|
|
|
|||||||
| Home | Register | Downloads | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Arcade | Mark Forums Read |
» Less advertising throughout
» Post and participate in discussions
» Network with other forum members
» Free private messaging
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
September 21st, 2004, 00:32
|
#81 |
|
Retired
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Jundiaí - São Paulo - Brazil
Posts: 8,876
|
Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to say this separately from anything else. I'm out of this discussion, since this is quickly scalating into a flame war. Elly is purposefully misrepresenting my position, and mounting feeble attempts to mock my arguments by advancing preposterous straw man arguments. While I've said time and again that I'm not advocating suicide, he insists on saying the contrary, and mocking me for this. I'll leave this to the other members to judge whether I'm right or not. My posts are there for everyone to see. There's nothing more I want to add to them, so I'll leave this thread, unless someone brings new arguments to it. As klatch said in some other thread, this has become boring to me, since I'm just repeating the same things over and over and over. I recognize my failability as a human being, and that's why I affirm that each one of us should be free to do as he wish with his own life. I really fail to see how I can "force my values of freedom" upon others, since all that I'm really doing is saying that they are free to choose whatever values they want, and do as they please... So this is my last post on this thread, no matter what Elly posts afterwards. Just a quick reply to The Captain, though. @The Captain: I agree with you about Case 1. That's what I'm talking about. But I have a different view about Case 2. These guys are the whinners I've mentioned to Kaiser Sigma. They need help, but it's not about suicide. Suicide (and their pathetic suicide attempts) are just means of getting some attention, not serious attempts to end their lives. You'll find crowds of them on suicide hotlines, or groups like alt.depression.support. I tend to have a rather low opinion about these people (though this may be unfair on my part), so I don't care about helping them. Others think that it's important to help those people, and I respect their decision to do so. Personally, I wouldn't do it, unless the person in question was a close friend. They're crying for help, and many of them actually find their path through life after they get some counselling... Oh, and I forgot one more thing. @Demigod: I wanted to praise you about your support of your friend's decision. This shows that you really care about him and respect him as a friend and as a person. It's good to see that you can support his decision even though you personally disagree with it (instead of doing something stupid like "I'm going to call the cops", or "I'm going to tell your parents and they'll send you to a clinic"). Sometimes what a suicidal person truly needs is someone who is willing to listen to them, and respect their decision (whatever it is), instead of just calling them weak or selfish. Whatever our philosophical differences in other issues may be, I fully agree with you on this respect. Keep up the good work  EDIT: @GALVATRON: I'm currently reading about Artificial Intelligences, and it's much better than this suicide debate. Check out Creating Friendly AI , by Eliezer S. Yudkowsky - it's for free 
__________________
"Let be be finale of seem. The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream." - Wallace Stevens Me on Twitter
Last edited by Boltzmann; September 21st, 2004 at 01:00.. |
|
|
| Advertisement | [Remove Advertisement] | ||
|
|
September 21st, 2004, 02:01
|
#82 |
|
Knowledge is the solution
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, US. Previously in Mexico City
Posts: 7,160
|
Sigh.... I let you guys debate around as you please and you turn my little thread into a turmoil... tsk tsk. I had refrained from posting because my own position is a little undefined, but let see how the vision of a moderate works (aka damn you radical people  )Ok first to the suicide haters. One of your main point is that suicide isnt just an act that affetcs the individual, but an act that affects the surrounding sphere that person lives in. In the best case scenario, you say, their dead will bring pain and sorrow, in the worst, financial problems to those dependant upon the aforementioned person. In such case, you have proposed some solutions. If that person dont want to work, then fine, the goverment should provide some kind of fund for mantaining the family, while the family itself takes care of the rehabilitation. Others have suggested mental institutions. In sum, you all agree that some kind of "help" must be provided. However, while I wont delve on how correct this is for the individual, as it doesnt really interest me that much, it does harm the society, which is something far more important IMO. You are practically setting up a system in which we should fund every single parasite that pops up, just for the sake of mantaining this parasite somewhat alive. Sorry but this is nothing but wrong. A society is composed of productive members, or potentially productive members. When a member ceases to be productive (note: Im not referring specifically to the economic aspect only, dont get me wrong, old people can be useful in their own way for example ), then its usefulness to society ceases, and it must be casted away. Since truly suicidal people arent useful to society anymore, then let them day and this is it. You casted the good of the greater for your cause? Then there it is, the good of the whole above the feelings of a group of persons.To the liberty seekers: While the ideals you pursue somehow appeal me, it seems a little utopical for me. A line must be drawn somewhere, you CANNOT let every single suicidal wanna be person do as he/she pleases, because, as you have accepted yourselves, not every suicide attemptal can be marked as a true suicide desire. Even worse, potentially helpful people to society (like it tends to happen with people with great genious and poor spirit) could be lost this way, so, at least IMO, some kind of understanding must be done initially. Accepting his decision right away isnt the best solution either, some kind of convicing must be done initially from the people that care for him... if after that he still wants to go on, then its up to him. And well... this is a little wierd idea from mine but... suicidal people who are potentially VERY(stress the very) useful to society must be forced to use their potential for the greater good of the many... since the moment they were born with such capability they stopped pertaining to themselves, at least IMO. In the end... the root of all this lies in the problem of... individuality! but thats the topic for another discussion
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
September 21st, 2004, 02:18
|
#83 | |||||||
|
Lurking
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Gone
Posts: 9,354
|
@ Boltzmann : I believe you are the one who misunderstood my postion. I speak about suicide and how right/wrong it should be when I am argueing, not directing it you.... Anyways, even though this is your last post, I ll just mention a few things. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When did I approve that? I remember saying that we should help them, throwing them in mental institutions is what the government do. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Granted, I did over react, mainly because of you trying to label me as a dictator or as an anti-freedom activist when I am not. All i was doing was explaining why I think suicide was wrong. Sorry if you took offence, but I couldn't help but reply in a sarcastic manner, even though it was a bit un-nesseccary. Yours, -Elly
__________________
-= Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right way is not always =-
the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character. Margaret C. Smith Last edited by _E_; September 21st, 2004 at 02:26.. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
September 21st, 2004, 04:53
|
#84 |
|
Nu...
