Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Mind is not reduceable to brain

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mind is not reduceable to brain

    Before reading all of this you really should read my essay on Mind not reducible to brain to get a good background,



    Empirical Data:


    There is No Empirical Data that proves reducibility




    Both sciences and the general public have come to accept the idea that the mind is dependent upon the brain and that we can reduce mental activity to some specific aspect of the brain upon which it is dependent and by which it is produced. Within this assumption neuroimaging studies are given special credence. These kinds of studies are given special credence probably because the tangibility of their subject matter and the empirical data produced creates the illusion of “proof.”[1] Yet EEG and MRI both have resolution problems and can’t really pin point exactly where neural activity is located.” In short, neuroimaging studies may not be as objective as some would like to think. There are still large gaps between observation and interpretation – gaps that are ‘filled’ by theoretical or methodological assumptions.”[2] Learning is not hard wired but is the result of “Plasticity.” This plasticity is what allows us the flexibility to learn in new situations. This means that most of our neocortex is involved in higher level psychological processes such as learning from experiences.[3] Our brains are developed by new experiences including skills acquisition.[4] Exercise and mediation can change the brain.[5]


    Classical psychological reductionism assumes the mind is essentially the brain. Mental behaviors are explained totally in terms of brain function. Mental states are merely reduced to brain states.




    But while it may be true that certain psychological processes are contingent on some neurophysiological activity, we cannot necessarily say that psychological processes reduce to ‘nothing but’ that activity. Why not? – Because much of the time we are not dealing with cause and effect, as many neuroscientists seem to think, but rather two different and non-equivalent kinds of description. One describes mechanism, the other contains meaning. Understanding the physical mechanisms of a clock, for example, tells us nothing about the culturally constructed meaning of time. In a similar vein, understanding the physiological mechanisms underlying the human blink, tells us nothing about the meaning inherent in a human wink (Gergen, 2010). Human meaning often transcends its underlying mechanisms. But how does it do this?[6]




    Reducing mind to brain confuses mechanism with meaning.[7]


    Raymond Tallis was a professor of Geriatric medicine at University of Manchester, and researcher, who retired in 2006 to devote himself to philosophy and writing. Tallis denounces what he calls “neurohype,” “the claims made on behalf of neuroscience in areas outside those in which it has any kind of explanatory power….”[8]




    The fundamental assumption is that we are our brains and this, I will argue presently, is not true. But this is not the only reason why neuroscience does not tell us what human beings “really” are: it does not even tell us how the brain works, how bits of the brain work, or (even if you accept the dubious assumption that human living could be parcelled up into a number of discrete functions) which bit of the brain is responsible for which function. The rationale for thinking of the kind – “This bit of the brain houses that bit of us...” – is mind-numbingly simplistic.[9]






    Specifically Tallis has refernce to experiments where the brain is scanned while the subject does some activity and the differences are attributed to some structure in that part of the brain. Tallis is highly skeptical of this method.






    Why is this fallacious? First, when it is stated that a particular part of the brain lights up in response to a particular stimulus, this is not the whole story. Much more of the brain is already active or lit up; all that can be observed is the additional activity associated with the stimulus. Minor changes noted diffusely are also overlooked. Secondly, the additional activity can be identified only by a process of averaging the results of subtractions after the stimulus has been given repeatedly: variations in the response to successive stimuli are ironed out. Finally, and most importantly, the experiments look at the response to very simple stimuli – for example, a picture of the face of a loved one compared with that of the face of one who is not loved. But, as I have pointed out elsewhere (for the benefit of Martians), romantic love is not like a response to a stimulus. It is not even a single enduring state, like being cold. It encompasses many things, including not feeling in love at that moment; hunger, indifference, delight; wanting to be kind, wanting to impress; worrying over the logistics of meetings; lust, awe, surprise; imagining conversations, events; speculating what the loved one is doing when one is not there; and so on. (The most sophisticated neural imaging, by the way, cannot even distinguish between physical pain and the pain of social rejection: they seem to “light up” the same areas!)[10]






    Hal Pashler’s study, University of California, San Diego is discussed in an an editorial in New Scientist, he is quoted as saying “In most of the studies that linked brain regions to feelings including social rejection, neuroticism and jealousy, researchers … used a method that inflates the strength of the link between a brain region and the emotion of behaviour.”[11]




    While no empirical data proves reducibility, some empirical data seems to support irreducibility. The mind cannot be reduced to the brain alone.




