other properties of mind which a human has.  It doesn't have to be coded in, it will evolve out of the learning/experience of the mind/intelligence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta

Good grief, I find myself agreeing with this.^^^

Something is amiss, better revisit my ideas lol.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 hours ago, Horta said:

Yes, that's true. Psychologically we are, in many ways, the sum of our experiences.

There is more though. We had no say in the evolutionary process that is responsible for the type of brain we have. We had no say in our early environment where many of our neural pathways were formed. We have no say in the forces of nature that our brain relies on to function. There is no known natural process by which matter can have "free will". Even if you accept that we have a magical "eternal soul" that controls our brain (that has been disproved anyway), you are left with something that is logically incoherent (free will) as a starting point, and leads to a similar infinite regression of causes as the claims about god creating the universe (who created god)?

[opinion alert] I find humanity entirely consistent with a species that has the illusion of free will. I imagine if we really had such a thing, it might be a far more tolerant and nicer place. [/opinion alert]

you believe that we are so nasty because we we cant help ourselves and that, if we truly had free will, the word would be a better place ?

  I think "we" are nasty because we freely choose  to be, and could  just as easily  choose to be nicer.  

There is indeed a process by which we have free will.

You simply have to separate our consciousness from its determinants Ie think of a computer with AI we built

There is nothing preventing it developing a perfectly free will once it evolves self conscious awareness, despite the fact it was constructed and programmed and had a mind built by us, once it begins to USE that mind there are no constraints  upon it's use .

The same is true for humans Once we evolved language and self ware consciousness we became capable of divorcing our behaviours  (and our thoughts)from  EVERY thing which led to the evolution of that consciousness 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
7 hours ago, Horta said:

Yes, that's true. Psychologically we are, in many ways, the sum of our experiences.

There is more though. We had no say in the evolutionary process that is responsible for the type of brain we have. We had no say in our early environment where many of our neural pathways were formed. We have no say in the forces of nature that our brain relies on to function. There is no known natural process by which matter can have "free will". Even if you accept that we have a magical "eternal soul" that controls our brain (that has been disproved anyway), you are left with something that is logically incoherent (free will) as a starting point, and leads to a similar infinite regression of causes as the claims about god creating the universe (who created god)?

[opinion alert] I find humanity entirely consistent with a species that has the illusion of free will. I imagine if we really had such a thing, it might be a far more tolerant and nicer place. [/opinion alert]

You have been told several times human beings behave probabilistically and non-deterministically.

You have also been told the difference between determinism and non-determinism. You dont know what you are talking about and wont listen to anybody correcting you. So you are now having a debate on your own.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

I dunno,  machines are not ALIVE.  People are.   I'm not convinced they can ever be 'equals'.  People seem to be unique amoung living things as well?   Is any other living thing capable of murder?   Not killing, but pre-meditated murder?   How about suicide?  Not to stop eating because master ,or mate, died...but the concious and considered act of suicide?    I dunno

 

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
15 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

You have been told several times human beings behave probabilistically and non-deterministically.

Is your contention that this relates to the question of free will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
On 11/16/2019 at 9:40 AM, Horta said:

We certainly have will and it can appear in what we call consciousness. We can and do also act on our will. The problem is that we don't consciously choose what it is that we will, it simply "appears" from somewhere. The same as thoughts, we don't consciously choose them either. They also simply appear in consciousness, as if out of the blue.

I kind of disagree with something here.  I think we do indeed consciously choose what it is that we will.  It is in the choosing consciously that gives rise to the appearance of thoughts from our subconscious memory.  These are the thoughts that seemingly come from out of the blue.  Because the subconscious is constantly cataloging and extracting data.  The subconscious isn't a judge of anything....it simply extracts data to support the current conscious thought process.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 11/17/2019 at 2:10 AM, Horta said:

We certainly have will and it can appear in what we call consciousness. We can and do also act on our will. The problem is that we don't consciously choose what it is that we will, it simply "appears" from somewhere. The same as thoughts, we don't consciously choose them either. They also simply appear in consciousness, as if out of the blue.

Take note next time you're talking to someone. You might notice that you have no idea how you get to the end of a sentence, or what the next word will be, until after it appears.

Experiments have for a long time indicated that simple decisions happen in a similar way. They are made in the brain unconsciously and can even be predicted to a large degree, the brain decides well before the person thinks they have "consciously" made the decision. It doesn't work the way we think it does and it looks as though much of what we credit to "consciousness", is an illusion.

This is consistent with the way that the rest of the macro universe works, where things happen due to a chain of causality. To be "free" the will would need to be free of causality, yet we know that it isn't.

Horta i think you base a lot of your ideas on this.

Could you please give a succinct explanation of the science you base it on.

It flies in the face of what we know about the construction of human thoughts via self aware cognition Ie we do indeed have to deliberately construct our thoughts (especially our conscious thoughts, but we can also learn to train and choose our subconscious thoughts)

We learn how to do this from birth ie understanding the results of one construction of neural energy (perhaps even experimentally or imaginatively or  predictively) but also from the patterns formed by experience (eg walking speaking riding a bike)  and thus how to replicate a pattern  to achieve the same cognitive  (and thus physical) result.    it  seems to be connected to conscious language which also helps us form our thoughts and to our ability to predict future responses to present actions, and thus to choose an action from  many possibilities in order to create the optimal result for us  (but we COULD( have chosen any of the other possibilities and had other results The y might have been less optimal in some ways but met other needs.   

Ps  You cannot speak without first mentally forming the words Maybe you have been doing it so long that you don't notice. Maybe its because the mind can form,  choose discard and re choose millions of bits of thought a second  

The human body sends 11 million bits of info a second to the mind, which processes them and acts on them We are only consciously aware of about 50 bits a second but the subconscious is still a controlled or controllable part of our mind It is helping uu chose and form the words which you are preparing to speak  

The average  human mind forms and thinks in about 4000 words a minute  which is about 10 times faster than verbal speech Thus you are forming and thinking  over  60 words per second, while only being able to speak about  6 .Naturally then your mind is constructing your sentences and words well before you ca speak them 

You may see then why i find your position difficult to understand and would like to hear what you  base it on.  

Edited by Mr Walker

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.