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: A small cluttered desk
Posts: 472
|
It appears I've reached this thread a little late to add much of relevence so I'll simply cast my vote and opinion. Boltzmann gets 100% of my backing for expressing my ideals better than I could have. Additionally I give kudos with whomever's sig said something along the lines of "Suicide = bettering the genepool". In response to this POV destroying society: If such a thing as allowing people personal freedoms destroys society, the soceity is fundamentally flawed from the get-go. However, my favorite quote from this thread would have to be: "Smart people are comparatively miserable because they feel too much of everything, and all of it screams with existential unfairness." -Galvatron Which I am currently using as an away message
__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato Last edited by JanusX; September 21st, 2004 at 05:03.. |
|
|
|
|
September 21st, 2004, 07:15
|
#85 | |
|
これはバタスです
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,331
|
Quote:
__________________
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 Mobo: Intel DX48BT2 Memory: 4096 MB PC10600 DDR3 Videocard: PNY Geforce 9800 GX2 Soundcard: On-board SigmaTel High Definition Audio Hard drive: 120 GB OCZ RevoDrive PCI-E SSD & 1 TB Hitachi Optical drive: LG GGW-H20L (2x BD-R DL) PSU: Nexus 1000 Watt PSU OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit) Proud millionaire folder of the NGEmu folding team
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 22nd, 2004, 21:41
|
#86 | |||||
|
Translator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Холандија
Posts: 1,576
|
Well Galvatron, I hope you're in the mood, because I can make long posts like no retard can. Plus, I'm not heavily intoxicated by alcohol now, so I hope to be a little clearer on my thoughts now.  Quote:
Something I also just said to Boltzmann in private is: Once again, this way of thinking is a result of common sense with me, AFAIK. If everything outside of our bodies in the world reacts logically to whatever triggers a reaction (cause & effect) and cannot begin without any logical cause, then people won't have it easy telling me my body works differently. I mean: trees wave around in heavy wind, and cars move due to complicated mechanisms being set in motion. The hell do I believe that people suffering from Compulsion Disorders do what they do, that I change my position during sleep, that I feel irritated about certain things, without any reason. We also know when emotions occur, that they are reactions of the nerve-system to substances released by glands. What controls the dosages, and which substance is associated with which experience? Nothing conscious, that's for sure. I don't believe the sub-conscience to be something magical or alike. Perhaps it's comparable to a biological computer far more advanced than anything we can ever build.  Sub-conscience and conscience are ofcourse just fancy names for mechanisms in our brain of which I have only limited knowledge: one runs in the background, the other is conscious to us :PI'm also not saying the "predeterminism" is just because of our sub-conscience, but rather because I feel that if everything we see is a logical reaction to a previous one (including everything involving our beings), things are in motion in a way, a chain reaction, that could not be any differently. My problem with free will is that it supports the ability of lack of reason. I simply cannot phantom that possibility, atleast not with what I know right now. You could shut me up entirely by proving otherwise. Quote:
I will ask a few questions based on the quote here, and I hope Proto won't object (seeing this is his thread..Hi Proto! ). You don't need to answer them, Galvatron, but I think you're a genius, teehee! (*winks* to Galv's Vanity )¹ I wouldn't mind the input of such. - Your conscious thought that actively decides to do the opposite, as you call it, doesn't come without reason does it? Where is the reason for that desire? What are you trying to prove by going against your initial instinctive choice, and what do you have to gain? (ie: feelings, pride, whatever )- You can force yourself doing something that you don't like when you put your mind to it, but when is it that you'd do something like that? Let's face it: people don't do such things when there is absolutely no point in them (including the lack of some sort of fulfilling desire like loyalty/morality/respect). Most of the time people endure such things do it because they think it's the right thing to do, either for them (in the long run?) or for others (social actions are restricted to those that like such actions: they feel good about it.. why? etc). Ignoring discomfort is also not done without a reason, afaik. Now, I know some people would immediately believe that the way to disproof this "mumbo-jumbo"  of mine is to do something against their will without having any good reason: that still doesn't cut it, because even then you're doing it for a reason: trying to prove a point, which must also be some sort of desire you'd have then. Those people wouldn't do it if my remarks didn't make them want to prove me wrong.There's also a common misconception when it comes to free will. Most people say: "our choices are conscious, we can pick any we like" as proof. That's not proving anything, as being aware of your choices isn't making them, and you pick indeed the one you like, but why did you like it? Suppose that from an outside POV, none of the choices presented has any logical advantage. Now, as for the inside POV (the one making the choice) assuming no advantage is conscious to you either: Perhaps you endured an experience where something similar happened, or atleast that there is SOME resemblance to some experience. You so happened to like that first experience a lot (I suppose you know what trauma's essentially are, right?) so your sub-conscience sees an affiliation. Green light. There is the possibility that the choices presented do not resemble anything you've ever heard/seen of, but I think I'll need A LOT of time to explain that, because that explanation will give questions to which I'll give my most probable answers aswell, and it goes on and on and on and on. So I rather not do it now and here, if you don't mind. Quote:
). In such obvious forced upon situations, I wouldn't categorize it amongst suicide, nor find any weakness in either deaths.Nothing is set in stone you say. I don't think anything happening now could happen in any other way. But I'm not saying we could predict the future: you'd need to be able to assert every logical cause/effect (including those in the minds of people) at a fixed time, which also requires you to know EVERYTHING there is to know in this freaking universe (let's not forget possible outside influences: asteroids/meteors/comets and such) , which is quite a long way beyond our capacity. Not to mention that you'd also need to be able to calculate all logical reactions forward, starting from that fixed time aswell. Oof. I know, it may all sound far-fetched to some people, but that's what you get from a person who tries to analyze & rationalize his own behaviour to the core, and is a ponderer aswell. I want Self-Awareness damnit. Quote:
 Quote:
¹Oh gawd... I'm going to be sick.
__________________
I'm not young enough to know everything. 
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
September 23rd, 2004, 04:48
|
#87 |
|
これはバタスです
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,331
|
I'd consider myself a determinist as well, although Galv and Boltz seemed to have sowed some seeds of doubt during my last discussion .