    Some empirical data supports claim:


    Irreducibility





    There are, however, empirical data that imply that brain is not necessary to mind. One such datum is the humble amoeba. They swim; they find food they learn, they multiply, all without brains or brain cell connections.[12] Various theories are proposed but none really answer the issue. Stuart Mameroff (anesthetist from University of Arizona) and Roger Penrose, Mathematician form Cambridge, raise the theory that small protein structures called microtubules found in cells throughout the body. The problem is they don’t cause any problem with consciousness when damaged.[13] Nevertheless, the amoeba is a mystery in terms of how it works with no brain cells. That leads to the recognition of a larger issue the irreducealbity raises the question of consciousness as a basic property of nature. Like electromagnetism, there was a time when scientists tried to explain that in terms of other known phenomena, when they could not do so they concluded that it was a basic property and opened up a branch of science and the electromagnetic spectrum.[14] David Chalmers and others have suggested the same solution for consciousness.






    The late Sir John Eccles, a neuroscientist who won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1963 for his work on brain cell connections (synapses) and was considered by many to be one of the greatest neuroscientists of the twentieth century, was perhaps the most distinguished scientist who argued in favor of such a separation between mind, consciousness and the brain. He argued that the unity of conscious experience was provided by the mind and not by the machinery of the brain. His view was that the mind itself played an active role in selecting and integrating brain cell activity and molded it into a unified whole. He considered it a mistake to think that the brain did everything and that conscious experiences were simply a reflection of brain activities, which he described as a common philosophical view:


    'If that were so, our conscious selves would be no more than passive spectators of the performances carried out by the neuronal machinery of the brain. Our beliefs that we can really make decisions and that we have some control over our actions would be nothing but illusions.[15]




    Top Down Causation


    confirming irreducibility




    Or downward causation, as seen in last chapter: “Top-down causation refers to the effects on components of organized systems that cannot be fully analyzed in terms of component-level behavior but instead requires reference to the higher-level system itself.” [16]










    *problem of binding




    There is a problem with understanding what it is that binds together the unity of a conscious experience. We have many different kinds of conscious faculty at work in the process of being conscious, symbolic thinking, literal thinking, sense of temporal, sense of reality, and physical perceptions. Somehow it all gets brought together into one coherent sense of perceptions. How are the individual aspects, such as color, form, the temporal, and united into a coherent whole experience? Unification of experience is not achieved anatomically. There is “no privileged places of structures in the brain where everything comes together…either for the visual system by itself or for sensory system as a whole ” [17] McDougall took it as something that physicalilsm can’t explain.[18] Dennett and Kinsbourne recognize the phenomena marking top down causation and acknowledge it, they spin it as undermining unity.[19] The old approach was to assume there must be an anatomical center for binding. Without finding one the assumption was that it couldn’t be explained. Modern explanations of unity are based upon a functional approach.




    The essential concept common to all of them is that oscillatory electrical activity in widely distributed neural populations can be rapidly and reversibly synchronized in the gamma band of frequencies (roughly 30-70 Hz) thereby providing a possible mechanism for binding.” (von der Malsburg 1995). A great deal of sophisticated experimental and theoretical work over the past 20 years demonstrates that mechanisms do exist in the nervous system and they work in relation to the normal perceptual synthesis. Indeed Searl’s doctrine of biological naturalism has now crystallized neurophysiologically in the form of a family of global workspace theories, all of which make the central claim that conscious experience occurs specifically and only with large scale patters of gamma band oscillatory activity linking widely separated areas of the brain. [20]






    In other words if consciousness was reducible to brain chemistry there should be an anatomical center in the brain that works to produce the binding effect. Yet the evidence indicates that binding mechanisms must be understood as functions of various areas outside either the brain (nervous system) or in different parts of the brain which means it can’t be reduced to just a physical apparatus but is systemic and that is indicative of top down causation.




    * Projective activity in perceptual process




    Our brains act as a sort of “word generating virtual reality system.”[21] That is the brain is constantly projecting and updating a model of the perceptual environment and our relation to it. Top down cross modal sensory interactions have been recognized as the rule rather than the exception, in perceptions, as several studies indicate (A.K. Engle et al, 2001; Shimojo and Shams 2001). [22] Evidence indicates that the ultimate source of projective activity may originate outside the brain. A great deal of knowledge is put into action for use in understanding language and in writing. Some researchers have advanced the view that the fundamental form of projective activity is dreaming.[23]




    *Semantic or intentional content; word meaning and other form of representation.