__________________
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 Mobo: Intel DX48BT2 Memory: 4096 MB PC10600 DDR3 Videocard: PNY Geforce 9800 GX2 Soundcard: On-board SigmaTel High Definition Audio Hard drive: 120 GB OCZ RevoDrive PCI-E SSD & 1 TB Hitachi Optical drive: LG GGW-H20L (2x BD-R DL) PSU: Nexus 1000 Watt PSU OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit) Proud millionaire folder of the NGEmu folding team
|
|
|
|
|
September 23rd, 2004, 11:11
|
#88 |
|
Ex
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,093
|
But Klatch, we are talking about free will, not chaotic thinking. Of course there are reasons for my decisions. That doesn't mean it's not my free will, it wasn't impossed to me. Given the same situation, with the same set of variables to take into account, i will decide one thing while you will decide other. My decision is going to be biased by my experiences, my ideals, my mood, etc. But i can change all those variables, and some day decide the oposite thing. Doesn't that qualify as free will? It was my decision, whatever reason i had to do it. And of course i do have reasons. In the example you and Galv were discussing, you expose the possibility of doing something agaisn't your interest, because it would feed your ego (i'm trying to make your huge explanation shorter ). So there are two, let's say, good choices, each one with it's own advantages. Wether i choose one or another, will be determined by wich advantages i value more. And that's something that depends on unforeseeable variables like my mood. I can make different decisions given the same choice just because today i feel i prefer yellow over red, where i usually prefer red over anything else. That's what i call free will - it's not that my decisions will just simply pop up in my head, but that it's me and my own judgement who makes them, and not anyone else.
__________________
"I'm living in a dream I can't wake from" Core i5 2500K 3.3Ghz | 8192 MB DDR3 1333 MHZ | AMD Radeon HD 6950 2048 MB | Seagate Barracuda 1.5TB SATAIII+WD Caviar 250GB SATAII | Dell 3007WFP-HC 30" |
|
|
|
|
September 24th, 2004, 21:04
|
#89 | |||||||
|
evil alien robot
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Decepticon HQ, Planet Cybertron
Posts: 483
|
Quote:
 Quote:
You're invited by a friend to a party where you don't know anyone. Which of the following best describes you? A. Stay close to your friend, letting him/her introduce you B. Find a quiet spot and relax alone C. Strike out on your own and make friends D. Ask your friend if you could skip the event By my personality type and depending on the circumstances of the party, I'd most likely be split between A and C. However, I can and have done ALL of these things, depending on my mood. We're not robots bound by direct/logical feedback; you can be unhappy at a party because feelings frequently don't have an immediate causal relationship to the situation we find ourselves in at that moment. If we can't trace the source better than to say your mood is the result of some unknown factor that was recorded in your subconscious "somewhere between the ages of 0-20", then the theory doesn't seem very refining as a tool to better understand anything.  (Aside: I didn't mean you when I mentioned mysticism, just that vague theories about the uncharted landscape of brain function invite similar dodgy speculation being serviced to justify psuedoscience babble of "psychic powers" and ESP.) Quote:
Apart from suicide, the other escape-hatch from reality is found in madness, where we have the capacity for action by unabated free will even while rejecting all rationality. The only sane response to a world gone mad is to go mad right along with it.  Quote:
The point, in any case, is that it still would have been my intent to provide a misleading answer, even if it were to force me to withhold my true preference. Conscious thought is able to generalize outside the restricted search space of the immediate problem, so I may trade whatever short-term reward is presented within the question itself for a larger external desire to screw up your experiment (for example), from whose disproof I would assert my own free will. I could just as easily have complied with an honest answer, assuming I had no special bias in the outcome. ...I'm thinking mainly from experience of social situations that went "What do you want to do today, A or B?" to which I genuinely didn't care either way: Flip a coin. If you say we're only responding to subconscious programming, then logically speaking, shouldn't our lives be a chain-bound series of duplicate outcomes for every like instance? Where is there room for surprise, impulse, or spontaneity in your philosophy when clearly the world is unpredictable? I'm not asking you to predict the future (by some elaborate equation), only wondering how it is you think chaotic influence would be introduced. Don't you think people can change, or be inconsistent? Quote:
Quote:
MAGGIE: (Turns sharply with a confrontational glower, crying.) David... I don't want to live with you anymore...! DAVID: (aghast) You're kidding. MAGGIE: (strides across room with a determined pace, snatching her sweater from the coat rack.) No. You made me realize I don't really know you. You never let me really know you, and I won't live with a stranger. DAVID: Maggie, wait! Look, I'm sorry about last night -- gimme a break ! Nothing you know about me has changed! The only thing that's different is your perception of me! MAGGIE: (pauses at doorway, angry tears in her eyes.) Nothing else had to change. Goodbye, David. (Maggie exits stage left, leaving David in a foresaken stance as lowering house lights cast elongated shadows, fading to black.) .....And... scene ! :clap clap clap: Quote:
... I'm probably not an objective source on this topic since I was always a precocious brat. (I first gave thought to suicide when I was 7.Slow learner, I guess. ) But I remember being asked to assist people who had bad grades, sometimes finding that they could solve problems with a minimum of coaxing from me, they just weren't self-motivated to apply themselves because (I assume) they had settled into a social identity of scholastic apathy. Other unfortunates -- the genetic restrictions -- were quite beyond any help.
__________________
. 
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
September 24th, 2004, 21:24
|
#90 |
|
Emulation to the max!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,560
|
Personally if you wana talk about freedom, then shoudn't we have the right to wield weapons and kill anyone we want? Of course not. So with suicide why should we be able to end our own life just cause it's a little bad or really bad right now,. Now say your old or in alot of pain with no way of getting better. Then maybe in those extreme cases it is ok. But most people want to commit for the wrong reasons which I think society is trying to prevent with this idea. As for freedom's in general. Don't you see that you already are. Just cause someone says your not free, does that make it so? You are free to do whatever you want, the reprecusion of your actions are the limitations. Really your not choosing your actions but there reprecusions. You can't have a society with no consequences and I think that would be the only truly free society. There is no such thing as a free lunch so stop trying to haggle one out of society.
__________________
Q6600 Core 2 Quad || Soundblaster X-Fi Extreme HD || e-VGA 8800GTX || 4096mb 4-4-4-12-2T Dual-Channel RAM || MSI P6N Diamond || 2x 320GB Hardrive || 5.1 Speakers || Remote control || 8x USB 2.0 || DVD/CD ±RW Drive || 1x IEEE1394 www.coolsvilleman.homedns.org Normally down. E-mail me for a DVD @ coolsvilleman@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
September 25th, 2004, 13:34
|
#91 | |||||||||||||||
|
Translator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Холандија
Posts: 1,576
|
Quote:
EDIT: oops, what I meant to say is that I refrain from putting myself with any named belief, as it often creates certain prejudice from people who affiliate the exact words of one ..(determinist in this case) with any other. The only exception to my refraining from such, is when talking of atheism, even though my usual objection should apply to it aswell. Odd.. I am.Quote:
What I did not mean to say is that it would actually be humanly possible, as it requires complete knowledge of everyone's personality, but also every detail of what that person believes to be reasonable and whatnot plus the association of emotions to experiences and so on and so on, which all differs per individual. Not to mention everything that happens in and outside of our world, as everything remote can both gradually as instantly create effects influencing something closeby. Suppose that it would be possible, then making it public changes the future you predicted, but it doesn't mean the actual future was changed: there was merely a miscalculation: the fact that making it public is a cause to many effects was ignored. With this, any truthful public "prediction of the future" is doomed to be a result of miscalculation. However, the fact remains that the one making the prediction did not do so uncaused either, thus making it all part of the circumstances by cause & effect that are unchangable. So, suppose one would predict the future publically and truthfully (thus doomed to be incorrect), then it too subject to cause & effect, pretty much set to happen by previous causes. Why I think everything, including in our minds (thus choices), are set to be a way that will not be any different than logical, is because:
EDIT:Or not. If HUP is correct, then this assumption of mine is only part true. Nitpicking or not, but even changes on sub-atomic level make it so that perfect prediction is impossible. Quote:
I'll try to be a bit more thorough in my explanations. Quote:
Quote:
The thing I'm trying to stress is that your judgement, your mood, and who you individually are, are all slave to cause & effect aswell, being results of genetic inheritations and experiences and who knows what other causes that were forced on you which are all slave to cause & effect aswell. Cause & Effect implies that nothing is without a cause, meaning every thing happening is an effect to a cause(s), which could very well be a cause for the next effect, and so on. I mean, your arm doesn't move without the impulses needed from your nerve system, either. Following that reasoning, things with a logical cause (=everything) are simply put: forced upon. With that, I include our will, our abilities, and thus even our very thoughts. This renders the word "free" to be fallacious when discussing will. But I will not deny the fact that one's will is personal, shaped differently with each individual, and influenced by what probably are billions of different reasons/causes for everyone. Yet we are not continiously aware of the majority of causes, where sub-conscious parts of our brain and outside influences (either known or) unknown to us come into play. Quote:
Now, if you want to consider absolute freedom of choice and thought, then you must seperate our will from these causes that are forced upon us, meaning somewhere going back looking for the causes of your decisions, it just stops real early: you'll hit an impenetrable wall, a stop sign, whatever; the appearance of an uncaused effect. That's why I think absolute freedom of will implies that things are possible to be uncaused, which is absurd according to my reasoning. If we can essentially be defined by our will, which is that what guides/rules us, then yes, you could say we are in control of our choices following the abilities and limitations presented by our will. Yet, we cannot control the shaping of our will, as genetic, outside, and past reasons do it for you. Where's the freedom in that? Not to mention our sub-conscience desires for the substances (should I say drugs?) released by our glands, controlling quite a deal of our conscious part. Quote:
The fact that it holds no answers to me now, doesn't mean it could be a tool later to understand people (and thus me; endgoal) better. If the theory is true, which I currently believe,then I don't care what it tells me now. Better that and gradually learn more than to believe in some lie that wasn't approved by my common sense, that explains make-believe through an easy-way-out, of which I qualify religion as one (note to religious: this is not a taunt, merely an example ), aswell as the association of the words freedom and will. So far, my common sense-produced theory is convincing me more and more, holding against whatever counter-argument thrown at me. The ones you're naming right now have passed my mind many times before aswell, and none really prove freedom of choice, often ignoring the fact that nothing is without a cause, including the cause of the cause of the cause of your/mine/anyone's thoughts, implying logical (con)sequence everywhere, including in our conscience, thus implying something different from freedom. Quote:
I find it hard to translate my exact reasoning perfectly regarding this entire subject, and judging from your posts, I'm afraid I'm currently incapable of truly getting my point accross  Man has an insatiable curiousity. A lot of people like diversity. We accumulate new knowledge, altering our perception. We discover, we develop, we grow, we change, and we degrade. With it, everything in us, including our sub-conscious parts, changes as far as our abilities and limitations allow us, while never deviating from the rules of cause & effect, and thus logic. Quote:
Quote:
Take chance. What is chance? Probability/Possibility/things by accident. The one thing all these have in common is ignorance. Chance only exists because you don't know who steps on the same bus as you, you don't know every factor in a game of sports (including strategies, moods of participating people, what they deem logical and whatnot, the condition of their bodies, etc), you don't know possible influences on the trajectory of a comet hurling right at us, and you don't know all influences when flipping a coin (ie: starting position, timing of catching it, etc). As for impulse.. see the same cause & effect crap I keep repeating. Impulse is just a name for desires made suddenly (justlikethat!) aware, for whatever reason. They still have a cause, they way I see it. Quote:
 Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, I've been making a lot of decisions early in my academic career that provided less educational alternatives, and even took away my former guaranteed ticket to receive any sponsered university-level education I could've possibly desired. Are you saying I could've been more intelligent than I am now? Isn't intelligence simply put a measurement of certain abilities by genetic cause? Those online IQ tests are all crap, partially because some of them evaluate unreasonable knowledge (even history, for crying out loud!) with certain questions. The governmental test I told you about in PM that I took on the age of 15 did not require any knowledge other than anything basic that any child learns on kindergarten (afterall, you need to apply intelligence on something that qualifies as knowledge). It solely tested on abilities (aswell on dutch grammar, but that was a seperate test). You know your IQ, so I take it you did the official IQ test. What was that one like? Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, I have had years of bad past experiences of overestimating people, thus I often try to dumben down everything I say as much as possible almost instinctively. Although I do that quite much, I still keep my explanations incomplete, which is probably the result of some sort of overestimation aswell (probably sub-consciously assuming an equality in my reasoning and understanding with those who read my posts --I blame my ego).