    This has been dealt with traditionally through reductionism. Representations were said to work by resembling things they represent. This was disproved by Goodman and Heil (1981). [24] In cognitive psychology there is a rule of thumb that meanings are not to be conceived as intrinsic to words, they are defined by the functional role they play in a sentence. The major approach to the problem used now is connectionism, from dynamic systems theory. The meaning of a given response such as settling of a network into one of its attracters or firing of a volley of spikes by a neuron in the visual cortex is identified with the aspect in the environment that produces the response. This account can’t deal with abstract things or non existent things. There’s nothing in the environment to trigger it. Responses do not qualify as representations nor signs as symbols. “That something,” as Searl so effectively argued (in 1992) “is precisely what matters.”[25]






    *problem of Intentionality




    Intentionality is the ability of representational forms to be about things, to reflect meaning and to be about events and states of affairs in the world. [26] The problem of intentionality has plagued both psychologists and philosophers. Intentionality is inherently three ways, involving the user, symbols, and things symbolized. Searl tells us that intentionality of langue is secondary and derives from the intrinsic intentionality of the mind. “Intentionality can’t be obtained from any kind of physical system including brains.”[27]




    *The Humunculus Problem




    The Homunculus was a medieval concept about human reproduction. The male was said to have in him little men just like him with all the basic stuff that makes him work that’s how new men get born. In this topic it’s the idea that we need in the mind another mind or brain like structure to make the mind work. The problem is it keeps requiring ever more little structures to make each one before it work; in endless regression of systems. Kelly and Kelly et al site Dennett’s attempt to solve the homunculus problem in the form of less and less smart homunculi until the bottom level corresponding to heard ware level end the recursion so it’s not infinite. (Dennett 1978)[28] Searl (1992) responds that there has to be something outside the bottom level that knows what lower level compositions mean. Cognitive models can’t function without a homunculus because they lack minds, as Kelly tells us.[29]




    No homunculus problem, however, is posed by the structure of our conscious experience itself. The efforts of Dennett and others to claim that there is such a problem, and to use that to ridicule any residue of dualism, rely upon the deeply flawed metaphor of the Cartesian theater a place where mental contents get displayed and I pop in separately to view them. Descartes himself, James, Searl and others all have this right: conscious experience comes to us whole and undivided, with the qualitative feels, phenomenological content, unity, and subjective point of view all built in, intrinsic features. I and my experience cannot be separated in this way. [30]







    [1] Brad Peters, Modern Psychologist, “the Mind Does not Reduce to the Brain.” On line resource, blog, 2/4/12


    URL: http://modernpsychologist.ca/the-min...-to-the-brain/ visited 5/3/12


    Brad Peters, M.Sc. Psychologist (Cand. Reg.) • Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada



    [2] Ibid.



    [3] ibid



    [4]Schore, A. N. Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of emotional development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1994).


    See also: Siegel, D. J. The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are. New York, NY: Guilford Press. (1999).



    [5] Peters, ibid.



    [6] ibid.



    [7] K. Gergen, The accultured brain. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), (2010). 795-816.



    [8] Raymond Tallis New Haumanist.org.uk Ideas for Godless People (blog—online researche) volume 124 Issue 6 (Nov/Dec 2009) URL: http://newhumanist.org.uk/2172/neurotrash visited 5/9/12



    [9] ibid



    [10] ibid



    [11] quoted by Tallis, ibid.



    [12] Science Research Foundation, “Science at the horizon of life,” independent charitable organization in UK 2007-2012. On-line resource, UFL: http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=200 visisted 5/2/12



    [13] ibid



    [14] ibid



    [15] ibid



    [16] Mary Anne Meyers, “Top Down Causation, an Integrating Theme…” Templeton Foundation Symposium, Op cit. (no page number listed).



    [17] Edward F. Kelley and Emily Williams Kelley, et al, Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century. Boulder, New York, Toronto: Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Inc, 2007/2010, 37.



    [18] Ibid. 38, referring to W.McDougall, Proceedings of scientific physical research 25, 11-29. (1911/1961)..



    [19] ibid. 38 refers to Dennette and kinsbourne in Consciousness Explained. (op cit) 183-247



    [20] ibid, sites C.Von der Malsburg, “Binding In Models of Perception and Brain Function.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 5, 520-526. also sited Crick 94; Dehaene and Naccache, 2001; Edelmon and Tononi, 2000; Engle, Fries and Singer 2001; W.J. Freeman 2000, and others.