__________________
I'm not young enough to know everything.
Last edited by Grv; September 25th, 2004 at 15:51.. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
September 25th, 2004, 16:28
|
#92 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: .
Posts: 449
|
Klatch, I can't seem to find any fault with your "cause & effect model." Trying to disprove it. To those who argue for chaos theory: I fail to see how chaos theory relates to free will in Klatch's model. How does the interjection of something random anywhere in the cause and effect ripple, allow a human being to make a decision that is not based on everything that in Klatch's model dictates he will do? The possibility for randomness does not mean that choice is possible, unless you believe that the forces which chaos is acting upon are in fact choosing there paths. If you do infact believe that human choice is possible and not dictated by cause and effect, yet do not believe that chaos allows whatever it works upon to choose, than i fail to see how chaos supports the idea of free will. I guess this thread has gone a little off-topic, but I hope it's continued as I feel it this is now much more interesting. |
|
|
|
|
September 27th, 2004, 12:37
|
#93 | |||||
|
evil alien robot
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Decepticon HQ, Planet Cybertron
Posts: 483
|
Quote:
The concept of cause and effect is not exactly novel theory...  It's known that there's no such thing as spontaneous generation (at least until we scale to some quantum theories), but spontaneous order can arise in larger dynamical systems. (eg., evolution.)I think you're running into anal retentive trouble by demanding absolutist servitude from the word "free". When we say "free will", there is a localized timeframe of implied relevance: If I ask you to select an option from a list, your subsequent decision may be formulated in totality from 149 extrinsic factors that comprise your unique history, but your course of action is primarily motivated from inside a judgement window of immediate circumstances effective to the prescribed problem. For instance, you decide to take an umbrella on your way out the door specifically because it is raining TODAY, not because your parents had sex in 1983 (from whose undeniable consequence you were born, ultimately leading up to this rainy day). We're not working from an infinite history trail of causative interconnectivity when we reflexively decide to grab the umbrella. The choice of umbrella operates independently within a closed relevance frame whose front end is the foreseeable weather forecast and whose functional backend is whatever past experience we have of getting wet. -- It ends there. Cause (of cause of cause of cause...) extending prior to that window is irrelevant as far as the problem of today's rainfall is concerned. Your theory is basically "arguing" for... chronological sequence (a.k.a. "history"? ), then shoehorning backwards from the aftermath to make a case for deterministic inevitability. It's incorrect physics to think that even full universal disclosure of initial conditions could ever produce a foolproof predictive model because the number of compounded forking variables quickly yields an exponential branching toward infinite outcomes. Affiliated surprise-generating mechanisms can be grouped into the categories of chaos (dynamics), catastrophe (instability), uncomputability (incompleteness), irreducibilty (complexity), and emergence (self-ordering). Governed by these principles, complex systems don't congeal in the linear fashion you're presenting with your literal "chain" schema. A better representation would be a tree, branching out with a range of intersecting possibilities: some of these may have direct cause for reaction, some may be incidental collisions (random factors), and some are effectively inconsequential (becoming dead branches of the relevance flow-chart). Suppose one day in class, you were to stand on your chair and start absurdly singing. Why did you do that? We'll say you saw it in a movie and thought it was funny. So there we have action by imitation, rooted in the subconscious programming you spoke of. But let's further say that you actually saw the described movie two weeks ago. Now, looking at your determinist theory, the question becomes why did the influence remain latent for two weeks before you finally acted on it if not by free will, since the supposed inciting cause was already present within subconscious during that whole period? Why did it wait X days to manifest itself? ...If nothing else, the timing of your behavior (perhaps finding an opportune moment to sing?) was still a conscious determination. We could speculate that there might have been some auxilliary subconscious desire, maybe to impress a particular person in the class, but that influence would have presumably been present for some time too, so why did you (choose to) wait for this "right time" to act? ...I would call an emotion-bearing surge of teenage hormones a random cause, not deterministically timed or focused toward any special idiocy. Chaos Intervenes : One sunny afternoon, you go to visit a girl you know, bringing a gift of liquor. "Hi." "Come up to the bedroom," she says. (um... okay. ^.^ ) "Come sit on the bed," she smiles. Soon you're both drinking orange vodka coolers and chatting and laughing like idiots and she's looking quite lovely and drunk and horny, and you're about to lean in for some action... But at that exact moment, her damn friend Mary phones from the U.K. and sobers the whole damn mood, dammit! -- If only you had kissed her 30 seconds earlier!! How could you have known the phone would ring? How could Mary have known from overseas what the two of you were up to just when she dialed? Wouldn't life have been wonderfully shaggadelic if the timing were just slightly different?  Yes! Damn Mary and her perfectly sh!tty timing! [* Example may or may not be based on actual events.  ]The moral of the story is that cell phones are evil minions of chaos.  Quote:
Quote:
You may have heard of the so-called "Mozart effect" from an experiment where a group of university students was asked to listen to 10 minutes of Mozart prior to taking a math test, then they would end up getting higher test scores on average than for days where no preamble of music was played. The theory was that Mozart's intricate compositions were somehow enhancing to mathematical inclination. The effect of Mozart music alone has since been disproven -- listening to almost ANY type of music was found to provide the exact same positive result -- but it demonstrates that environmental factors like music can acclimatize mental pathways toward improved performance. Meanwhile, taking music lessons has been shown to have marked benefit across multiple I.Q. tasks when compared against a control-group of kids who took drama lessons instead, and another group of students who took neither. There is also scientific evidence that playing video games can enhance a child's ability to subatize* objects (*= being able to count small collections at a glance), presumably by developing visual awareness and multitasking skills in shooter games where multiple incoming targets present themselves. (Video games make yuo smrat! :P) Quote:
 uh... The school board had called in a specialist and yanked me out of class one day because I'm special. (They administer this same I.Q. test to all applicant teachers during job evaluation for the board.) The test avoids knowledge-based questions and instead uses generalized categories of deduction to measure for attributes commonly considered indicators of intelligence:
All answers are multiple choice (a-d). I was issued two standardized packages as described above, then they took an average from those two results. (I wasn't told which popular "brands" of I.Q test they were.) They have two different scoring systems I'm aware of: the older test may grade as high as 200, where average intelligence is around 120-139. Genius is considered anything above 160 I.Q., which accounts for only 2% of the population. Newer standardized intelligence tests I've seen have adjusted the scale so that a perfect score only goes to 140, then they use a bell-curve that adds or subtracts a few points depending on your age. Despite my high scores, I'll be the first to tell you that these tests are not fully reliable because some of the questions are necessarily slanted in their phrasing, either by life experience or by one's cultural exposure. For example, if you're a foreigner or not a big reader, you're unlikely to have ever encountered some of the more obscure proverbs and therefore wouldn't understand their analagous meanings. Same with some of the math problems, where either you're familiar with the necessary tools or you're not. --It's not always a measure of difficulty, only exposure. The test makers discount this bias by law of averages, arguing that such real-world experience does have a bearing on comprehensive judgement, after all. With a majority of the test, I had the unfair advantage of a somewhat idetic memory and being an artist: I could pick out many answers simply by looking at the structure of the question, not actually studying the content. For example, I could spot escalating "trick questions" in the visual memorization section because I already know which artistic factors (color scheme, composition, etc.) are included in images to mask attention. So if the picture were a busy street scene which you're allowed to study for 20 seconds, I could anticipate which details the question would later ask for, and which were included only for distraction. Less expected would be a follow-up curve-ball question from the psychologist asking me to then "invent a story about the picture"... ( MAGGIE: ...Good-bye, David. )The area where I'm consistently weakest is with remembering people's names, which I tend to discard even IRL only 60 seconds after being introduced.^^' But I chalk this up to my personal value system: Names of people or places are what I refer to as "transient data" (externally assigned tags, subject to change with history), whereas I'm more interested in determining functional relationships of a given system, referencing the component labels only as required. @.@ On the spacial acuity tests, I score off the chart, meaning they ran out of questions before I ran out of correct answers. The higher-end box-folding problems involve pictures of box arrangements with 16-25 sides, then they ask you to match what it'll look like once it's assembled with reference markers on two or more faces. (Spacial skill applies itself to mechanical understanding and to perspective drawing in art. I'm also good at conceptualizing theoretical physics and doing Rubik's Cube puzzles with my eyes closed.:xomunch: ) Personally, I think my proficiency at spacial acuity was developed by playing with LEGO (Technical) sets from an early age, which is why I say that intelligence can be trained (as with musical influence that I mentioned earlier). I have no idea where my drawing skill came from though, just that I was always the best artist in the class even going back to junior kindergarten... Cartoons and Godzilla movies were strong early influences. Also from personal experience, I can tell you that a 5-year-old probably has no business watching "Rosemary's Baby". ... Circling back to your point, I encountered these media influences by my own choice while randomly channel surfing: No force made me change the channels, yet even if someone had, there was no way of knowing that a particular passing TV image would have been airing at that critical moment to catch my formative interest. Determinism implies we're only passive vessels to receiving information, but does that mean the station manager was compelled to air Rosemary's Baby at that exact time to accomodate the eyes of a curious 5-year-old, or was the 5-year-old actively commanding the remote control (and his own destiny, insofar as the remote allowed)? It was just fluke timing operating independently on both sides of the screen, combining to create something new -- my demented personality. Quote:
Besides, what net difference does your question make? A smart person working from partial facts (whether by ignorance or by deliberate choice of not bothering to learn something) will still end up being wrong, no matter how sound their reasoning. [Of course, they might come to the right conclusion from incorrect reasons simply by chance.] ~ They arrive at the wrong location because their roadmap is incomplete, not because they're incapable of reading a map. The stoopid peeps are the ones who can't even do that much, no matter if you hold the map directly in front of them and highlight the path with a magic marker.
__________________
.
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
September 27th, 2004, 13:51
|
#94 | |
|
Retired
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Jundiaí - São Paulo - Brazil
Posts: 8,876
|
Quote:
Anyway, I just got in the middle of this to say that I agree with your whole chain of reasoning. I just don't think that it's incompatible with klatch's. He just states that there're no "magical" happenings in our brains, and that a chain of causation could theoretically be found in all of our actions (I say theoretically, because as you've showed, reality can be messy, and as Douglas Hofstadter might say, "holonic"). But I don't accept determinism in the strong sense (and I think that the same goes for klatch). That is: if we brought the universe back to second one and let it go all over again, we would end up doing the very same things. In this sense I think that determinism is wrong, mostly because of stochastic quantum effects (very important in the early universe) and later chaotic dynamics (very important in the self-organizing systems that we find in today's world). It's precisely because of this that I'm a compatibilist, and I think that "free will" is an outdated concept and should be discarded. Not because we're not "free", but because it implies uncaused behavior (at least in its etymological sense). A more scientific picture, arising from contemporary neuroscience is much more appealling to my tastes
__________________
"Let be be finale of seem. The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream." - Wallace Stevens Me on Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2004, 15:26
|
#95 |
|
Knowledge is the solution
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, US. Previously in Mexico City
Posts: 7,160
|
Hmm... I wonder if we should create a new thread for this since we have deviated waaaaaaaaaay far from the original topic... not that the usual complainers will notice anyway
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2004, 22:52
|
#96 | ||||
|
evil alien robot
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Decepticon HQ, Planet Cybertron
Posts: 483
|
Quote:
(No entry found for "subtize".)Discovery Channel report also says "subatize". Quote:
-- I agree with this much, but every reaction is NOT predictable, replicable, nor necessarily direct. This is where I must part with deterministic claims from klatch such as: "I don't think anything happening now could happen in any other way." or "...thus rendering some sort of chain reaction that has only 1 set way of happening." or "...logical outcome." ...all of which ignore the lawlessness inherent in chaotic systems. Quote:
In my cell phone example, there is an absolute disconnect between my actions/thought-patterns and Mary's phonecall until I actually receive the inciting auditory cause of the ringing phone: There is no other possible method by which my brain and the phone signal can even begin to interact. I can't respond to something (by ANY imagined mechanism) until I first intercept the pertinent sensory input. The same is true of the example of flipping through TV channels, where two previously independent "relevance frames" cross paths only after some cueing incident transfers information between the parties. This may only be an argument of semantic minutia or a weakness of language, but I say "free will" because all of the relevant material necessary to someone's independent thought (at a given time) can exist within a self-contained frame, at least until that "active window" is forced to expand to include some foreign cause; in the meantime, however, I can freely think to myself for an indefinite period even from inside a sensory deprevation chamber in deep space. There are obvious (social /legal /physical /genetic) limitations to action, yet we can still exercise a wide range of free choice within those boundaries. While every action has its consequences, the foremost consideration in logical decision-making is only to ask ourselves if those anticipated consequences can be managed to satisfaction within the given window. But I don't pretend that every ancient sequence of particle collisions going back until Planck Time has any direct bearing where my current choices are made. Quote:
__________________
.