    [21] ibid



    [22] ibid, 40, he sites A.K. Engle et al, 2001; Shimojo and Shams 2001;



    [23] ibid, 41-42 sites Rodolfo Llina’s and Pare’ 1996 Llina’s and Ribary, 1994.



    [24] Ibid, 42 see Heil 1981



    [25] ibid, 43 see Searl 1992



    [26] ibid



    [27] ibid, see also studies, puccetti 1989; Dupuy 2000 discussion of issue form opposing points of view).



    [28] Ibid see Dennett 1978 and Searl 1992)



    [29] ibid

    [30] ibid, 44
    Metacrock's Blog


    The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

    The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

  • #2
    What you are really saying here is that you don’t know how it’s done or specifically, you don’t know how the grey matter produces consciousness. That it does is undisputed except by dualists. But we have moved on since Descartes.

    Bear in mind that brains are something very new in our experience and imagination. We do not know how they work in detail. But they definitely do produce consciousness and they are embodied and in the world and all these things in combination are required for conscious experience.

    How would a dualist explain the action of alcohol?
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
      What you are really saying here is that you don’t know how it’s done or specifically, you don’t know how the grey matter produces consciousness. That it does is undisputed except by dualists. But we have moved on since Descartes.

      yes everyone who has ant intelligence at all agrees with your ideology except those who don't very meaningful. Clearly it's not just a ,matter of saying I don't know how it's done because I documented positive reasons why it can't be the case.


      Bear in mind that brains are something very new in our experience and imagination. We do not know how they work in detail. But they definitely do produce consciousness and they are embodied and in the world and all these things in combination are required for conscious experience
      .

      how do you distinguish between producing it and allowing access to it? how do you know it[s one and not the other; ever heard the trem supervene? Your argument is like saying everyone knows hard and soft ware are the same, the only people who don't accept that are those pesky old soft ware believers but we know they are wrong because everyone knows it.

      go look up the word "ideology" that's what you are brain washed into.

      How would a dualist explain the action of alcohol?
      I don't remember seeing you at the dualist meetings. how do you know about them?
      Metacrock's Blog


      The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

      The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        What you are really saying here is that you don’t know how it’s done or specifically, you don’t know how the grey matter produces consciousness. That it does is undisputed except by dualists. But we have moved on since Descartes.

        Bear in mind that brains are something very new in our experience and imagination. We do not know how they work in detail. But they definitely do produce consciousness and they are embodied and in the world and all these things in combination are required for conscious experience.

        How would a dualist explain the action of alcohol?
        The problem is a conceptual one, not an empirical one. There are good arguments to the effect that consciousness could not even conceivably be reducible to physical concepts. Brains are probably necessary to enable or facilitate consciousness, but that doesn't mean reduction. And just because you accept irreducibility doesn't mean you're necessarily a dualist

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          And just because you accept irreducibility doesn't mean you're necessarily a dualist
          I would think that you would at least have to accept some kind of emergent dualism - no?
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            I would think that you would at least have to accept some kind of emergent dualism - no?
            Or substance monism. So substance dualism isn't the only alternative to physical reductionism.
            Last edited by Jim B.; 04-20-2016, 01:43 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              Or substance monism. So substance dualism isn't the only alternative to physical reductionism.
              OK, but you don't hold to substance monism - correct?
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by metacrock View Post
                yes everyone who has ant intelligence at all agrees with your ideology except those who don't very meaningful. Clearly it's not just a ,matter of saying I don't know how it's done because I documented positive reasons why it can't be the case.
                We know that the brain produces consciousness because we know how to stop it or manipulate it in about the same way as you would tune a radio receiver. There is nothing at all in anyone’s experience or theory, including your own, that even remotely suggests that the entire apparatus of human consciousness is anything other than our own physical body. We can name every elemental part of it but we don’t know what the trick is and how it comes about. But the mist is surely clearing.

                I’ve been wondering what Koch’s been up to:
                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobby-...b_8160914.html
                “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                “not all there” - you know who you are

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                  We know that the brain produces consciousness because we know how to stop it or manipulate it in about the same way as you would tune a radio receiver.
                  No you don't. you know how to limit access and that may make it seem you terminated it but you don't know that. If you take hammer and beat the crap out of a monitor it won't show the software anymore that doesn't prove hardware is software.