|
||||
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2004, 23:49
|
#97 | |
|
Knowledge is the solution
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, US. Previously in Mexico City
Posts: 7,160
|
Quote:
Aw well... I might as well join the trend ... not that I'll add anything that hasnt been said before but bleh ^^As I have said in some past threads, I also believe in the probabilistic nature of the universe, and, to some extent, I could say I believe in a massive probabilistic determinism. Let me explain myself (again ) Human free will as such, as it has been repeated many times, is nothing but a fallacy. However, due to the great number of circumstances surrounding the decisions of a single individual, this knowledge become unusable since we won't be able to predict his behavior with a good grade of certainity anyway.However, this isnt the same when individuals start forming big groups. The bigger the group, the lesser influence small circumstances start having, so the group reaction can be indeed treated statistically, and as such, the behavior of whole societies,with a mathematical tool that we dont have yet anyway, could be forecasted. Obviously it will not be a fail proof machine, however, it will do have a good grade of certainity anyway. ... well thats it
__________________
Last edited by Proto; September 28th, 2004 at 23:54.. |
|
|
|
|
|
September 29th, 2004, 01:27
|
#98 | |
|
Retired
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Jundiaí - São Paulo - Brazil
Posts: 8,876
|
Quote:
What I really wanted to say is "subitize". Googling for "subatize" turns up a single entry. Googling for "subitize" turns up 311 entries. IIRC, I've read it written as "subitize" in Stanilas Dehaene's The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics . Now I don't know how it should really be written, since my Webster's Dictionary does not list the word
__________________
"Let be be finale of seem. The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream." - Wallace Stevens Me on Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 29th, 2004, 08:48
|
#99 |
|
evil alien robot
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Decepticon HQ, Planet Cybertron
Posts: 483
|
Okay then. 311:1 odds that "subitize" is the correct version. Side note: This more recent finding may challenge the notion that humans actually possess such intuitive math skills. hmm... I was thinking more about this idea of causal information transference (ultimately in the form of energy) as related to information loss in cosmology. As with the metaphor of the TV screen, two or more closed universes could be considered independent frames whose internal actions have no functional correlation. Theoretically, if we live in a fully closed universe, it stands as proof that free will must exist by relativistic independence because the contained actions of one universe can never be made to affect another.
__________________
.
|
|
|
|
|
October 3rd, 2004, 00:10
|
#100 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Translator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Холандија
Posts: 1,576
|
First off, I think it's only fair that I should warn you guys that my weeks have gone from relaxed, to intermediate, to hectic. So my replies will be sporadic, but I'll try to cover as much as I can. Quote:
Judging from the rest of your post, I don't think you doing so would repeat GALVATRON in any way, so I would appreciate any other (but religious ) view.Quote:
Quote:
but you're not denying cause here, are you? (spontaneous does not always imply without cause, just external AFAIK)Quote:
Quote:
You see, I never take an umbrella with me when it rains. I fact, in my windy country, I absolutely hate having one when, for instance, I'm going to walk my dog(s) who require my full attention (look out kids! they're dangerous! ). If I need to go to College, I go on my bicycle, and I simply put on my rain suit (without head protection, I must add). You see, here's the situation: I don't mind getting wet in the rain. Why not? I don't freaking know! Point is, I either like rain or I don't. Other factors like the intensity come in play ofcourse, but generally speaking, I simply like rain as much as I like the sun, whereas I don't like extreme rainfall just like too much heat. I enjoy the atmospheric effect it has just as much as I like a full moon in a cloudless sky, and with all the green in the city, it's a pretty sight too. Why? Why? Why? The answer cannot be consciously determined by me. I have a preference and I don't know why. Somehow, it had gotten in there though. It's not like my brain decided justlikethat! to like rain, to make me not mind getting wet. There has to be a cause, be it one that is due some joyful experience I've had that I can't quite remember ... I don't know, but my feelings are seriously messed up in that way that I enjoy feeling the rain on my head, aswell as watching it, in a manner similar to enjoying other things that create a similar reaction in me. I think we'll both agree that it couldn't have happened without cause. And quite frankly, that cause must be the way it is with a cause of its own. I'm talking low-level here. I'd even go as far as talking about pulses in our brain.. there simply IS a cause WITH a cause WITH a cause, etc. The history trail: Do you agree that a cause is never without (a) cause(s)? Then what the hell are you arguing against? Even the rainfall has a cause. Your need to go outside has a cause. Your preference has a cause. Everything leads to be what could be a billion causes to a single action: the person takes the umbrella with him, or not. This could be one of many causes to whatever will happen next.. or not. While I keep saying that every cause has (a) cause(s) of it's own, I've never said that every effect is a cause aswell.Presented to you is 1 single "problem" at that time, yes: it's raining. But that doesn't mean there aren't previous causes that brought this very situation upon you. Regarding the "Free Will" notion, I'll agree that the person is responsible (once again, thank you Boltzmann ) for taking the umbrella with him or not, but only because of preferences he did not create by sheer freedom of will. Don't you see the logic? A simple denial that these causes lead indefinately back is agreeing to uncaused causes, damnit. :P Disagree? Then tell me why I should reconsider that exact sentence. If it's untrue, it shouldn't be too hard.Quote:
All chance, all the surprise-generating mechanisms you provided are all (including surprise) just that, because of ignorance. We don't always know the causes in random happenings, because it could be anything beyond our knowledge. Incidental or not: they happen, and they happen because... The only reason why there appear to be infinite outcomes, is because we simply cannot assess every influencing matter. I don't think I need principles to proof that. If there are in fact principles disagreeing with this, I want to read them in their full extent, and I want to either agree or argue about them with those who have some degree in the matter, because in the way of what currently think and know, your unelaborated words and/or principles seem extremely flawed to me. Seeing how I admit that I could agree, you will surely understand that I remain open to my ignorance until filled with elaborate knowledge. To get back to my thoughts.. I already mentioned with the coin flipping that there are all sorts of factors that influence the chain of events that are happening. We are simply not aware of all of them. When flipping a coin, its offset will be important, the exact angle of the coin and your thumbs/fingers, the strength you use to flip it, the timing of catching, and who knows what else. Dices also roll starting with an offset that you take for granted, they land in a way you won't be able to humanly predict, and then there's tons of other influences that play upon such things. Your tree example is just as much subject to cause & effect as any other example regarding randomness. Chance doesn't change my perception here, because all of it has reasons (CAUSES ) too for happening the way it happens. You don't seriously believe one of a tree's branches grew the way it has becauseofnothing! do you?My loose assumption of future prediction is to be taken lightly btw, it is heavily subject to ignorance on physics, and Boltzmann already pointed out why it might never be theoretically possible. Now, you either agree or not regarding my view on chance/surprise/randomness. If you don't agree, then imagine the planet travelling through time to the past.. oh man, how low I've sunk. If you don't agree, then the past will shape into a different future (present for us ) than we know now, with changes that could be minimal to gigantic, because as you make it seem to me: all your surprise factors could result differently when they pass, even with everything in the exact same situation, position, and the same causes as it was with out actual past, with the exact same influences being pressed upon them.If you think randomness exists in a way that it could do that, then I 100% disagree with you, and the only way you could possibly convince me is by explaining in great and finest detail why you seriously believe this, as explained a bit above. If you don't think it exists in this way, then I don't think there is any conflict between our opinions to speak of. Quote:
You make my theory seem so terribly simplistic, so childish in nature, of which fault might be found in me. It's far more complex than I have been able to make you comprehend, which disappoints me somewhat regarding the extent of my own abilities in a second language. This sucks. Quote:
Anyway, none of this speaks against my theories, thoughts, or whatever. Such Chaos does not imply uncaused occurrences. I think you mention this because I said everything is a chainreaction that follows only 1 way (which I retain), up to the point where it might become theoretically predictable (which I'll take back) if we simply knew everything there is to know at 1 fixed moment (which I retain but proves to be impossible to process), am I right? Does this disprove lack of cause? No it does not. Does this disprove lack of cause for the cause at hand? Hell no! And so on.Quote:
In which case.. I think my view of intelligence does compare to yours afterall, I just think I disagreed with some choice of words (like smrat here). Much like what the case was with "Free Will" if I understand correctly. As Kaiser Sigma once mentioned, I analyze too(?) much, taking things extremely literal, which I personally don't should be any different, hence the questionmark behind the word too.Quote:
I'm also not aware of this new system. If 140 is the max, then what's the average score and what's the minimum to be labeled genius?Quote:
) was also completely perfect on the test I took. Quote:
Ignorance does in no way disprove my theory of everything being caused.Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
) What is this stochastic quantam effects that you speak of, and what about chaotic dynamics? Remember, I'm ignorant to these. Could either of you enlighten me?As for the universe being brought back to second one.. That's a little steep isn't it? I don't think there's a beginning for the void, but I have not (and will not, anytime soon) theorized on how the first celestial bodies and particles and whatnot came to be. If there ever was a first. My thoughts of everything following a logical chain of events starts with the development of our solar system, as going back even further is currently way beyond me (though cannot be without cause, I say! ).Quote:
Logical outcome... With logic down to it's core, there's only 2 possibilities: true or false. I'd dare say anything in existence is based on that crap. If that's as true as the things logic represents, then everything follows the SAME logic as a mere computer. Having an extreme understanding (it's what I went to college for, aside programming and webdesign) of communication between hardware and software, you will understand that everything regarding a computer acts only in a completely logical way. Everything can be traced back towards causes that are as logical as whatever else is. Everything. These causes make it so that the computer would not act differently in a 100% identical situation. This even includes the position and the way the wires run, to even the humidity of the air. If these things are obvious to one that can build an electronic device today, then is it so odd to assume the same goes for the underlying particles all of it is based on? Their position, direction, and velocity? An exact replica of all influencual particles would therefor result in only 1 logical result. If existence is based on the very same, which I believe it is, then you could come with a thousand theories or principles for all I'd care. Without any of them having convincing clarification explained to me, I will not bend from my thoughts that seeing how we made computers that are completely and undisputably subject to the laws of logic and cause & effect, that we, or anything else we observe, would work in any different way. Computers aren't the only example. Anything electrical is known to work that way. Would you doubt mechanical does? I don't. Organics, we know little about seeing how complex it is, but I don't see it any other way seeing my view on particles. Besides, isn't there some law that dictates that a creator and the created always follow the same rules of existence? (or "Laws of Nature") Quote:
Quote:
So be it. You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am to mine.Quote:
But believe what you want to believe regarding this. I'm not enforcing my POV, but atleast you know where I stand, and unfortunately, I also know where you stand. ;p
__________________
I'm not young enough to know everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