                  There is nothing at all in anyone’s experience or theory, including your own, that even remotely suggests that the entire apparatus of human consciousness is anything other than our own physical body.
                  \that's utterly stupid. my own experience of waking consciousness tells me that. My body can be hurting and my mind can feel good or not limit mu focus to the pain, My body is not my mind. I can change my level of awareness and become aware of new aspects of the same old phenomena and that[s not just a physical response. I can will myself to do it and I can will myself to ignore it,You can't answer the hard problem you can't answer binding, you can't answer veto power you can't answer any of the six things.

                  so typical of reductionists to ignore the evidence. I documented thingss six things you have not answered them.


                  We can name every elemental part of it but we don’t know what the trick is and how it comes about. But the mist is surely clearing.
                  (1) that's just the bait and switch you've been washed to surrender your free will to the cult. free will and consciousness is not brain function, you are only talking about brain function you are jot even discussing consciousness.

                  (2) no matter how many elements you name that[s the easy problem. you can't answer the hard problem until you do you re not even discussing the right issue
                  Metacrock's Blog


                  The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                  The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    your link:

                    It appears that we are approaching a unique time in the history of man and science where empirical measures and deductive reasoning can actually inform us spiritually. Integrated Information Theory (IIT)—put forth by neuroscientists Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch—is a new framework that describes a way to experimentally measure the extent to which a system is conscious.


                    As such, it has the potential to answer questions that once seemed impossible, like “which is more conscious, a bat or a beetle?” Furthermore, the theory posits that any system that processes and integrates information, be it organic or inorganic, experiences the world subjectively to some degree. Plants, smartphones, the Internet—even protons—are all examples of such systems. The result is a cosmos composed of a sentient fabric. But before getting into the bizarreness of all that, let’s talk a little about how we got to this point.

                    (1) that proves spirit is real

                    (2) it's still the bait and switch because it's trying to present something it can proves in place of something it can't

                    (3) old reductionist trick limit reality to what you can prove and assert there's nothing more.


                    It doesn't follow that there is nothing more just you can prove some aspect. the hard problem is the acid test
                    Metacrock's Blog


                    The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                    The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by metacrock View Post
                      If you take hammer and beat the crap out of a monitor it won't show the software anymore that doesn't prove hardware is software.
                      I don’t think you understand what software is. You will never find disembodied software. It is always written on something. The reason it is soft is that it is easy to copy and move around and the thing on which it is written can change state. The information coded by software is exactly the state of the physical system. There are no theories and no examples anywhere of disembodied minds or disembodied anything else. This last, by the way, is very bad news for God.
                      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                      “not all there” - you know who you are

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                        I don’t think you understand what software is. You will never find disembodied software. It is always written on something. The reason it is soft is that it is easy to copy and move around and the thing on which it is written can change state. The information coded by software is exactly the state of the physical system. There are no theories and no examples anywhere of disembodied minds or disembodied anything else. This last, by the way, is very bad news for God.
                        I don't you understand my argument. you think I believe in some ghost in the machine, you can't understand modern theological concepts because you are hung up on thinking you are superior to believers. It is not necessary to my argument that mind be so totally independent to of brain that it could exist without it, Perhaps it can exist without brain but the mind of a biological organism can't originate without a brain. It might continue after death without one. It is not necessary to my argument that analogies be perfect.

                        You are begging the question when you said no examples. (1) I've already proven there are in the ameba. (2) I've proved that it's not reducible so we don't need an example
                        Metacrock's Blog


                        The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                        The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by metacrock View Post
                          (1) I've already proven there are in the ameba. (2) I've proved that it's not reducible so we don't need an example
                          You obviously have no idea of how rigorous a proof really is.
                          “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                          “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                          “not all there” - you know who you are

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                            You obviously have no idea of how rigorous a proof really is.
                            ok "proof" in the pragmatic sense. See Kant Critique of practice reason.
                            Metacrock's Blog


                            The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                            The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              there is no scientific equipment that allows one to see the lack of a spirit. That assertion is made entirely by ruling it out dogmatically as a matt4er of ideology and them assuming the reduction of mind to brain function totally unwarranted. Notice in that psychology today article they didn't turn to any sort of data to prove the lack of a spirit, they argued for it by attacking the coherence of the concept. btw that means they using consciousness the mind and reason rather than science.
                              Metacrock's Blog


                              The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                              The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              507 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X